What is your helicopter carbon footprint?
Crab! are u born in southern usa??? well at least u got the same view and many americans, including thoose at the white house..... But from my experince in my "backyard" at 65N 22W I must disagree with you.
Yours philosophy and others who share it with you always though remind me of this Dennis Leary song: I think it says it all http://youtube.com/watch?v=MNzZzsvOClc
Yours philosophy and others who share it with you always though remind me of this Dennis Leary song: I think it says it all http://youtube.com/watch?v=MNzZzsvOClc
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oman
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally called the head of the US climate labs in Colorado
No vested interest there then?
It seems that the "man made" global warming advocates shout louder than the "natural phenomenon" advocates.
Rotorrookie - that's the way mate, don't bother with reasoned debate - just go straight for personal insults...tw@t
Nobody said the climate wasn't changing (stasis isn't an option)......it's just the cause that is unclear.
Nobody said the climate wasn't changing (stasis isn't an option)......it's just the cause that is unclear.
While Nick is an expert on Sikorsky helicopters he is no expert on
"Of the approx 1,000 peer reviewed scientific publications that discuss climate change in the last decade, zero, zip, nada have embraced your point of view. All, every one, the entire bunch have stated that we are changing our climate. Of course, a few non-scientist White House lawyers agree with Crab, so there ARE two points of view."
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml
"Of the approx 1,000 peer reviewed scientific publications that discuss climate change in the last decade, zero, zip, nada have embraced your point of view. All, every one, the entire bunch have stated that we are changing our climate. Of course, a few non-scientist White House lawyers agree with Crab, so there ARE two points of view."
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lama,
You, too, can be sucked in by the neocon prattle.
Note that "at least one element" of disagreement is not the same as refuting. If an article discussing global warming states ten items, and another sites that one as doubtful, it makes your list (I say "your list" because if you are silly enough to post it, so its yours.) That article you dragged up is designed to make you actually think you now know something. Look up the hudson "institute" to see how much credibility it brings.
I restate, no peer reviewed article written in the last 10 years doubts that we are changing our climate, and that the effects are bad. None, zip, nada.
Real climate scientists shake their heads when folks like you drag simpleton articles like that around. And they cry a bit when you believe oil company lawyers instead of experts.
Perhaps we should have a lawyer overhaul your transmission!
You, too, can be sucked in by the neocon prattle.
Note that "at least one element" of disagreement is not the same as refuting. If an article discussing global warming states ten items, and another sites that one as doubtful, it makes your list (I say "your list" because if you are silly enough to post it, so its yours.) That article you dragged up is designed to make you actually think you now know something. Look up the hudson "institute" to see how much credibility it brings.
I restate, no peer reviewed article written in the last 10 years doubts that we are changing our climate, and that the effects are bad. None, zip, nada.
Real climate scientists shake their heads when folks like you drag simpleton articles like that around. And they cry a bit when you believe oil company lawyers instead of experts.
Perhaps we should have a lawyer overhaul your transmission!
Nick
Where do you get this "I restate, no peer reviewed article written in the last 10 years doubts that we are changing our climate, and that the effects are bad. None, zip, nada" fact. Did you review them? Who are you quoting? What is your source?
Here is one small voice in disagreement....
http://www.madison.com/archives/read...0706180285.php
and another...
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...cd20bed2f6&k=0
You want to shoot the messenger. The Hudson Institute has been around a long time. Should I give you some links to George Sorro's ties to the Global Warming herd?
Climate Change and Global Warming are not synonymous. One is a natural recurring event and one is man caused. Is this the new religion?
Where do you get this "I restate, no peer reviewed article written in the last 10 years doubts that we are changing our climate, and that the effects are bad. None, zip, nada" fact. Did you review them? Who are you quoting? What is your source?
Here is one small voice in disagreement....
http://www.madison.com/archives/read...0706180285.php
and another...
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...cd20bed2f6&k=0
You want to shoot the messenger. The Hudson Institute has been around a long time. Should I give you some links to George Sorro's ties to the Global Warming herd?
Climate Change and Global Warming are not synonymous. One is a natural recurring event and one is man caused. Is this the new religion?
Nick, you can not win
... they don't want to hear it.
As I said, people tend to believe, what they like to believe. The same problem as with the creationists ... no argument ever will convince them. You can prove them wrong a million times, no chance, that they ever believe you. Even if god himself would tell them, they would not recognise him.
Same here. They don't like the fact and therefore they close their eyes.
Now looking at the Hudson Institute:
Mission
"Hudson Institute is a non-partisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom. We challenge conventional thinking and help manage strategic transitions to the future through interdisciplinary and collaborative studies in defense, international relations, economics, culture, science, technology, and law. Through publications, conferences and policy recommendations, we seek to guide global leaders in government and business." (Their words)
THAT sounds like a religion. That institute is made for lobbying. One look at the homepage and you see written all over it "We know better then anybody." And with Donald Rumsfeld as the most prominent person who has something positive to say about the founder, gives away on which side they are.
