Fauci has a lamentable record for being "science" personified. He did the science. He got the data. He lied about the conclusions and financing it all. Fauci-ized science is travesty science if you prefer a different wording.
{^_^}

Fauci is on record of falsifying data and making statements contrary to what he knew as fact. It VERY strongly appears he was involved in financing the development of the virus in Wuhan China, whether Xi "Poohbear" Jinping likes that or not. (All societies and people screw up from time to time. The real people can admit it, fix the problem, and move on. He seems to not get it.) So, yes, I state and believe it can (and has) been proven that he was up to his neck in creating the mess and only his blanked pardon is saving his neck.

Um, define what you mean by children. At 80 years old 30 was still relatively a child to me. I leave it at the legal definition of 18 in most places in the US. And, yes, there are some former children who went through sex change surgery as children and lamentably regretted it. Are you unaware of this? Or do you have a spurious definition of "children". Let's get terms straight. For the record, I strongly feel getting a sex change as a child is especially risky. The reward is great. The downside, the regret, the disjointed rest of the life is exceptionally great. Now, if doctors can 100% get it right on who should and should not get it, go for it. Sadly, they cannot even get it right for adults of the 30+ variety. They simply shift the blame to the "adult". Don't let them shift the blame to the children they fix/mutilate. Let them crow about their successes. Let the losses sue their asses off. Make it cost real money and even professional careers if they get it wrong. (And maybe we SHOULD give free required sex change surgeries for men who insist on living in women's prisons. Move them in 5 years after their surgeries.)

For the record I am one of the adult successes. I know and knew too many failures. Oh God they hurt! Sex change surgery is not very safe and effective.
{^_^}

Ah, well, I have an intuition that you have no idea of what science really is. So should I operate on that intuition or should I investigate, test, produce DATA, and analyze the results thus producing tentative testable conclusions. I am not complaining about the scientific method. I am noting, however, that the scientific method involves honest data (something lamentably lacking in recent decades) and honest analysis before the conclusions are reached. I see that jump all over the place, here as well. An intuition is not and cannot lead to a conclusion without the intervening steps. WHERE IS THE DATA, for example? (I'm imagining a little old lady bellowing "Where's the beef?" It sorta fits.)

You seem to be stopping at intuition. Have you gotten to the real data stage? Have you even begun analysis? Current evidence suggests microplastics continue degrading down to nothing to the point that some bacteria are already using the energy stored in the microplastics. Nobody knows if this is a good thing or not, yet. (That continued breakdown is something asbestos and tobacco byproducts apparently don't do.) It hurts my autism when I see steps skipped.

{^_^}

How about some solid data. Data breaking down the birth rate issue suggests that the primary anti-fertility drug is prosperity. Then we have government dictats such as in China during 1 child and the subsequent mess. On the obverse side we see religions, one a total failure for its adherents and another whose adherents while unpopular when they come to the door are on the whole rather prosperous. Both demand many children of their adherents. Both seem to deliver. With that background does your falling population observation prove anything about plastics?
{^_^} I guess I am somewhat of a pariah around here for demanding real data rather than feelings. Goes with the territory, I suppose.

Where's your proof? You're simply trying to defame me rather than produce data. I'm willing to investigate proof. Such as I have seen suggests they are not producing any harm. I rather resent your comment.

{^_^}

You are exactly on point. We're being scared by innuendo, "It stands to reason", and "of course" with NO actual studies showing real harm. By now we should be seeing them popping up under every liter soda bottle floating in the ocean. "Ooooo, that's icky!" is not science. I want to see the, non-Fauci-ized, science.
{^_^}
 

Based on my back of the envelope calculations a 5% drop is a drop in the bucket when humanity amounts to close to 50% of the carbon load. Sadly this information was presented to the public exceptionally poorly, as if somebody wanted us to disbelieve it. Presenting massaged data while apparently arranging that the original data was rendered inaccessible was a HUGE er YUGE mistake. It left room for too much skepticism. Then all pundits did was demand humans sacrifice their standard of living for publicly admitted tiny changes. NO serious preparations were made to keep Florida, the Netherlands, London, et. al. above water. That is a big clue that the pundits were not taking this seriously or at least our putative leaders were not. Europe, Canada, and the US are about the only places this was treated as real. China gave lip service and added MORE carbon to the air from power plants they built. (It appears they saved their uranium for bombs rather than power plants.)

Now it's probably too late even if we go back to 10th century life styles. Intelligence is where a species goes to die.

{^_^}

What real expert has said we can stop the global warming cold (pun intended) with the puny changes we, in the West, have implemented while some nations have started wars (Putin's Russia), opened new coal fired power plants (China), and ideologically nixed suggestions such as nuclear power that might make a real difference.

