What is your helicopter carbon footprint?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Baltimore
Age: 49
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing as you haven't the inclination to read what the actual scientists have to say (or you'd realize that none of that claptrap jives with the IPCC), why would I want to read any of that politically motivated nonsense?
If you know anything about science, you know that there's no such thing as "settled" science. Science isn't a binary, yes or no, black or white, proposition, and your entire premise thusly fails.
We know things with varying degrees of certainty. What we know know is akin to knowing that being morbidly obese probably has a good chance of negatively effecting your wellbeing as you age. If your doctor tells you there's a 90% chance being 400lbs will shorten your lifespan, you don't wait around for the other 10% to come in. You act in a mode of self preservation.
In any event, upon any close examination,
This is a gross misrepresentation. The paper in question was rejected because the science was poor, so poor that in fact the original publisher resigned and admitted it wasn't worthy of publication. There is no evidence of untoward manipulation of data, that argument is based on a gross misrepresentation of what's meant by the word "trick" in a scientific context (ie, the "trick" you learned for doing derivatives and integrals in calculus, assuming you got past algebra...hence your reference to "smoking gun" emails is utter rubbish when viewed within a scientific consensus...the word "trick" refers to a handy and easily repeatable way to understand how to account for a series of data points that initially seems to pose a problem), and the FOIA issue was merely a function of excessive and spurious requests from NON SCIENTISTS looking to tie them up and obstruct their work. What's more, they were requesting data that wasn't CRU's to give.
Try reading what actual scientists have to say instead of the nonsense offered by McIntyre and Watts.
In any event, your premise is amongst other failures guilty of the "well Phil Jones did something that appears untoward therefore we can call into question the AGW hypothesis" fallacy.
Rubbish.
AGW is the accepted explicitly by the following:
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
For that matter...while we're talking hacked emails...imagine the goodies we'd find if the skeptic denialist Inboxes were hacked. Hilarity would ensue.
If you know anything about science, you know that there's no such thing as "settled" science. Science isn't a binary, yes or no, black or white, proposition, and your entire premise thusly fails.
We know things with varying degrees of certainty. What we know know is akin to knowing that being morbidly obese probably has a good chance of negatively effecting your wellbeing as you age. If your doctor tells you there's a 90% chance being 400lbs will shorten your lifespan, you don't wait around for the other 10% to come in. You act in a mode of self preservation.
In any event, upon any close examination,
to subvert peer review and prevent publication of papers that didn’t completely agree with the favored theory;
to manipulate data, and the analysis of data, to make the best case for the favored theory;
to avoid releasing their data under the Freedom of Information laws in the U.S. and UK.
to manipulate data, and the analysis of data, to make the best case for the favored theory;
to avoid releasing their data under the Freedom of Information laws in the U.S. and UK.
Try reading what actual scientists have to say instead of the nonsense offered by McIntyre and Watts.
In any event, your premise is amongst other failures guilty of the "well Phil Jones did something that appears untoward therefore we can call into question the AGW hypothesis" fallacy.
Rubbish.
AGW is the accepted explicitly by the following:
- Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
- Royal Society of Canada
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Academié des Sciences (France)
- Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
- Indian National Science Academy
- Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
- Science Council of Japan
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society (United Kingdom)
- National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
- Australian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Irish Academy
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
- NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
- National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
- State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- American Institute of Physics (AIP)
- National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
- American Meteorological Society (AMS)
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
For that matter...while we're talking hacked emails...imagine the goodies we'd find if the skeptic denialist Inboxes were hacked. Hilarity would ensue.
All your nice links are before the boyz in East Anglia were exposed. They have totally perverted the concept of peer review. They are living in an echo chamber, barring any dissent or access to their raw data.
If you don't think the grandiose carbon schemes being hatched in Copenhagen will not affect the world economy and helicopters specifically you are not paying attention.
Obama's stated goals....
For your reading enjoyment from someone much better at reporting...
From The Sunday Times
November 29, 2009
The great climate change science scandal
Leaked emails have revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics who doubt global warming
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
The storm began with just four cryptic words. “A miracle has happened,” announced a contributor to Climate Audit, a website devoted to criticising the science of climate change.
“RC” said nothing more — but included a web link that took anyone who clicked on it to another site, Real Climate.
There, on the morning of November 17, they found a treasure trove: a thousand or so emails sent or received by Professor Phil Jones, director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.
Jones is a key player in the science of climate change. His department’s databases on global temperature changes and its measurements have been crucial in building the case for global warming.
