/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7187345]

>Still half of America denies climate change, Evolution and Vaccine safety
How?

[Anonymous No.7187364]

please don't lump evolution and vaccination with climate change. carbon dioxide is a shitty greenhouse gas, methane and water vapor are where it is at.

[Anonymous No.7187370]

>>7187364
>Carbon dioxide is a shitty greenhouse gas
See Venus faggot.

[Anonymous No.7187374]

>>7187364
>Please don't lump reasonable things together because I am misinformed about 1 of the 3.

[Anonymous No.7187391]

>>7187370
venus's atmosphere is ~96% carbon dioxide. earth's is .04% carbon dioxide...

[Anonymous No.7187394]

>>7187391
>B-But it's less so it doesn't count
Turning that .04% to a .01% would turn the earth into a snow ball. Turning the .04% into a .08% would turn the earth into an everlasting desert.

[Anonymous No.7187401]

>>7187394
during the jurassic period atmospheric carbon dioxide was around .2% about five times higher...there goes your desert theory.

[Anonymous No.7187408]

>>7187345
It's their right to be retarded.

[Anonymous No.7187409]

>>7187401
[Citation Needed]

[Anonymous No.7187419]

>Climate change deniers only care about global warming
>These uneducated idiots don't know that global warming isn't the only horrible effect of increasing CO2

[Anonymous No.7187421]

>>7187364
This is why.

Every person is susceptible to bias, especially amongst the people he or she identifies with. This explains why the science people accept has a strong correlation with their political party: conservatives are the ones who reject evolution and climate change, liberals tend to reject information about nuclear power, fracking, etc.

A combination of cherry picking, a lack of in-depth understanding of the field is, and commiserating with their "party" is what perpetuates their strong indignance towards opposing evidence, scientific consensus, etc.

[Anonymous No.7187425]

>>7187409
http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

plent of more with just a google search, i picked on with a very simple explaination, so you wouldn't get confused. I didn't realize that you had such a hard time using the internet.

[Anonymous No.7187426]

>>7187345
You've got to recognize a distinction between highly-confirmable scientific findings, and just being asked to trust the experts.

You don't believe in evolution because you've actually looked at the evidence yourself. You just trust the experts. For all you know, there are 200-year-old cow fossils and there's a valley full of dinosaurs.

You don't even trust the experts for good reasons. You're trusting some fake experts who have told you things are certainly, absolutely true, which are going to be proven wrong in the future.

[Anonymous No.7187433]

>>7187426
>You don't believe in evolution because you've actually looked at the evidence yourself
I am studying to become an evolutionary biologist so yes I did study it myself and so did everyone else who took 6th grade bio.
>For all you know, there are 200-year-old cow fossils and there's a valley full of dinosaurs.
Neither would disprove evolution you fucking idiot. Are you /pol/ or just new?

[Anonymous No.7187435]

>>7187409
Seriously, man, that is some crazy ignorant shit.

High atmospheric CO2 makes a humid planet smothered in vegetation with consistently warm temperatures day and night, at pole and equator.

Earth has been there before. We know what it does.

[Anonymous No.7187439]

I'm going to add something that isn't confirmed, but anecdotal: libertarians seem to be the most vocal truthers and climate change deniers on the internet. Perhaps it's the strong distrust of a government that allows for notions of nation/world-wide conspiracies.

[Anonymous No.7187444]

>>7187439
Too bad they don't understand how the scientific method and scientific communities work.

[Anonymous No.7187457]

>>7187433
>>You don't believe in evolution because you've actually looked at the evidence yourself
>I am studying to become an evolutionary biologist so yes I did study it myself and so did everyone else who took 6th grade bio.

>>actually looked at the evidence yourself
>yes I did study

>>looked at the evidence
>did study

You haven't looked at shit. You've been told about the evidence found, and about the lack of evidence of other things, and you believed it.

And not only are you trusting the experts, the experts are all trusting each other. Individually they can, at best, only sample the body of evidence they collectively rely on for their major conclusions.