The numbers I saw suggested a 1% change in humanity's emissions, half the CO2 budget for the world, would solve the problem. I went to college when the engineering education received was real. 1% is more than an order of magnitude smaller than what is needed.

{^_^} This is probably one more message than I should waste time posting. You guys are not thinking beyond slogans and "Gretta told me." (That child is STUPID.)

I have. You have not. About all humans can do without mass deaths is a small single digit percentage point. That is not really enough to end the global warming. All it can do is reduce the rate of change. You've been sold a bill of goods if you think humans can end this spiral without experience massive physical effects with which we must cope. Even if all humans vanished at this point the climate will continue to warm for quite some time. And I did not consider the carbon emissions from billions of rotting corpses.

Where the (censored++) are the efforts to cope with the coming problems. Until I see those efforts I am convinced our species is not taking this situation seriously. As far as the species is concerned the climate is not changing out of usual bounds. Otherwise we'd be protecting what will be destroyed, working seriously on our CO2 emissions (at which time "Hormuz" becomes little more than a strange name on an odd geographical feature), and "modifying the behavior" of nations that claim to be limiting their CO2 emissions but aren't. (Hello China - where they paint hillsides green to make them look nice on satellite imagery and plant rebar with tufts of cotton on them to show how they are planting to mitigate their CO2 emissions all while they are rapidly building chains of coal fired power plants - all while the world "hohums" this nonsense.)

Does ANYBODY sit back and iterates asking about their pet changes that must be made, "So, what happens next?" Really, guys, what happens next? As a species humanity is pretty damn stupid but somehow we manage. I just hope our successors, artificial stupids, manage to do better when we're gone. I started out cynical. 82 years of watching this BS repeat itself with slightly different clothes each time have left me even more cynical. "Intelligence is where a species goes to die."

{^_^}

So all the climate change weenies have been predicting this was going to happen. They made our lives miserable with their harping and insane predictions that a small change in our behavior to satisfy their need to control would save us all. The totally predictable has happened. The measures taken did - nothing. Now we have the serious Global Warming, a least this year. And we have done absolutely nothing serious to cope with the problem, haven't we? Perhaps it is time to exercise our collective masses of grey matter (and our AIs) to figure out some feasible coping measures and implement them.

When that happens I'll believe Global Warming is something other than a Global Barming, dumbing down. I'm too old to do it myself.

{^_^}

Might I suggest you have your head stuck in your pet echo chamber. I believe, based on decades of OBSERVATION, that as practiced for the last 60 years unions are not in the workers' best interest and in fact often act at cross purposes to the workers' best interests and wishes. Obviously our opinions differ. I wish I could be there when you visit reality.

{^_^}

Life's a bitch and then you die. They lost their jobs instead of losing a portion of their pay. Their union "advisers" suggested their jobs were assured because the cost of transport was too high for non-union shops in other states. Generally speaking, SOME income is better than none. May be they saw it coming and figured lowered wages were not worth it? Well, they lost their jobs. And the wages they'd have had to accept were living wages, just not as high living as they were. The brothers that owned the shop took a bath, too. So nobody local "won". Real economics work like that.

{^_^}

Perhaps labor has priced itself out of the market, this time, perhaps, permanently. Their replacement has a very low wage. That is how my former father-in-law's pattern making shop in Detroit died. The union was not willing to accept wage cuts that could have saved their jobs if they could undercut the jobs in West Virginia that replaced them. Now they have a nasty problem, "How do I support my family?" Perhaps they should assign some of the blame to the union organizers who sold them the idea they could raise their wages indefinitely without any danger.

{^_^}

While it exists it is a powerful tool to expose the dirty cop minority. I figure that fact alone would put the dirties firmly against the cameras that have too little security applied to prevent a dirty from stalking somebody. (Trust me. That ain't fun based on personal experience.) You and I and, indeed, everybody else must answer for themselves whether solving a kidnap and murder even an inept cop could solve with cameras is more of a problem than our worries that some behavior we take part in is likely to put our situponparts in a sling. Life is a continuing tradeoff that has gone VASTLY awry of late with the release of violent murderers while folks like (presumably) you and I would be in durance vile indefinitely with little access to even lawyers. We're bassakwards in that regard in most large cities.

{^_^}

And they probably respect privacy in more traditional ways. (And, yes, they probably still gossip about it in some circles. But that selected out the people you did not want to get close to.)

Back in the 50s I was a VERY free range child. Now that's a guaranteed call to the parent from the child protection pricks.

{^_^}