What those emails suggested, however, was that Jones and some colleagues may have become so convinced of their case that they crossed the line from objective research into active campaigning.
In one, Jones boasted of using statistical “tricks” to obliterate apparent declines in global temperature. In another he advocated deleting data rather than handing them to climate sceptics. And in a third he proposed organised boycotts of journals that had the temerity to publish papers that undermined the message.
It was a powerful and controversial mix — far too powerful for some. Real Climate is a website designed for scientists who share Jones’s belief in man-made climate change. Within hours the file had been stripped from the site.
Several hours later, however, it reappeared — this time on an obscure Russian server. Soon it had been copied to a host of other servers, first in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and then Europe and America.
What’s more, the anonymous poster was determined not to be stymied again. He or she posted comments on climate-sceptic blogs, detailing a dozen of the best emails and offering web links to the rest. Jones’s statistical tricks were now public property.
Steve McIntyre, a prominent climate sceptic, was amazed. “Words failed me,” he said. Another, Patrick Michaels, declared: “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.”
Inevitably, the affair became nicknamed Climategate. For the scientists, campaigners and politicians trying to rouse the world to action on climate change the revelations could hardly have come at a worse time. Next month global leaders will assemble in Copenhagen to seek limits on carbon emissions. The last thing they need is renewed doubts about the validity of the science.
The scandal has also had a huge personal and professional impact on the scientists. “These have been the worst few days of my professional life,” said Jones. He had to call on the police for protection after receiving anonymous phone calls and personal threats.
Why should a few emails sent to and from a single research scientist at a middle-ranking university have so much impact? And most importantly, what does it tell us about the quality of the research underlying the science of climate change?
THE hacking scandal is not an isolated event. Instead it is the latest round of a long-running battle over climate science that goes back to 1990.
That was when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the group of scientists that advises governments worldwide — published its first set of reports warning that the Earth faced deadly danger from climate change. A centrepiece of that report was a set of data showing how the temperature of the northern hemisphere was rising rapidly.
The problem was that the same figures showed that it had all happened before. The so-called medieval warm period of about 1,000 years ago saw Britain covered in vineyards and Viking farmers tending cows in Greenland. For any good scientist this raised a big question: was the recent warming linked to humans burning fossil fuels or was it part of a natural cycle?
The researchers set to work and in 1999 a group led by Professor Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, came up with new numbers showing that the medieval warm period was not so important after all.
Some bits of the Atlantic may have been warm for a while, but the records suggested that the Pacific had been rather chilly over the same period — so on average there was little change.
Plotted out, Mann’s data turned into the famous “hockey stick” graph. It showed northern hemisphere temperatures as staying flat for hundreds of years and then rising steeply from 1900 until now. The implication was that this rise would continue, with potentially deadly consequences for humanity.
That vision of continents being hit by droughts and floods while the Arctic melts away has turned a scientific debate into a highly emotional and political one. The language used by “warmists” and sceptics alike has become increasingly polarised.
George Monbiot, widely respected as a writer on green issues, has branded doubters “climate deniers”, a phrase uncomfortably close to holocaust denial. Sceptics, particularly in America, have suggested that scientists who believe in climate change are part of a global left-wing conspiracy to divert billions of dollars into green technology.
A more cogent criticism is that there has been a reluctance to acknowledge dissent on the question of climate science. Al Gore, the former US vice-president turned green campaigner, has described the climate debate as “settled”. Yet the science, say critics, has not been tested to the limit. This is why the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia is so significant.
Its researchers have built up records of how temperatures have changed over thousands of years. Perhaps the most important is the land and sea temperature record for the world since the mid-19th century. This is the database that shows the “unequivocal” rise of 0.8C over the last 157 years on which Mann’s hockey stick and much else in climate science depend.
Some critics believe that the unit’s findings need to be treated with more caution, because all the published data have been “corrected” — meaning they have been altered to compensate for possible anomalies in the way they were taken. Such changes are normal; what’s controversial is how they are done. This is compounded by the unwillingness of the unit to release the original raw data.
David Holland, an engineer from Northampton, is one of a number of sceptics who believe the unit has got this process wrong. When he submitted a request for the figures under freedom of information laws he was refused because it was “not in the public interest”.
Others who made similar requests were turned down because they were not academics, among them McIntyre, a Canadian who runs the Climate Audit website.