>Neither would disprove evolution you fucking idiot.
Nothing would disprove evolution. If God flew down on a cloud, beard flapping in the wind, and announced that he created all life 6,000 years ago, then maybe he was lying. And if he demonstrated fantastic powers and then pointed out evidence that the world couldn't have existed more than 6,000 years, then maybe he's a trickster-alien who changed everything in the world just to fuck with us, or maybe we've all been abducted into The Matrix and are no longer observing the real world. Or just, "Okay, smarty-pants. Where did YOU come from? Surely your species evolved. We do genetic engineering and alife simulations too, but that didn't invalidate evolution."

However, if stuff fossilized in under 200 years, and dinosaurs were not extinct at all, most of the credibility of paleontologists and evolutionary biologists would be lost.

[Anonymous No.7187464]

>>7187457
>However, if stuff fossilized in under 200 years, and dinosaurs were not extinct at all, most of the credibility of paleontologists and evolutionary biologists would be lost.
That has literally nothing to do with evolution you idiot.

[Anonymous No.7187469]

>>7187464
Yes, the fossil record has "literally nothing" to do with the case for evolution. You're a real fucking jewel of the scientific community.

[Anonymous No.7187472]

>>7187464
I wouldn't say nothing. Some of the earliest, and for many laymen, the most convincing evidence, is found in the fossil record.

That is, it's easy to go to a museum and examine the fossils of a creature as it evolved and split into different species.

Of course, there is much more robust evidence than found in the fossil record, especially when concerning DNA.

[Anonymous No.7187474]

>>7187469
To be fair, evolution does not hinge on fossils. Even if every fossil was exposed as a hoax, the meat and evidence for evolution would still remain.

[Anonymous No.7187478]

>>7187394
>.01% would turn the earth into a snow ball
It would be the end of trees due to CO2 starvation which would influence climate, the greenhouse effect however would have very little direct impact on the climate unless you assume that the positive feedback forcing hypothesis is true.

Though if you do, please explain how CO2 is the only greenhouse gas that somehow can amplify its measured greenhouse gas properties by several times while much more potent gases doesn't do it.

Self-feedback from water vapour should've toasted all life on earth long ago if we assume uncontrolled greenhouse feedback to be a thing.

The answer of course is that, like most other systems observed in nature, climate is kept in check by negative feedback systems. If earth could've become an everlasting desert due to a spike in CO2 it would've been an everlasting desert already, because during the hundreds of millions of years of earth history natural variations or rare events would've triggered such an event already.

In the absence of competition or predation life follows such a feedback pattern which is why the earth is covered with life today,

[Anonymous No.7187489]

>>7187457
>Nothing would disprove evolution
Therefore evolution isn't true? What am I missing here? Please teach me this new way of arguing master
>I can't disprove you, therefore you're wrong

[Anonymous No.7187493]

>>7187478
>please explain how CO2 is the only greenhouse gas that somehow can amplify its measured greenhouse gas properties
No one said it is
>Self-feedback from water vapour should've toasted all life on earth long ago
Self feedback of greenhouse gases caused the worst extinction in earths history you uneducated fool.

[Anonymous No.7187495]

>>7187478
>Self-feedback from water vapour should've toasted all life on earth long ago if we assume uncontrolled greenhouse feedback to be a thing.

Not exactly. You would need a healthy (or some) understanding of atmospheric physics to understand why Earth's equilibrium is such that it prevents catastrophic run-away under modern conditions. However, this does not make it impossible induce a catastrophic run-away effect -- it would only take unrealistic temperatures (for modern Earth).

Regardless, by understanding the differences between Venus' atmospheric composition and Earth's, you should be able to understand why Venus underwent the run-away effect, yet Earth did/has not. I'll post an elementary explanation from a book I have on hand.

Furthermore, by understanding how water vapor maintains equilibrium vs. CO2, you may get a better idea of why scientists claim CO2 is a more significant driver, even though it's significantly less effective as a greenhouse gas.

[Anonymous No.7187498]

>>7187474
>the meat and evidence for evolution
That depends entirely on what you mean by "evolution".

When you talk about people denying "evolution", normally this means the whole atheistic world history package starting from abiogenesis to the totally unguided development of all terrestrial species until mankind showed up and started practicing artificial selection.

Nobody seriously disputes microevolution (i.e. children can differ from their parents, but tend to resemble them, therefore a population can be somewhat different a few generations down the road). That was common sense long before Darwin.

The disputes are more along the lines of things like young-Earth creationism and guided evolution.

