Manchester-3
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adaptions mean making changes in the way we do things and run our economies.
Continuing on the 20th century oil based methodologies is NOT an option .
Now do we still require crude and will we in 2050 yes however burning it in a billion little explosions probably need to change climate emergency or not .
Polymers will long be necessary and are so useful sure enough.
The carbon is just one of the pollutants ( possibly from a human perspective and heath the least concerning ) but still that’s the reality.
And it’s hardly a cult it’s a demonstrable theory and humans sure can and will make some adaptations in the processes .
I am rather optimistic that the world for my grand children and niece will be somewhat better than today and that aviation and travel will remain in some form .
Am am not suggesting people stop travelling and that we stop cultural exchanges ( that’s for others in the case of GB and their actions some year ago)
Continuing on the 20th century oil based methodologies is NOT an option .
Now do we still require crude and will we in 2050 yes however burning it in a billion little explosions probably need to change climate emergency or not .
Polymers will long be necessary and are so useful sure enough.
The carbon is just one of the pollutants ( possibly from a human perspective and heath the least concerning ) but still that’s the reality.
And it’s hardly a cult it’s a demonstrable theory and humans sure can and will make some adaptations in the processes .
I am rather optimistic that the world for my grand children and niece will be somewhat better than today and that aviation and travel will remain in some form .
Am am not suggesting people stop travelling and that we stop cultural exchanges ( that’s for others in the case of GB and their actions some year ago)
Adaptions mean making changes in the way we do things and run our economies.
The carbon is just one of the pollutants ( possibly from a human perspective and heath the least concerning ) but still that’s the reality.
And it’s hardly a cult it’s a demonstrable theory and humans sure can and will make some adaptations in the processes .
The best path for your grandchildren is to embrace pursuit of truth and free speech in public life. But all means work towards de-polluting our environment, but don't demonise the technologies which have lifted billions globally out of abject poverty. The oil-based economy has delivered life expectancy and prosperity beyond anything seen before. Yes, let's work to replace it with better going forward, but don't pursue an agenda of deeply damaging gesture-politics in the meantime.
Commercial aviation is a potent force for good. So are many other industries which political interest groups strive to demonise. We should not be ashamed to defend them.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am appalled that there are still people who would agree with previous post.
We've understood how our atmosphere works to maintain our climate for 200 years, The huge fluctuations in the earth's temperature over 4,5 billion years are often largely due to changes in CO2.
Scientists have correctly predicted that the escalating levels of CO2 from burning fossil fuels would cause climate change since 1899 at least.
Unfortunately we didn't want to listen so we've now no option but to make more drastic changes.
Anyone who doesn't accept what's happening as man-made needs to explain why our established understanding is wrong. Good luck.
We've understood how our atmosphere works to maintain our climate for 200 years, The huge fluctuations in the earth's temperature over 4,5 billion years are often largely due to changes in CO2.
Scientists have correctly predicted that the escalating levels of CO2 from burning fossil fuels would cause climate change since 1899 at least.
Unfortunately we didn't want to listen so we've now no option but to make more drastic changes.
Anyone who doesn't accept what's happening as man-made needs to explain why our established understanding is wrong. Good luck.
I am appalled that there are still people who would agree with previous post.
We've understood how our atmosphere works to maintain our climate for 200 years, The huge fluctuations in the earth's temperature over 4,5 billion years are often largely due to changes in CO2.
Scientists have correctly predicted that the escalating levels of CO2 from burning fossil fuels would cause climate change since 1899 at least.
Unfortunately we didn't want to listen so we've now no option but to make more drastic changes.
Anyone who doesn't accept what's happening as man-made needs to explain why our established understanding is wrong. Good luck.
We've understood how our atmosphere works to maintain our climate for 200 years, The huge fluctuations in the earth's temperature over 4,5 billion years are often largely due to changes in CO2.
Scientists have correctly predicted that the escalating levels of CO2 from burning fossil fuels would cause climate change since 1899 at least.
Unfortunately we didn't want to listen so we've now no option but to make more drastic changes.
Anyone who doesn't accept what's happening as man-made needs to explain why our established understanding is wrong. Good luck.
