Cathay Pacific Bets Big on BioFuels

[Shep69]

Originally Posted by Curtain rod

Are we really surrounded by global warming (aka climate change) deniers? There is no scientific controversy about this. As with evolution, whether you believe it or not, it's still true. Or is the layman's understanding of the evidence only based on the random political, religious, national and other affiliations?

We are surrounded by people whose livelihoods are 100% based on scientific theory (aka the theory of flight - or is it god holding up the planes? Prove it isn't!) who do not understand and/or refute the evolving conclusions from scientific observations and experimentation, such as the greenhouse effect, ice core data, etc.? It's all just, "Wrong! Wrong...wrong..." based on preferred spin and junk science as promoted by lobbyists?

Will biofuel actually accomplish anything positive for the world or for CX? To be determined, kind of like the CMP, huh?

As for the little gem of a tangent - come on, man...really, still, in 2017? Amongst relatively educated and informed colleagues, too? Ugh. Besides the general red herrings:


"Anecdotal" logical fallacy: using examples to extrapolate without a statistically significant number of cases that could form scientifically compelling evidence, e.g. knives are lethal in the right hands, but they can only kill one person at a time and have no ability to kill at a distance.


"Slippery slope" logical fallacy: If we let A happen, then B through to Z will consequently happen too, therefore A should not happen. In combination with the "nanny state" assertion, it's an "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy: manipulation of emotions rather than the use of valid reasoning.

Etc. - but I know it would take days of deprogramming to sort out even just one entrenched person.

Pounding the table, saying 'settled science' , parroting, or chanting does not truth make. No model can effectively extrapolate data beyond the tolerances of the measured inputs. And when your possible effects of ALL sources of CO2 are two orders of magnitude less than your ability to measure heat in at best you have a theory and a guess.

FWIW, one can make a decent living with bullsh!t-- although the real stuff has more value than that propagated by the environwacko crowd. Who a few decades ago were predicting a catastrophic ice age rather than the flooding of coastal cities. A good scientist always realizes the limitations of his studies. Rather than trying to shut people up. Finding 97 percent of 22 folks who kind of agree with you, or cherry picking data sources that make the data conform to your model (rather than vice versa and considering all sources ) isn't exactly something to brag about.

But the liberals love their sound bytes and chanting. Sure a lot better than having to do the work to look at the facts yourself and actually run the numbers.

The CO2 myth is junk 'science' st its worst. Not a great deal different than a modern day Salem witch trial with a tux.