A genuine academic, Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada, also tried. He said: “I was rejected for an entirely different reason. The [unit] told me they had obtained the data under confidentiality agreements and so could not supply them. This was odd because they had already supplied some of them to other academics, but only those who support the idea of climate change.”
IT was against this background that the emails were leaked last week, reinforcing suspicions that scientific objectivity has been sacrificed. There is unease even among researchers who strongly support the idea that humans are changing the climate. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said: “Over the last decade there has been a very political battle between the climate sceptics and activist scientists.
“It seems to me that the scientists have lost touch with what they were up to. They saw themselves as in a battle with the sceptics rather than advancing scientific knowledge.”
Professor Mike Hulme, a fellow researcher of Jones at the University of East Anglia and author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change, said: “The attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organisation within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”
There could, however, be another reason why the unit rejected requests to see its data.
This weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites ... We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world’s understanding of climate change is based can never be revisited or checked. Pielke said: “Can this be serious? It is now impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. [The unit] is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.”
WHERE does this leave the climate debate? While the overwhelming belief of scientists is that the world is getting warmer and that humanity is responsible, sceptical voices are increasing.
Lord Lawson, the Tory former chancellor, announced last week the creation of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank, to “bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant”.
Lawson said: “Climate change is not being properly debated because all the political parties are on the same side, and there is an intolerance towards anybody who wants to debate it. It has turned climate change from being a political issue into a secular religion.”
The public are understandably confused. A recent poll showed that 41% accept as scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made, while 32% believe the link is unproven and 15% said the world is not warming.
This weekend many of Jones’s colleagues were standing by him. Tim Lenton, professor of earth system science at UEA, said: “We wouldn’t have anything like the understanding of climate change that we do were it not for the work of Phil Jones and his colleagues. They have spent decades putting together the historical temperature record and it is good work.”
The problem is that, after the past week, both sceptics and the public will require even more convincing of that.
If you don't think the grandiose carbon schemes being hatched in Copenhagen will not affect the world economy and helicopters specifically you are not paying attention.
Obama's stated goals....
WASHINGTON — Potentially one of the most far-reaching elements in the budget blueprint is the call to combat global warming by adopting a so-called "cap and trade" system for reducing carbon emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities. Overall, the plan would cut emissions 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.
If he is going to restrict these users then he will have to restrict all other users. This reduction will have severe affect on EMS, ENG, law enforcement, tour and other recreational uses of helicopters. We are not the most efficient users of petroleum products. I do not see alternate sources of fuel for helicopter flights that will either be declared non essential or too expensive to operate. Remember, we are all going to have to give up a piece of the pie?For your reading enjoyment from someone much better at reporting...
From The Sunday Times
November 29, 2009
The great climate change science scandal
Leaked emails have revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics who doubt global warming
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
The storm began with just four cryptic words. “A miracle has happened,” announced a contributor to Climate Audit, a website devoted to criticising the science of climate change.
“RC” said nothing more — but included a web link that took anyone who clicked on it to another site, Real Climate.
There, on the morning of November 17, they found a treasure trove: a thousand or so emails sent or received by Professor Phil Jones, director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.
Jones is a key player in the science of climate change. His department’s databases on global temperature changes and its measurements have been crucial in building the case for global warming.
What those emails suggested, however, was that Jones and some colleagues may have become so convinced of their case that they crossed the line from objective research into active campaigning.
In one, Jones boasted of using statistical “tricks” to obliterate apparent declines in global temperature. In another he advocated deleting data rather than handing them to climate sceptics. And in a third he proposed organised boycotts of journals that had the temerity to publish papers that undermined the message.
It was a powerful and controversial mix — far too powerful for some. Real Climate is a website designed for scientists who share Jones’s belief in man-made climate change. Within hours the file had been stripped from the site.
Several hours later, however, it reappeared — this time on an obscure Russian server. Soon it had been copied to a host of other servers, first in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and then Europe and America.
What’s more, the anonymous poster was determined not to be stymied again. He or she posted comments on climate-sceptic blogs, detailing a dozen of the best emails and offering web links to the rest. Jones’s statistical tricks were now public property.
Steve McIntyre, a prominent climate sceptic, was amazed. “Words failed me,” he said. Another, Patrick Michaels, declared: “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.”
Inevitably, the affair became nicknamed Climategate. For the scientists, campaigners and politicians trying to rouse the world to action on climate change the revelations could hardly have come at a worse time. Next month global leaders will assemble in Copenhagen to seek limits on carbon emissions. The last thing they need is renewed doubts about the validity of the science.