[Anonymous No.7187500]

Global warming was invented by the jews to destroy the white race

[Anonymous No.7187509]

>>7187489
>Therefore evolution isn't true? What am I missing here?
The part when I never said anything like "evolution isn't true"?

Just because we're talking about a controversy, and having a dispute, doesn't mean we're taking different sides of the controversy.

So don't get your fedora all fired up.

[Anonymous No.7187513]

>>7187493
>Self feedback of greenhouse gases caused the worst extinction in earths history you uneducated fool.
Is that so? How about you be specific there about which extinction event you mean?

Then the grown-ups can explain to you how attributing it to "self-feedback of greenhouse gases" was wrong and stupid.

[Anonymous No.7187514]

>>7187426
Paranoid retardation intensifies.

[Anonymous No.7187521]

>>7187513
>Grown ups
That's funny, since most scientist understand how a positive feedback loop works.
The fact that you already don't know what extinction I am talking about shows how uneducated you are.

[Anonymous No.7187527]

>>7187521
>I'm so smart and edumacated, I can't even tell you the name of the thing I'm talking about
Sure thing, Bozo.

[Anonymous No.7187532]

prove me that universe existed 100 years ago.

[Anonymous No.7187539]

>>7187527
If you don't know what the worst mass extinction in earths history is then you probably don't belong on /sci/.
>>7187532
Because I had sex with your grandma 100 years ago.

[Anonymous No.7187542]

>>7187457
prove me that universe existed 100 years ago.

[Anonymous No.7187544]

>>7187527
There are scientists who claim the Permian extinction was induced by a combination of significant volcanic activity and an organism, Methanosarcina, which created a positive feedback loop.

Here's a link to a/the related paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/15/5462.abstract

[Anonymous No.7187547]

>>7187539
The problem here is that you're an obvious dumbass, so we need to hear what YOU THINK is the worst mass extinction in Earth's history.

Anyway, the "worst" of anything is a subjective judgement, not an objective fact. So please stop demonstration your total lack of capacity for rational discussion, and just say which one you mean.

[Anonymous No.7187548]

>>7187539
>Because I had sex with your grandma 100 years ago.
evidence please.

[Anonymous No.7187556]

>>7187547
>Anyway, the "worst" of anything is a subjective judgement,

By worst, he means most massive, and that is objective and quantifiable.

[Anonymous No.7187558]

>>7187495
>the differences between Venus' atmospheric composition and Earth's, you should be able to understand why Venus underwent the run-away effect

I'm quite certain that atmospheric composition is less relevant than orbital parameters.

Solar irradiance on venus is twice that of earth and the planet is pretty much tidally locked to the sun.

>>7187521
Any global extinction event will have a dozen different speculative theories. Claiming with certainty that a clathrate gun event is responsible just shows you're very biased.

[Anonymous No.7187580]

>>7187558
>I'm quite certain that atmospheric composition is less relevant than orbital parameters.
>Solar irradiance on venus is twice that of earth and the planet is pretty much tidally locked to the sun.

Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to imply that atmospheric composition was the sole reason, but I wanted to focus on atmospheric composition for transitioning into why some scientists claim CO2 is more significant of a driver than water vapor despite being less potent of a greenhouse gas.

Image related, in particular, the last sentence.

[Anonymous No.7187584]

>>7187544
>There are scientists who claim
So there we have it. Just a guy who can't distinguish between a hypothesis and a known fact.

>>7187556
Oh, the "most massive". So are we adding up the total mass of each species which went extinct, the mass of representative individuals of each species, or what? I'm pretty sure a extinction events don't have a mass inherent to themselves.

[Anonymous No.7187589]

>>7187547
>You think
>Objectively worst
>Subjective
Come on now newkid. Step it up.

[Anonymous No.7187592]

>>7187544
>the Permian extinction was induced by a combination of significant volcanic activity and an organism, Methanosarcina, which created a positive feedback loop.

This would be a life-driven extinction event(similar to the great oxygenation event) due to microbiological opportunism and coincidence and doesn't really have any self-reinforcement cycle.

It's compares very badly to any contemporary situation.

[Anonymous No.7187597]

>>7187584
>>7187558
>Has evidence to support it and is by far the most valid explanation
>N-No it doesn't count
>>7187592
>Doesn't know what a positive feeback loop is

[Anonymous No.7187613]

>>7187597
>Doesn't know what a positive feeback loop is
I assume that's you confessing your ignorance.