Nobody with a real independent approach would ever formulate their mission like this.
But it sounds good.
Now if somebody wants really to be somebody who does not to believe in everything that scientists say, it does not mean that one has to believe the opposite of it. Science is a game of theory and counter theory. But not a game of religious believes and none believe. It is to accept somebody’s theory and the facts he delivers until it is PROVEN wrong. That goes for both sides.
And now the question, why the heck would it be so bad to save co2? Because somebody makes money with it? Who cares? New technology and new jobs for helicopter like flying out to the wind farms? And if the helicopter industry would be the first to be carbon neutral? Even better. Gives us a huge boost in the public opinion ... and we need that.
But some people don't like to save co2 because they would have to change their life ... but it would be a healthier life for sure.
And if you don't want more taxes, do something now, because taxes are made when people don't change. Interesting example from Switzerland. There is a law that 75% of all PET-bottles must be recycled or there would be a refund on every bottle. Once the Swiss collected less then 75% and got a warning from the government. There is still no refund on bottles because they got the message. It works.
As I said, people tend to believe, what they like to believe. The same problem as with the creationists ... no argument ever will convince them. You can prove them wrong a million times, no chance, that they ever believe you. Even if god himself would tell them, they would not recognise him.
Same here. They don't like the fact and therefore they close their eyes.
Now looking at the Hudson Institute:
Mission
"Hudson Institute is a non-partisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom. We challenge conventional thinking and help manage strategic transitions to the future through interdisciplinary and collaborative studies in defense, international relations, economics, culture, science, technology, and law. Through publications, conferences and policy recommendations, we seek to guide global leaders in government and business." (Their words)
THAT sounds like a religion. That institute is made for lobbying. One look at the homepage and you see written all over it "We know better then anybody." And with Donald Rumsfeld as the most prominent person who has something positive to say about the founder, gives away on which side they are.
Nobody with a real independent approach would ever formulate their mission like this.
But it sounds good.
Now if somebody wants really to be somebody who does not to believe in everything that scientists say, it does not mean that one has to believe the opposite of it. Science is a game of theory and counter theory. But not a game of religious believes and none believe. It is to accept somebody’s theory and the facts he delivers until it is PROVEN wrong. That goes for both sides.
And now the question, why the heck would it be so bad to save co2? Because somebody makes money with it? Who cares? New technology and new jobs for helicopter like flying out to the wind farms? And if the helicopter industry would be the first to be carbon neutral? Even better. Gives us a huge boost in the public opinion ... and we need that.
But some people don't like to save co2 because they would have to change their life ... but it would be a healthier life for sure.
And if you don't want more taxes, do something now, because taxes are made when people don't change. Interesting example from Switzerland. There is a law that 75% of all PET-bottles must be recycled or there would be a refund on every bottle. Once the Swiss collected less then 75% and got a warning from the government. There is still no refund on bottles because they got the message. It works.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotorbee,
You are right, and this could go on forever. For instance, lama sites a professor who can't get published as a source for perr-reviewed science. No win situation.
The funny thing is that I KNOW what science goes into the steel in the teeth of Lama's transmission - it was my business for 3 decades - and that is less sure than the evidence of global warming!
People must think that if there is any doubt as to the complete story, then there is no story. Such a shame, especially when the only real doubters are those who have something to lose (isn't that the case!)
When we shift to nuclear and hydrogen based fuels (as we must, or perish) then the carbon fuels - Oil and Coal - will become relics, and their stock will be mud. No wonder why they hire lawyers to argue against scientists!
You are right, and this could go on forever. For instance, lama sites a professor who can't get published as a source for perr-reviewed science. No win situation.
The funny thing is that I KNOW what science goes into the steel in the teeth of Lama's transmission - it was my business for 3 decades - and that is less sure than the evidence of global warming!
People must think that if there is any doubt as to the complete story, then there is no story. Such a shame, especially when the only real doubters are those who have something to lose (isn't that the case!)
When we shift to nuclear and hydrogen based fuels (as we must, or perish) then the carbon fuels - Oil and Coal - will become relics, and their stock will be mud. No wonder why they hire lawyers to argue against scientists!
When it is about science and what people believe, we always fight an uphill battle.
And between those who have the most to loose, some even see this as a chance.
The CEO of Total (French oil company) lately said in an interview, that it is much better to sell less oil for a higher price then a lot of oil for dumping prices. That ist why Total and other oil companies invest in new "green" technologies.