The scandal has also had a huge personal and professional impact on the scientists. “These have been the worst few days of my professional life,” said Jones. He had to call on the police for protection after receiving anonymous phone calls and personal threats.
Why should a few emails sent to and from a single research scientist at a middle-ranking university have so much impact? And most importantly, what does it tell us about the quality of the research underlying the science of climate change?
THE hacking scandal is not an isolated event. Instead it is the latest round of a long-running battle over climate science that goes back to 1990.
That was when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the group of scientists that advises governments worldwide — published its first set of reports warning that the Earth faced deadly danger from climate change. A centrepiece of that report was a set of data showing how the temperature of the northern hemisphere was rising rapidly.
The problem was that the same figures showed that it had all happened before. The so-called medieval warm period of about 1,000 years ago saw Britain covered in vineyards and Viking farmers tending cows in Greenland. For any good scientist this raised a big question: was the recent warming linked to humans burning fossil fuels or was it part of a natural cycle?
The researchers set to work and in 1999 a group led by Professor Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, came up with new numbers showing that the medieval warm period was not so important after all.
Some bits of the Atlantic may have been warm for a while, but the records suggested that the Pacific had been rather chilly over the same period — so on average there was little change.
Plotted out, Mann’s data turned into the famous “hockey stick” graph. It showed northern hemisphere temperatures as staying flat for hundreds of years and then rising steeply from 1900 until now. The implication was that this rise would continue, with potentially deadly consequences for humanity.
That vision of continents being hit by droughts and floods while the Arctic melts away has turned a scientific debate into a highly emotional and political one. The language used by “warmists” and sceptics alike has become increasingly polarised.
George Monbiot, widely respected as a writer on green issues, has branded doubters “climate deniers”, a phrase uncomfortably close to holocaust denial. Sceptics, particularly in America, have suggested that scientists who believe in climate change are part of a global left-wing conspiracy to divert billions of dollars into green technology.
A more cogent criticism is that there has been a reluctance to acknowledge dissent on the question of climate science. Al Gore, the former US vice-president turned green campaigner, has described the climate debate as “settled”. Yet the science, say critics, has not been tested to the limit. This is why the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia is so significant.
Its researchers have built up records of how temperatures have changed over thousands of years. Perhaps the most important is the land and sea temperature record for the world since the mid-19th century. This is the database that shows the “unequivocal” rise of 0.8C over the last 157 years on which Mann’s hockey stick and much else in climate science depend.
Some critics believe that the unit’s findings need to be treated with more caution, because all the published data have been “corrected” — meaning they have been altered to compensate for possible anomalies in the way they were taken. Such changes are normal; what’s controversial is how they are done. This is compounded by the unwillingness of the unit to release the original raw data.
David Holland, an engineer from Northampton, is one of a number of sceptics who believe the unit has got this process wrong. When he submitted a request for the figures under freedom of information laws he was refused because it was “not in the public interest”.
Others who made similar requests were turned down because they were not academics, among them McIntyre, a Canadian who runs the Climate Audit website.
A genuine academic, Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada, also tried. He said: “I was rejected for an entirely different reason. The [unit] told me they had obtained the data under confidentiality agreements and so could not supply them. This was odd because they had already supplied some of them to other academics, but only those who support the idea of climate change.”
IT was against this background that the emails were leaked last week, reinforcing suspicions that scientific objectivity has been sacrificed. There is unease even among researchers who strongly support the idea that humans are changing the climate. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said: “Over the last decade there has been a very political battle between the climate sceptics and activist scientists.
“It seems to me that the scientists have lost touch with what they were up to. They saw themselves as in a battle with the sceptics rather than advancing scientific knowledge.”
Professor Mike Hulme, a fellow researcher of Jones at the University of East Anglia and author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change, said: “The attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organisation within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”
There could, however, be another reason why the unit rejected requests to see its data.
This weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites ... We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world’s understanding of climate change is based can never be revisited or checked. Pielke said: “Can this be serious? It is now impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. [The unit] is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.”
WHERE does this leave the climate debate? While the overwhelming belief of scientists is that the world is getting warmer and that humanity is responsible, sceptical voices are increasing.
Lord Lawson, the Tory former chancellor, announced last week the creation of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank, to “bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant”.
Lawson said: “Climate change is not being properly debated because all the political parties are on the same side, and there is an intolerance towards anybody who wants to debate it. It has turned climate change from being a political issue into a secular religion.”
