You'd think FDRs would float and be mounted in a section of the aircraft that detaches on impact (accelerometer+explosive bolts).

I wonder why they don't do that...

Yes, but it doesn't make much sense to turn it off then continue to fly for several hours until you run out of fuel.

Seems much more likely that they went offline because of some massive hardware failure (or bomb). Either the pilots were killed by it or they were unable to regain control of the aircraft afterwards.

Yep. They'd just make a phone call and say "we had a radio message from a ship in the area" or something like that.

Anything else is conspiracy theory.

He's correct about the live video feeds of specific locations. You'd need a geostationary satellite every few degrees for that.

Spy satellites orbit. They have to pass over the ocean sometime. Most of the earth is covered a few times per day. I've worked with military satellites and the resolution is surprisingly low. No way they can recognize faces or anything like that, they're happy if they can see individual vehicles.

If they need better images than that they have to send in the spy 'planes. This can only be done over countries where they have permission or the countries can't stop them. No way is the USA doing it over China (or China over the USA), etc.

Any floating debris could be a looooong way from the crash site by now.

Coal produces a lot of other nasties apart from CO2. Long term usage of coal would still be a bad idea even if CO2 was harmless.

If a tiny fraction of the investment on military was spent on energy, it would be a solved problem by now.

Nuclear can be perfectly safe/clean. The current view of nuclear energy is based on reactors that were designed in the 1950s for making nuclear weapons. Science/technology has advanced since then. A lot.

'Scientists' also think that bees can't fly, right?

The scientific side isn't as solid, agreed, but the actual "debate" resembles it very strongly.

Nope. That's all my own conclusions.

I'll take that reply as a "no", shall I? You're not prepared to state anything about what you believe.

Not before I figured you wouldn't inject a single fact or tell us what _you_ believe is settled.

Those are all strawmen.

Facts: Global warming exists, mankind is driving it.

Everything else is just a case of "when?" and "how bad?" (which we obviously can't tell you)

Sure there is. Try going around getting up close to people, looking over their shoulders to see what they're doing, etc.

See how long you can last before being punched in the face and told to "mind your own business".

It's pretty obvious when a phone is being pointed *at* you instead of being used to play games/text/whatever.

And it will provoke a reaction from "idiots". Try it and see.

Nope, that's just you trying to act like a smart ass by implying that _you_ do.

If you want details, I believe that the following is settled:
a) Climate doesn't change spontaneously, something has to drive it
b) Global temperature is slowly going up (we keep on inventing better instruments to measure it, they keep telling us the exact same thing)
c) The only major heat source around here is the Sun
d) Greenhouse gases are the only gun producing any smoke at the moment (solar output isn't increasing)
e) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
f) Man is producing a lot of CO2 (and at the same time destroying some of the CO2 absorbing capability of the planet)

On a more "personal opinion" level, I believe:
g) The public consensus in the USA on AGW is very different from the rest of the world (via. paid lobbying and paid-for media stories).
h) The AGW "debate" in the USA closely resembles the Creation-vs-Evolution "debate", ie. a never-ending game of Whac-a-Mole against arguments that sound plausible but never stand up under scrutiny, no matter how convinced the creationists were when they were parroting them. One side has to spend vast resources to produce hard evidence, the other side doesn't feel they have any burden of proof whatsoever, they just make stuff up.

The list of arguments I refer to in (h) looks something like this. Maybe you've heard some of those arguments over the last few years. Well, guess what...?

Disagree? Perhaps you'd like to inject _your_ facts into this.

Nope.

The main problem is seeing through the fog created by the anti-AGW lobby.

https://www.google.es/search?q...

They think they're being free thinkers, that the AGW people are the ones drinking the establishment cool-aid. In reality it's the other way around.