The climate is changing. The climate has always changed, but not at the present rate. That is what is so important right now. It's not a cult, it's not driven by politics or chances. It is driven by the science.
Those of you who think that humans will adapt really need to think. How will non human life adapt? It cannot. That's not how evolution works.
All this belongs in another thread but what it has done is expose those if you who really have no clue what is going on.
No. This sentence encapsulates the narrative which assumes that changes in human activity can make a meaningful difference to long-term climate processes. Just look at that context I presented. 400ft sea-level rise in just 20,000 years. Due to natural processes, not our activity. We can all go back to living in caves if we want; the climate will still do what it is going to do. What I meant by 'adapt' was to adjust to new agricultural growing cycles (improved here in the UK), adjust to changing landscapes, take advantage of those areas where conditions are improved and help out those regions which need it.
I am in favour of reducing pollution in all its forms for the common good. But let's embrace this because it is the right thing to do, not because we are fed a bogus narrative about human activity determining climate outcomes. And carbon is NOT an evil. In fact, it isn't really part of the atmosphere anyway ... carbon dioxide gas is. And it is actually an indispensable essential to all plant life. Remove it from the atmosphere and we're all dead. The fossil record shows that the optimal level of atmospheric CO2 to enable an optimally thriving natural ecosystem is actually slightly higher than the level we currently see. And we're all carbon-based lifeforms.
It is absolutely a cult. The 'useful idiots' who mindlessly promote 'climate emergency' are embraced by political interests who favour a redistributive model of government. That is politics, not science. Those authoritative scientific voices who speak up are cancelled, defunded and deplatformed, insulted with derogatory labels such as "denier" - a word carefully chosen to imply sympathies with Nazi ideology. They are told that "the science is settled" ... no it isn't ... the political narrative is! Science must always be open to challenge from fresh ideas. Suppression of scientific debate is the real tyranny.
The best path for your grandchildren is to embrace pursuit of truth and free speech in public life. But all means work towards de-polluting our environment, but don't demonise the technologies which have lifted billions globally out of abject poverty. The oil-based economy has delivered life expectancy and prosperity beyond anything seen before. Yes, let's work to replace it with better going forward, but don't pursue an agenda of deeply damaging gesture-politics in the meantime.
Commercial aviation is a potent force for good. So are many other industries which political interest groups strive to demonise. We should not be ashamed to defend them.
I am in favour of reducing pollution in all its forms for the common good. But let's embrace this because it is the right thing to do, not because we are fed a bogus narrative about human activity determining climate outcomes. And carbon is NOT an evil. In fact, it isn't really part of the atmosphere anyway ... carbon dioxide gas is. And it is actually an indispensable essential to all plant life. Remove it from the atmosphere and we're all dead. The fossil record shows that the optimal level of atmospheric CO2 to enable an optimally thriving natural ecosystem is actually slightly higher than the level we currently see. And we're all carbon-based lifeforms.
It is absolutely a cult. The 'useful idiots' who mindlessly promote 'climate emergency' are embraced by political interests who favour a redistributive model of government. That is politics, not science. Those authoritative scientific voices who speak up are cancelled, defunded and deplatformed, insulted with derogatory labels such as "denier" - a word carefully chosen to imply sympathies with Nazi ideology. They are told that "the science is settled" ... no it isn't ... the political narrative is! Science must always be open to challenge from fresh ideas. Suppression of scientific debate is the real tyranny.
The best path for your grandchildren is to embrace pursuit of truth and free speech in public life. But all means work towards de-polluting our environment, but don't demonise the technologies which have lifted billions globally out of abject poverty. The oil-based economy has delivered life expectancy and prosperity beyond anything seen before. Yes, let's work to replace it with better going forward, but don't pursue an agenda of deeply damaging gesture-politics in the meantime.
Commercial aviation is a potent force for good. So are many other industries which political interest groups strive to demonise. We should not be ashamed to defend them.
Absolute bollocks!
Anyone who doesn't accept what's happening as man-made needs to explain why our established understanding is wrong. Good luck.