The public are understandably confused. A recent poll showed that 41% accept as scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made, while 32% believe the link is unproven and 15% said the world is not warming.
This weekend many of Jones’s colleagues were standing by him. Tim Lenton, professor of earth system science at UEA, said: “We wouldn’t have anything like the understanding of climate change that we do were it not for the work of Phil Jones and his colleagues. They have spent decades putting together the historical temperature record and it is good work.”
The problem is that, after the past week, both sceptics and the public will require even more convincing of that.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn,t care what my carbon foot print is as long as there is one for the TOTAL TIME of the flight.
PS. 2 cars as well (1 -V8 4.0L and 1 -V6 3.8L.)
Sold my Motorbike last year, only 600 cc but surely that must have helped !!!!
PS. 2 cars as well (1 -V8 4.0L and 1 -V6 3.8L.)
Sold my Motorbike last year, only 600 cc but surely that must have helped !!!!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Essex
Age: 54
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not paid to fly and purely fly for fun.
I'll fly as often as I can afford, because I can see the future of GA (not commercial but private) as short - through taxation & over-regulation under many guises.
It frustrates me that my costs increase while services decrease and I am pretty sure that the net effect of Copenhagen / Carbon Trading, etc., will be increased taxes for 'Ordinary Joes', with little or no evidencial proof over time that our 'positive actions' have had any retarding effect - the result will be '...we must do more!'...pay more tax...no result again...do even more...pay more tax...no result again...etc.
Minor rant over.
As to carbon footprint, I turn my lights off (not landing light) and the heating down, plan my routes (road and air) efficiently and walk to the pub.
I'll fly as often as I can afford, because I can see the future of GA (not commercial but private) as short - through taxation & over-regulation under many guises.
It frustrates me that my costs increase while services decrease and I am pretty sure that the net effect of Copenhagen / Carbon Trading, etc., will be increased taxes for 'Ordinary Joes', with little or no evidencial proof over time that our 'positive actions' have had any retarding effect - the result will be '...we must do more!'...pay more tax...no result again...do even more...pay more tax...no result again...etc.
Minor rant over.
As to carbon footprint, I turn my lights off (not landing light) and the heating down, plan my routes (road and air) efficiently and walk to the pub.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monckton at least has a scientific background.
In fact I think he is a mathematician by trade.
Lama, I am with you big time, let me demonstrate.
Sebastian, you are right “opinion” is the crunch word, but did you just work out whose “opinion” that these few megalomaniacs are taking to this convention? Yours and mine and everyone else’s too, even without asking for them.
But wait there’s more; they are also going to take what is in your pocket as well. That is what is going to impact on whether you wish to be a helicopter pilot for fun or pleasure, that is about to end.
But, the yanks have the luxury of having notsigned at Kyoto; they can set their own rules re agriculture and a host of other things IF they sign at Copenhagen, IF their SENATE also signs off on the big BO’s gospel AFTER he returns from the country of the prolific hookers.
That is as per the US of A constitution, unlike ours where we get to wear whatever our little B.O. shadow, the ruddy one signs. Possibly it is the same for Mr. Brown’s disciples, I don’t know?
BTW, climate gate, on Google? For a few days it popped up with a heap of auto cues. Then for a while you had to drive it further, Why?
Well, just have a guess at who happens to be also a director of Google? You are dead right, Mr. Bore his-self. Co-incidence?
With regard to thwarted information, just check out this link below. Talk about mango madness, or people up there going troppo, I thought it had all to do with the mango season.
]http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/
Me I am scared witless by this 35,000 people convention, where they are just sooooo organised that they had just seven people to sign everyone in?
What we need now is a splash of ‘Darwin’ to bring everyone back to reality.
Have a nice day.
tet
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How are you doing there Sebastian, come up for air yet?
Here is a bit more of Mathemetician Monckton for you to chew on.
It's stuff that all helicopter pilots would of course have been well aware of when they did their first met studies way back when, Naturally.
But first a quote or two, apologies from here, it arived on the email today from a neighbour.
"Any Classically-trained mind would at once dismiss these and many similar illogicalities as unworthy to be used as foundations for any valid conclusion. (Lord M)
And any half sane bushie with an ounce of common sense. (Peasant S)"
Now enjoy the latest.
Answer to an environmental campaigner | The SPPI Blog
Cheers tet
Here is a bit more of Mathemetician Monckton for you to chew on.
It's stuff that all helicopter pilots would of course have been well aware of when they did their first met studies way back when, Naturally.