If not then please point out where the feedback loop was in the suggested extinction hypothesis because I'm not seeing any.

[Anonymous No.7187618]

>>7187584
I am not claiming it is a fact. I'm just dropping research and information into argument because I happened to have discussed this in class a few weeks ago. I understand that there are quite a lot of hypothesis on the extinction event.

>Oh, the "most massive".
You're being obtuse. Paleontologists consider the Permian extinction to be the largest extinction event because ~90-95% of species were exterminated. Compare to every other extinction event.

>>7187592
>This would be a life-driven extinction event(similar to the great oxygenation event) due to microbiological opportunism and coincidence and doesn't really have any self-reinforcement cycle.

Right. They claim the Methanosarcina were increasing in number due to the changing of the composition of the atmosphere killing other organisms, which caused the Methanosarcina to change the atmosphere more by expelling methane, which killed more organisms, which created more Methanosarcina, etc.

[Anonymous No.7187624]

>>7187613
At least read the shit anon.
>Post shows a positive feedback loop
>BUT THERE ISN'T A POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP

Temps got hot and with the temps getting hot more co2 was released.

[Anonymous No.7187627]

How is it that /sci/ can have amazingly smart people and at the same time idiots who don't know basic shit like greenhouse gasses?

[Anonymous No.7187634]

>>7187597
Uh... what you said, and were called on for being fucking stupid, was "self-feedback", genius.

As in, a higher concentration of a gas causing an even higher concentration of that same gas.

[Anonymous No.7187648]

>>7187624
>Temps got hot and with the temps getting hot more co2 was released.

Released from where?
>The ocean.

Why did temperatures get hot?
>Methane.

How did CO2 play into this?
>Interaction of high oceanic CO2 with ocean life promoted the production of methane.

So if the rising temperature, due to the methane, drove CO2 out of the ocean, and CO2 being in the ocean is what caused the release of methane that increased the temperature, is that positive or negative feedback?
>I would rather not talk about this any more.

[Anonymous No.7187654]

>>7187634
Are you telling me that you are too stupid to know that that is what a positive feedback loop is?
>>7187648
>Is that positive or negative
Positive obviously, how can you be this dumb?

[Anonymous No.7187675]

>>7187618
>They claim the Methanosarcina were increasing in number due to the changing of the composition of the atmosphere killing other organisms, which caused the Methanosarcina to change the atmosphere more by expelling methane, which killed more organisms, which created more Methanosarcina, etc.

Except that's not what your paper is saying.
>end-permian ocean conditions caused accumulations of organic sediments.
>spread of new more efficient methanogenic genes.
>nickel would still be rate limiting.
>siberian nickel rich volcanoes seed oceans with nickel until it's no longer rate limiting, causing an extreme acceleration of methane production.

There is no positive feedback mechanism here.

You could perhaps argue that the extinction provided more organic matter to the bacteria, but at the point where they're seeded with lots of new organic matter the extinction would already be well underway and as such the cause for the extinction was not positive feedback(but positive feedback may have been an aggrevating factor)

>>7187624
>Temps got hot and with the temps getting hot more co2 was released.
See above. I would suggest you read the papers you refer to in the future instead of lying through your teeth.

[Anonymous No.7187687]

>>7187675
>Lying
Wow anon, great argument.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Essays/wipeout/
>N-No you can't prove me an idiot, you are lying

[Anonymous No.7187698]

because religion exists duh

[Anonymous No.7187701]

>>7187654
>>Uh... what you said, and were called on for being fucking stupid, was "self-feedback", genius.
>Are you telling me that you are too stupid to know that that is what a positive feedback loop is?
Are you pretending you don't recognize the point I'm making?

A greenhouse gas causing a catastrophe by self-feedback would be that greenhouse gas raising temperatures, causing more of that same gas to be released, raising higher temperatures, causing more of that same gas to be released, etc. until a catastrophe is reached.

A gas which happens to be a greenhouse gas having an effect on life, unrelated to temperature increase, which causes a different gas to be released, which then increases the temperature, is not "self-feedback". And it's not a "feedback loop". It's just a chain of consequences.