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. This sentence encapsulates the narrative which assumes that changes in human activity can make a meaningful difference to long-term climate processes. Just look at that context I presented. 400ft sea-level rise in just 20,000 years. Due to natural processes, not our activity. We can all go back to living in caves if we want; the climate will still do what it is going to do. What I meant by 'adapt' was to adjust to new agricultural growing cycles (improved here in the UK), adjust to changing landscapes, take advantage of those areas where conditions are improved and help out those regions which need it.
I am in favour of reducing pollution in all its forms for the common good. But let's embrace this because it is the right thing to do, not because we are fed a bogus narrative about human activity determining climate outcomes. And carbon is NOT an evil. In fact, it isn't really part of the atmosphere anyway ... carbon dioxide gas is. And it is actually an indispensable essential to all plant life. Remove it from the atmosphere and we're all dead. The fossil record shows that the optimal level of atmospheric CO2 to enable an optimally thriving natural ecosystem is actually slightly higher than the level we currently see. And we're all carbon-based lifeforms.
It is absolutely a cult. The 'useful idiots' who mindlessly promote 'climate emergency' are embraced by political interests who favour a redistributive model of government. That is politics, not science. Those authoritative scientific voices who speak up are cancelled, defunded and deplatformed, insulted with derogatory labels such as "denier" - a word carefully chosen to imply sympathies with Nazi ideology. They are told that "the science is settled" ... no it isn't ... the political narrative is! Science must always be open to challenge from fresh ideas. Suppression of scientific debate is the real tyranny.
The best path for your grandchildren is to embrace pursuit of truth and free speech in public life. But all means work towards de-polluting our environment, but don't demonise the technologies which have lifted billions globally out of abject poverty. The oil-based economy has delivered life expectancy and prosperity beyond anything seen before. Yes, let's work to replace it with better going forward, but don't pursue an agenda of deeply damaging gesture-politics in the meantime.
Commercial aviation is a potent force for good. So are many other industries which political interest groups strive to demonise. We should not be ashamed to defend them.
I am in favour of reducing pollution in all its forms for the common good. But let's embrace this because it is the right thing to do, not because we are fed a bogus narrative about human activity determining climate outcomes. And carbon is NOT an evil. In fact, it isn't really part of the atmosphere anyway ... carbon dioxide gas is. And it is actually an indispensable essential to all plant life. Remove it from the atmosphere and we're all dead. The fossil record shows that the optimal level of atmospheric CO2 to enable an optimally thriving natural ecosystem is actually slightly higher than the level we currently see. And we're all carbon-based lifeforms.
It is absolutely a cult. The 'useful idiots' who mindlessly promote 'climate emergency' are embraced by political interests who favour a redistributive model of government. That is politics, not science. Those authoritative scientific voices who speak up are cancelled, defunded and deplatformed, insulted with derogatory labels such as "denier" - a word carefully chosen to imply sympathies with Nazi ideology. They are told that "the science is settled" ... no it isn't ... the political narrative is! Science must always be open to challenge from fresh ideas. Suppression of scientific debate is the real tyranny.
The best path for your grandchildren is to embrace pursuit of truth and free speech in public life. But all means work towards de-polluting our environment, but don't demonise the technologies which have lifted billions globally out of abject poverty. The oil-based economy has delivered life expectancy and prosperity beyond anything seen before. Yes, let's work to replace it with better going forward, but don't pursue an agenda of deeply damaging gesture-politics in the meantime.
Commercial aviation is a potent force for good. So are many other industries which political interest groups strive to demonise. We should not be ashamed to defend them.
Your opinion is flawed, goes against ALL the science and peer reviewed evidence. In fact your rant consists entirely of lies, half truths and nonsense.
In a nutshell. Utter boll0cks!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I don't mean to drag out this discussion, but let's factcheck afew items, since some seem to consider all my points to be b*******.
Global sea-level has risen 400ft over the last 20,000 years. Easily verifiable - check for yourself. Did primitive cave-dwellers cause this?
The landbridge which 20,000 years ago connected a line from latter-day East Anglia through Cornwall to the continental European landmass was finally severed around 8,200 years ago. Easily verifiable - check for yourself. Did early homosapiens cause this, or was it natural processes?
Mega Lake Chad, 7,000 years ago considered to be the largest freshwater lake on the planet, now part of the Sahara Desert. Easily verifiable - check for yourself. Which human tribe caused this?