But first a quote or two, apologies from here, it arived on the email today from a neighbour.
"Any Classically-trained mind would at once dismiss these and many similar illogicalities as unworthy to be used as foundations for any valid conclusion. (Lord M)
And any half sane bushie with an ounce of common sense. (Peasant S)"
Now enjoy the latest.
Answer to an environmental campaigner | The SPPI Blog
Cheers tet
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All that said...I do have to ask...what the hey does any of this have to do with being a helipilot?
I'm not sure if this is available outside the UK, but there's an item on Newsnight tonight where Justin Rowlatt (AKA Ethical Man) discusses climate change with a few skeptics. I think it'll end up at the entertainment end of the infotainment scale but i'm curious about James May as he's both a pilot and ends up fronting science-related programmes:
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight
Bit of late breaking news, Johnny Ball (childhood science hero!) booed off stage,
Johnny Ball booed by atheists over climate change denial - Telegraph
Last edited by FairWeatherFlyer; 16th Dec 2009 at 13:27. Reason: late news
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There won't be no heli-pilots for much anything, especially there will be no tourism work if our ruddy one and a few other bleeding hearts get their way.
After they throw many billions of dollars from the working economies into the non working economies, there just won't be much heli-flying at all except for finding oil reserves. If you can't work that out then you haven't even started on adiabatic lapse rates have you?
Talk about mis-information around the place, I see where someone was slagging off at the british crown prince, who professes to wear a very green suit.
According to the slagger, he spat out 6.4 tonnes of CO2 on his way to address the copehagen conference in an air force royal flight aircraft.
Now I don't know what sort of jet he was cruising over there in, but I'll bet a sixpence to a can of coke that it spat out heaps more than 6400 kg's of CO2. Probably more like 6400 kg's of fuel - at least. now lets see times 16 isn't it????
If all of the ghoulish ETS freaks have their way, then when this ets bubble bursts it gonna make Fannie Mae and the recent meltdown look like kindergarten.
I see where one Indian company is suggesting the closing down of a very big steel works that it owns in Britian. 1700 jobs. why?
Well, it can attract a subsidy of 1.2 billion dollars to locate the factory in India because the poor souls in India are still a developing country, right. Now how long have India been developing? I ask you, a damm site longer than OZ or the Kiwis for sure.
And what happens? 1700 poms out of work, 1.2 billion given to some Indian company, 2000 or more Indians employed and NOT ONE OUNCE LESS OF CO2 PUT INTO THE atmosphere. i better stop there, do your bit sunshine and help control this madness.
cheers tet
After they throw many billions of dollars from the working economies into the non working economies, there just won't be much heli-flying at all except for finding oil reserves. If you can't work that out then you haven't even started on adiabatic lapse rates have you?
Talk about mis-information around the place, I see where someone was slagging off at the british crown prince, who professes to wear a very green suit.
According to the slagger, he spat out 6.4 tonnes of CO2 on his way to address the copehagen conference in an air force royal flight aircraft.
Now I don't know what sort of jet he was cruising over there in, but I'll bet a sixpence to a can of coke that it spat out heaps more than 6400 kg's of CO2. Probably more like 6400 kg's of fuel - at least. now lets see times 16 isn't it????
If all of the ghoulish ETS freaks have their way, then when this ets bubble bursts it gonna make Fannie Mae and the recent meltdown look like kindergarten.
I see where one Indian company is suggesting the closing down of a very big steel works that it owns in Britian. 1700 jobs. why?
Well, it can attract a subsidy of 1.2 billion dollars to locate the factory in India because the poor souls in India are still a developing country, right. Now how long have India been developing? I ask you, a damm site longer than OZ or the Kiwis for sure.
And what happens? 1700 poms out of work, 1.2 billion given to some Indian company, 2000 or more Indians employed and NOT ONE OUNCE LESS OF CO2 PUT INTO THE atmosphere. i better stop there, do your bit sunshine and help control this madness.
cheers tet
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bought "Times Higher Education" date 10 Dec because of an article on this debate. Here's the link-
Times Higher Education - Beyond debate?
Or you can look on their website - the article is now archived, I found it by searching under "polar Bears"!
Just to add to the debate really.
Times Higher Education - Beyond debate?
Or you can look on their website - the article is now archived, I found it by searching under "polar Bears"!
Just to add to the debate really.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks wallsend.
i went to save it and found that mrs tet has already saved it here.
another little book written in the same vein is 'The climate caper' by Garth W Parltridge, published by connor court. ISBN978-1-921421-25-9.