>>>Temps got hot and with the temps getting hot more co2 was released.
>>So if the rising temperature, due to the methane, drove CO2 out of the ocean, and CO2 being in the ocean is what caused the release of methane that increased the temperature, is that positive or negative feedback?
>Positive obviously, how can you be this dumb?
Let me walk you through this again, in small steps for a small mind:
- the CO2 came from volcanoes into the air and ocean
- the CO2 that was in the ocean caused life to thrive which produced methane
- the methane drove the temperature up
- this caused the CO2 to move out of the ocean
- CO2 not in the ocean was not causing life to thrive and produce methane

CO2's main role was not its properties as a greenhouse gas, but its effects on ocean life. The CO2 concentration in the ocean was what was relevant to this effect. The heating moved it out of the ocean, reducing its ability to play its role.

That's not positive feedback. The CO2 that mattered for causing a disastrous temperature rise was in the ocean. Warming drove it out of the ocean.

Can you seriously not get this?

[Anonymous No.7187704]

>>7187345

[Anonymous No.7187711]

>>7187687
>/Essays/
>New Scientist vol 178 issue 2392 - 26 April 2003
You might as well link to /pol/.

Read the previously linked text which is more up to date, is an actual scientific paper and not popsci, and also provides evidence that the event was driven by organisms, not volcanic CO2.
>http://www.pnas.org/content/111/15/5462.full

[Anonymous No.7187712]

The majority of scientific evidence points toward higher CO2 levels being responsible for the higher average temperatures.
Amurriclaps like to present in such a way that implies that there is still a serious debate around this, but there's just not.

[Anonymous No.7187720]

>>7187712
>implies that there is still a serious debate around this, but there's just not.

Denier.

[Anonymous No.7187722]

>>7187345
>implying climate change is an actual issue

Retard alert!

[Anonymous No.7187731]

>>7187675
>You could perhaps argue that the extinction provided more organic matter to the bacteria, but at the point where they're seeded with lots of new organic matter the extinction would already be well underway and as such the cause for the extinction was not positive feedback(but positive feedback may have been an aggrevating factor)

That is an accurate summary of the argument, although I am unsure if the extinction would have been as massive with or without this "feedback". Undoubtedly, volcanic activity served as the catalyst. Furthermore, it's generally accepted that volcanic activity is not enough to account for how massive the extinction was. Hence, the various hypothesis being debated.

I have only done cursory research on the subject, so I have no good opinion.

[Anonymous No.7187737]

>>7187701
>- the methane drove the temperature up
>- this caused the CO2 to move out of the ocean
This is the positive feedback loop anon.
Methane rose temps which released CO2 which raised temps.

[Anonymous No.7187739]

>>7187711
Even that supports it being a positive feedback loop by causing the temp raising enough to cause more greenhouse gasses to be released.

[Anonymous No.7187742]

>>7187722
It is an issue when half of clapistan have an "issue" with it.

[Anonymous No.7187743]

I'm not anti-vax, anti-evolution, or anti-climate change. However, I do realize that smug leftist media personalities aren't doing a good job of convincing people to reason. If anything, being condescending pricks only strengthens the beliefs of ignorant and/or misguided people.

Calling people stupid and making lame jokes and doing shitty political tie-ins is not how you win people over. That's how you preach to the choir.

And I will repeat myself. I believe that vaccines are effective, evolution is real, and climate change is a problem. Believe it or not, some people still don't like the Colbert/Stewart types.

[Anonymous No.7187748]

>>7187737
I think that he is talking about self-feedback and not positive feedback. I'm not sure about the reasoning behind the distinction, but that seems to be the confusion.

[Anonymous No.7187753]

>>7187739
>positive feedback loop
Where?
Bacterias caused volcanism? Hotter temperatures caused volcanism? Volcanism caused new genes to appear?

Your reading comprehension is inversely proportional to your bias.

[Anonymous No.7187759]

>>7187753
see>>7187737

[Anonymous No.7187762]

>>7187720
He's right, you know. The debate amongst scientists is generally about the details, especially when it comes to forcing. Everything else is just the public and politics.

[Anonymous No.7187766]

>>7187345

A very successful apocalyptic cult has dominated western society, art, literature and thinking for the past 19 centuries

[Anonymous No.7187769]

>>7187345
>climate change
This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis and is therefore unscientific.