Saying this, I know, that this is a simplified view, but economically it does make a lot more sense to use resources as efficient as possible. At least economists can show that quite clearly and the science of economics is one of the worst regarding proving anything.
Therefore, if you invest today to make your company co2 neutral, the chance that this is a good investment ist greater then 0.5. Does that sound good for your pockets? That is probably the only way to convince people. More money in their pocket makes them happy.
Yes, this is funny and should make people think. I had a similar experience lately with the clapper of a bell (the ding dong thing, not the chop chop) and its crystalline structure. Not a lot is know about its behaviour. But we all know bells and can talk about it. But we do not have a clue about how a bell really feels. It is more an exchange of common knowledge that does not help us to gain more knowledge. The same is true with that discussion here. An exchange of "have you heard <insert name here> the global warming expert". And those who are the loudest, are most often heard. That reminds me of an old saying. If you are sure that you are right, argue, if you are not right, shout. Instead I would prefer real arguments and not public opinions. A discussion on how to present our industry to the public regarding global warming could be very interesting. What happens here is just boring.
And by the way, the sun is on its lowest point in its activity cycle. If anybody thinks that the sun was the reason for last years hottest summer ...
And between those who have the most to loose, some even see this as a chance.
The CEO of Total (French oil company) lately said in an interview, that it is much better to sell less oil for a higher price then a lot of oil for dumping prices. That ist why Total and other oil companies invest in new "green" technologies.
Saying this, I know, that this is a simplified view, but economically it does make a lot more sense to use resources as efficient as possible. At least economists can show that quite clearly and the science of economics is one of the worst regarding proving anything.
Therefore, if you invest today to make your company co2 neutral, the chance that this is a good investment ist greater then 0.5. Does that sound good for your pockets? That is probably the only way to convince people. More money in their pocket makes them happy.
The funny thing is that I KNOW what science goes into the steel in the teeth of Lama's transmission - it was my business for 3 decades - and that is less sure than the evidence of global warming!
And by the way, the sun is on its lowest point in its activity cycle. If anybody thinks that the sun was the reason for last years hottest summer ...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Why would this all be a massive conspiracy to get us to pay more taxes? Governments dont tax us for their own entertainment, they tax us either to pay for public services, or to change behaviour Thats why cigarettes are 3 or 4 times the price they were when I used to smoke, thats why there is a congestion charge in London. Educating the public that smoking and heavy traffic are bad things achieves nothing. Nobody will change until it hurts financially enough not to do so.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must find an article that my brother sent me on this testing subject of coal fired / world use by date/ nuclear fired / power plants.
He gets to travel world wide into all of the biggest and latest and bestest nuclear plants.
He reckons velcro sweat band around the head coupled to seat head rest is the best way to sleep.
However in the meantime, I do remember someone telling me about a Bell 47 / G5 that was seen going through Mt Isa many moon ago with, - TWO - BIG BLACK FEET- portrayed on the underside belly panel.????
They reckon the young driver had no idea why - some talk about the pilot it was going to was nicknamed "FOOT".
Does that count to this footprint thread?? Anyone else heard about this "FOOT" bloke ????
tet
He gets to travel world wide into all of the biggest and latest and bestest nuclear plants.
He reckons velcro sweat band around the head coupled to seat head rest is the best way to sleep.
However in the meantime, I do remember someone telling me about a Bell 47 / G5 that was seen going through Mt Isa many moon ago with, - TWO - BIG BLACK FEET- portrayed on the underside belly panel.????
They reckon the young driver had no idea why - some talk about the pilot it was going to was nicknamed "FOOT".
Does that count to this footprint thread?? Anyone else heard about this "FOOT" bloke ????
tet
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oman
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotorbee
Didn't you read the linked article at the top of page 2?
"I have come across no rigorous proof that wasteful human pollution has caused any significant climate change."
Dr Martin Keeley
Geologist, and a Visiting Professor at University College London
Strikes me that you are the one who has the wide-eyed zealotry and can't accept dissenting voices.
Didn't you read the linked article at the top of page 2?
"I have come across no rigorous proof that wasteful human pollution has caused any significant climate change."
Dr Martin Keeley
Geologist, and a Visiting Professor at University College London
Strikes me that you are the one who has the wide-eyed zealotry and can't accept dissenting voices.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My biggest gripe when it comes to CO2 release (whether or not you figure it is causing the observed climate change) is automotive aerodynamics.
Before my current job i was in the auto industry, being involved in various aspects of development for many vehicles. It never ceases to amaze me how unimportant aerodynamics was considered next to styling. The body guys did all they could to keep weight down, while meeting NCAP crash specs. The engines guys did their level best to minimise BSFC fuel burn. There was even some work done on hybrids. Aerodynamics was only ever given a cursory once over.