Paltridge is an atmospheric physicist and chief research scientist with our CSIRO, before becoming director of the institute of antartic and Southern ocean studies. A fellow of the OZ academy of sciences, an honourory research fellow of the tasmaninan uni and a visiting fellow of the ANU. However he is best known for his work on atmospheric radiation and the theoretical basis of climate.
Only 120 pages, an easy airplane ride read. He delves not so much into either side of the debate but remains neutral in this work and talks about how and why the debate has been progressed by various parties.
You'll see the same sort of analysis in many areas.
lets say heart disease.
Just because you take some sort of medication there is some sort of study around that says that you have a 33% better chance of staying alive.
what they don't say is that the "study", whether or not it's peer reviewed correctly, actually only indicated a drop of one percent of death rate from 98 to 97 %.
work it out for yourself.
That's the argument mostly behind statin usage for example.
They also will completely overlook another study that will predict that you will have up to a 2% higher chance (er that's up from 97 to 98% for the realists)of dying from cancer or especially stroke if you take the same medicine within the same timeframe. very easy logic.
Me I'd rather retain the integrity of my cellular structure in my cranium arterial network and stay away from statins. Just my viewpoint
cheers tet
ps by the time you read the climate caper, we might all be reaching for a book on survival capers, not written by albore.
pps, I fogot to mention, but I suppose that you would have seen it already that Lord Monckton was knocked over and knocked out by some thug of dumbass danish copper when he was refused entry into the convention. He was in company with one of our senators.
Senator Fielding of south oz who has been a saviour in the climate debate, trying to retain some common sense. Himself a scientist and his main advisor is one Professor Ian Plimer, who also makes very good reading.
i went to save it and found that mrs tet has already saved it here.
another little book written in the same vein is 'The climate caper' by Garth W Parltridge, published by connor court. ISBN978-1-921421-25-9.
Paltridge is an atmospheric physicist and chief research scientist with our CSIRO, before becoming director of the institute of antartic and Southern ocean studies. A fellow of the OZ academy of sciences, an honourory research fellow of the tasmaninan uni and a visiting fellow of the ANU. However he is best known for his work on atmospheric radiation and the theoretical basis of climate.
Only 120 pages, an easy airplane ride read. He delves not so much into either side of the debate but remains neutral in this work and talks about how and why the debate has been progressed by various parties.
You'll see the same sort of analysis in many areas.
lets say heart disease.
Just because you take some sort of medication there is some sort of study around that says that you have a 33% better chance of staying alive.
what they don't say is that the "study", whether or not it's peer reviewed correctly, actually only indicated a drop of one percent of death rate from 98 to 97 %.
work it out for yourself.
That's the argument mostly behind statin usage for example.
They also will completely overlook another study that will predict that you will have up to a 2% higher chance (er that's up from 97 to 98% for the realists)of dying from cancer or especially stroke if you take the same medicine within the same timeframe. very easy logic.
Me I'd rather retain the integrity of my cellular structure in my cranium arterial network and stay away from statins. Just my viewpoint
cheers tet
ps by the time you read the climate caper, we might all be reaching for a book on survival capers, not written by albore.
pps, I fogot to mention, but I suppose that you would have seen it already that Lord Monckton was knocked over and knocked out by some thug of dumbass danish copper when he was refused entry into the convention. He was in company with one of our senators.
Senator Fielding of south oz who has been a saviour in the climate debate, trying to retain some common sense. Himself a scientist and his main advisor is one Professor Ian Plimer, who also makes very good reading.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I may indulge the generosity of the mods one last time on this subject here is some comedy to go to sleep with.
Luv it just absolutely luv it, this dude's blog has gone from about the worlds 150th largest to the 33rd or so. All on the back of his reporting of the ETS /AGW debate.
Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
the best link in this site is quite aways down todays bit, and is the excellent British jorno Gerald Warner in this piece.
Copenhagen climate summit: 'most important paper in the world' is a glorified UN press release – Telegraph Blogs
all good so far, another six months or so to expose the scammers.
I guess just a few short years ago there were sceptics who believd that the earth was not flat. look at it now, going round and round.and still snowing like crazy in the northern climes. Oh well, there you go.
tet
Luv it just absolutely luv it, this dude's blog has gone from about the worlds 150th largest to the 33rd or so. All on the back of his reporting of the ETS /AGW debate.
Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
the best link in this site is quite aways down todays bit, and is the excellent British jorno Gerald Warner in this piece.
Copenhagen climate summit: 'most important paper in the world' is a glorified UN press release – Telegraph Blogs
all good so far, another six months or so to expose the scammers.
I guess just a few short years ago there were sceptics who believd that the earth was not flat. look at it now, going round and round.and still snowing like crazy in the northern climes. Oh well, there you go.
tet
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian Cox gave the Huw Wheldon Memorial Lecture this year and covered some of the issues you can observed in this thread about communication of complex science (and risks) to the general public.
Royal Television Society - Events - Lectures - Wheldon Lecture -
The lecture is available in pieces on youtube,
YouTube - Brian Cox Lecture - Science: A Challenge to TV Orthodoxy (1/3)
---
Latest costs and developments in the world of fission,
Mini nuclear reactors: Thinking small | The Economist
Energy and climate change: Clean and green, for a price | The Economist
And the tricky art of calculating the emissions for the whole system, not just the daily operation,
Nuclear energy: assessing the emissions : article : Nature Reports Climate Change
http://www.nirs.org/climate/backgrou...uclear_ghg.pdf
Professor Cox addressed key issues facing news, current affairs and factual broadcasting. He discussed how documentary filmmakers should deal with complex scientific details, given that science on TV must be emotionally and intellectually engaging, as well as entertaining and informative, but above all correct. The lecture tackled the question of how news and current affairs should deal with "controversial areas" such as climate change, vaccination policy and cultural and religious issues, where the scientific consensus contradicts the views of a significant minority or even a majority of viewers.
The lecture is available in pieces on youtube,
YouTube - Brian Cox Lecture - Science: A Challenge to TV Orthodoxy (1/3)
---
Latest costs and developments in the world of fission,
Mini nuclear reactors: Thinking small | The Economist
Energy and climate change: Clean and green, for a price | The Economist
And the tricky art of calculating the emissions for the whole system, not just the daily operation,
Nuclear energy: assessing the emissions : article : Nature Reports Climate Change
http://www.nirs.org/climate/backgrou...uclear_ghg.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like Father Christmas will be ordering himself a float kit:
Global warming: The vanishing north | The Economist
Global warming: The vanishing north | The Economist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fort parry wells island beach
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
In fact I think he is a mathematician by trade.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3.7 billion GBP
Savills and Carbon Trust join forces to boost energy efficiency for commercial property occupiers - Carbon Trust
I work for a company where one of the recent radical ideas was to turn the lights off when no one was there. I think this is something rather obvious and something that any parent can appreciate, but for some reason we weren't uniform in our application of this.
Savills and Carbon Trust join forces to boost energy efficiency for commercial property occupiers - Carbon Trust
I work for a company where one of the recent radical ideas was to turn the lights off when no one was there. I think this is something rather obvious and something that any parent can appreciate, but for some reason we weren't uniform in our application of this.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone with a spare afternoon on 3rd April 2019 in London: Royal Meteorological Society: The Pliocene: The Last Time Earth had >400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2
Come to this meeting to hear about the climatic conditions in the Pliocene, how we know this, and what it tells us about our modern climate. If the effects of human-induced climate change are slow to act, or a tipping point is yet to be reached, what does the science tell us to expect?
The Pliocene: The Last Time Earth had >400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2
The last time carbon dioxide was so plentiful in our planet's atmosphere was in the Pliocene era, around 3 million years ago. Life on Earth was dominated by giant mammals; humans and chimps had shared their last common ancestor. Although the sun's force was about the same, the sea levels were 15 metres higher and Arctic summer temperatures were 14 degrees higher than the present day.Come to this meeting to hear about the climatic conditions in the Pliocene, how we know this, and what it tells us about our modern climate. If the effects of human-induced climate change are slow to act, or a tipping point is yet to be reached, what does the science tell us to expect?
Hey....why bother! We were told by a brand new member of the House of Representatives here in the USA that if we don't do away with airplanes, the automobile, HVAC systems....etc.....here in the United States.....the World as we know will end in Twelve Years.
I suppose she was too young to remember when a former Vice President of the United States gave us Ten Years to live....twnety years ago!
Some background prompting my Sarcasm.
https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-...report-1300873
I suppose she was too young to remember when a former Vice President of the United States gave us Ten Years to live....twnety years ago!
Some background prompting my Sarcasm.
https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-...report-1300873
Last edited by SASless; 18th Mar 2019 at 16:49.