[Anonymous No.7187773]

so why didnt dangerous climate change happen when the romans were around?
the climate was very hot around that time

[Anonymous No.7187778]

>>7187762
>Everything else is just the public and politics.
It's not a serious debate because it's outside the clique of IPCC zealots?

I guess there's no serious impact if the public and politicians decide to stop funding and listening to the teams that have a 100% failure rate so far.

[Anonymous No.7187783]

>>7187778
>It's not a serious debate because it's outside the clique of IPCC zealots?

It's not a scientific debate, at least, since the scientists are not arguing over it.

[Anonymous No.7187791]

>>7187773
It was nearly as bad. The middle ages were hotter than the time of the Roman empire but even the hottest of the middle ages weren't as bad as now.

[Anonymous No.7187799]

>>7187773
Didn't they lose a whole city to the sea?

[Anonymous No.7187806]

>>7187773

[Anonymous No.7187844]

>>7187345

Christianity and Industry.

[Anonymous No.7187943]

>>7187345
we have a one political party that pretends to be liberal and another political party that is intentionally trying to stop the government from functioning.

between those two, we can do nothing of value. there is no excuse OP, our gov just sucks.

[Anonymous No.7187964]

Has there been any comprehensive research as to whether or not a 1 degree C increase would be that bad? I've seen a few maps implying that we'd have a net gain of arable land.

Here is my question about global warming, why does the media focus so much on global warming and rarely mention things like the great pacific garbage patch?

[Anonymous No.7187970]

>>7187964
There is the whole icecaps melting, sending sea level rises along with lower rain fall on top of acid water.

[Anonymous No.7187979]

>>7187970
icecaps need a 2.6 C raise to melt, from what I've read, do you have a source on their melting at 1 C from more recent models. I guess some of the older models are basically garbage, something about modeling ocean depth incorrectly.

[Anonymous No.7187985]

>>7187979
The thing about ice caps melting is that even if it isn't completely melted it can do 2 things
1. Cause a run away effect since the ice caps bounce light off of the earth, melting those would cause a positive feedback loop
and
2. Decrease above water land for use in living and farming

[Anonymous No.7188033]

>>7187345
Its wrong to lump these together. Unlike the efficacy of vaccines and the testing of the theory of evolution, every meaningful prediction of Climate Change has failed.

[Anonymous No.7188051]

>tfw people you knew in high school have gone full coo-coo for coco puffs in the last few years

[Anonymous No.7188053]

>>7187433
>I am studying to become an evolutionary biologist
Ok , now you're just stringing words together

[Anonymous No.7188061]

>>7188051
She looks hot or at least above average.

[Anonymous No.7188086]

>>7188053
>you're just stringing words together
how does you do sentences?

[Anonymous No.7188091]

>>7188061
She's scum, dismiss it.

[Anonymous No.7188491]

1. evolution: deliberately encouraged religious insanity (for political power) & no grasp of science

2. vaccines: mass hysteria, homeopathy shills looking to make bank, & no grasp of science

3. climate change: all scientists will observe that the climate is changing, but they disagree about the causes of the change.

to the average idiot, the fact that even one scientist disagrees with another about "climate change" means "no change is happening at all".

[Anonymous No.7188503]

>climate change
But that one isn't as solid and it's been clear that many places have forged their data which is a disgusting thing in the name of science.
It is convenient to push cleaner industry though. GOD FORBID THE AIR WE BREATH IS CLEAN god I fucking hate that people need a reason to keep air clean

>Evolution
I think it's hard to deny SOMETHING's up. But I try to be considerate of other people's beliefs because for all we know maybe we are wrong and then whose laughing?

>Vaccine safety
There IS grounds but people are going about it in such a fucking retarded way. If you have concerns about a reaction (which again, is perfectly reasonable) then fucking talk to your doctor about it and ask about ways to make sure so that way shit doesn't get hairy. Dont' go "oh my god I'll get autism" because clearly you already have fucking autism and I'd rather have a slight reaction than fucking smallpox.

[Anonymous No.7188930]

>>7187345
Freedom. Only problem, whole world suffers under muricas freedom. And after they killed millions of innocent people, they wonder why the children without parents try to kill muricans. But wait, how about invading a country that's not involved to all this at all? Seems like a solution...