Citroen produced a car many years ago with a Cd of 0.19 - hence the name DS19. For comparison the proverbial brick has a Cd of 1.0, and a helicopter fuselage has a Cd of ~0.1. If CO2 is a major concern why am i driving a car which is wasting twice as much fuel as it could be churning up the air? There are many many more cars than helicopters...
Rant over.
Comment about nuclear powerd helicopters was tongue in cheek, but it was once seriously considered for very long range bombers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft
Before my current job i was in the auto industry, being involved in various aspects of development for many vehicles. It never ceases to amaze me how unimportant aerodynamics was considered next to styling. The body guys did all they could to keep weight down, while meeting NCAP crash specs. The engines guys did their level best to minimise BSFC fuel burn. There was even some work done on hybrids. Aerodynamics was only ever given a cursory once over.
Citroen produced a car many years ago with a Cd of 0.19 - hence the name DS19. For comparison the proverbial brick has a Cd of 1.0, and a helicopter fuselage has a Cd of ~0.1. If CO2 is a major concern why am i driving a car which is wasting twice as much fuel as it could be churning up the air? There are many many more cars than helicopters...
Rant over.
Comment about nuclear powerd helicopters was tongue in cheek, but it was once seriously considered for very long range bombers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft
Last edited by Graviman; 6th Oct 2007 at 17:04.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US climate scientists pressured on climate change
The way this Global Warming issue has been politicized is just as much fun as the origins of the "Patriot Act" the "Mushroom Cloud," and the "Death Tax". The way to get uninformed folks to carry your intellectually bankrupt argument is to cover the issue with a bumper sticker or sound bite and then just keep repeating the lies. Let the linguistics obscure the truth, such as stripping patient's abilities to get proper coverage from their HMO's by calling the law the "Patient's Rights Act".
The very unsettling way thie climate issue has been controlled shows that Orwell's 1984 was not far off ("...the Ministry of Peace is concerned with War, the Ministry of Truth is concerned with Lies..."), the lazy press can be manipulated by officials who have no integrity, as long as they simply believe there are always "two sides" to every issue.
Read this article, it is one of several that show what a political campaign can look like when well done:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...te-change.html
We in the helicopter industry can and will work out how to do our very important jobs and meet the coming new environmental laws.
Either that, or we must buy tropical beachfront in Alaska.
The very unsettling way thie climate issue has been controlled shows that Orwell's 1984 was not far off ("...the Ministry of Peace is concerned with War, the Ministry of Truth is concerned with Lies..."), the lazy press can be manipulated by officials who have no integrity, as long as they simply believe there are always "two sides" to every issue.
Read this article, it is one of several that show what a political campaign can look like when well done:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...te-change.html
We in the helicopter industry can and will work out how to do our very important jobs and meet the coming new environmental laws.
Either that, or we must buy tropical beachfront in Alaska.
Last edited by NickLappos; 6th Oct 2007 at 17:13.
You're trying to tell me that the evil Ministry of Truth has effectively shut down debate on Climate Change??? The Lord High Guru of Global Warming is going to receive the Nobel Peace prize, of all things, next week for his seriously flawed documentary. The Climate Change believers get plenty of press. It is the skeptics that are not covered in the press. Questioning Global Warming is akin to attacking one's religion.
Your link is rather dated. Try this one in the same magazine.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/env...te-change.html
I'm still waiting for your source on ....
"Of the approx 1,000 peer reviewed scientific publications that discuss climate change in the last decade, zero, zip, nada have embraced your point of view. All, every one, the entire bunch have stated that we are changing our climate."
Your link is rather dated. Try this one in the same magazine.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/env...te-change.html
I'm still waiting for your source on ....
"Of the approx 1,000 peer reviewed scientific publications that discuss climate change in the last decade, zero, zip, nada have embraced your point of view. All, every one, the entire bunch have stated that we are changing our climate."
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lama, I am laughing! The guy you hang your hat on is not even a scientist, he is a Business Professor!
Here is a Google Scholar search under "anthropogenic climate change". What is Google Scholar, you ask:
What is Google Scholar?
Google Scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. Google Scholar helps you identify the most relevant research across the world of scholarly research.
Here are the 60,900 hits that discuss how we are changing our climate.:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...e+&btnG=Search
Lama,
One report in particular was specifically about the "disagreement" that you think exists.
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
.....Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
Here is a Google Scholar search under "anthropogenic climate change". What is Google Scholar, you ask:
What is Google Scholar?
Google Scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. Google Scholar helps you identify the most relevant research across the world of scholarly research.
Here are the 60,900 hits that discuss how we are changing our climate.:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...e+&btnG=Search
Lama,
One report in particular was specifically about the "disagreement" that you think exists.
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
.....Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
Last edited by NickLappos; 7th Oct 2007 at 00:28.