The timescales outlined above - 20,000 years or less through to today - are extremely short in geological terms. If we accept that natural climate processes drove these hugely consequential changes, why do some suppose that those processes suddenly halted of their own accord, only to be replaced by Mr and Mrs Smith flying to Mallorca and boiling a kettle? No, those powerful forces remain as much at play as they ever were - you can verify that too.
Another fact: plant life on Earth cannot exist without CO2 in the atmosphere, and we can't exist without plant life. 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere represents a good balance. Easily verifiable again. I'm sure that many of those who glue themselves to roads would happily endorse removing all CO2 from the atmosphere if they could.
Human contribution to climate change is marginal, and we cannot change natural megatrends by embracing nonsensical politically-motivated gestures (eg. movement caps at DUB and AMS). What we can do is adjust to changing conditions, embrace the positive changes (yes, they do exist), mitigate the downsides as best we can. All of this stuff is easily verifiable.
I 100% endorse efforts to eliminate pollution from our environment - because it is the right thing to do. But this must be primarily a technology-led endeavour executed in a sustainable way.
It is interesting that those who dismiss my posts in their entirety as [insert profanity of choice] do not tackle any of the specific points outlined above. I wonder why not?
Global sea-level has risen 400ft over the last 20,000 years. Easily verifiable - check for yourself. Did primitive cave-dwellers cause this?
The landbridge which 20,000 years ago connected a line from latter-day East Anglia through Cornwall to the continental European landmass was finally severed around 8,200 years ago. Easily verifiable - check for yourself. Did early homosapiens cause this, or was it natural processes?
Mega Lake Chad, 7,000 years ago considered to be the largest freshwater lake on the planet, now part of the Sahara Desert. Easily verifiable - check for yourself. Which human tribe caused this?
The timescales outlined above - 20,000 years or less through to today - are extremely short in geological terms. If we accept that natural climate processes drove these hugely consequential changes, why do some suppose that those processes suddenly halted of their own accord, only to be replaced by Mr and Mrs Smith flying to Mallorca and boiling a kettle? No, those powerful forces remain as much at play as they ever were - you can verify that too.
Another fact: plant life on Earth cannot exist without CO2 in the atmosphere, and we can't exist without plant life. 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere represents a good balance. Easily verifiable again. I'm sure that many of those who glue themselves to roads would happily endorse removing all CO2 from the atmosphere if they could.
Human contribution to climate change is marginal, and we cannot change natural megatrends by embracing nonsensical politically-motivated gestures (eg. movement caps at DUB and AMS). What we can do is adjust to changing conditions, embrace the positive changes (yes, they do exist), mitigate the downsides as best we can. All of this stuff is easily verifiable.
I 100% endorse efforts to eliminate pollution from our environment - because it is the right thing to do. But this must be primarily a technology-led endeavour executed in a sustainable way.
It is interesting that those who dismiss my posts in their entirety as [insert profanity of choice] do not tackle any of the specific points outlined above. I wonder why not?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you suggest MAN could implement a better self-connection scheme? I guess they could charge a premium for an insurance based scheme (they put you up in a hotel and purchase new tickets), but how much extra would that cost per ticket?
You quote a time line of 20,000 years, and yet what we are actually seeing now is a rapid rise in temperature over a few decades.
Not one person is suggesting we get rid of all CO2 in the atmosphere. Where the hell did you get that idea?
As for your assertions that it's a cult, politically driven. What are you? Qanon's aviation correspondent?
I'll say it again, you are talking a load of spherical organs!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One the subject of Cargo ops...can anyone shed any light on what occurred with the plethora of UAE Air Force flights that graced the tarmac, over the last couple of weeks ??? I was informed that following the diversion we accepted of a C-17, they were that impressed that they stopped using EGPK and started using EGCC, next thing you know we were giving McChord a run for its money with visiting C-17's. Last week the chaps from the Middle East were rumoured to have asked about A330's and C-130's using EGCC, as well as the C-17. The system showed a further 8 or so flights, then someone got hold of Barry Scott, and bang they were gone. I have heard plenty of rumours as to whey they switched back to EGPK, but the main one that keeps rearing its head, is that EGCC told them to sling their hook, due to ramp space.
Allegedly.
Allegedly.