Cathay Pacific Bets Big on BioFuels

[Flex88]

Whatever happened to "The Way Ahead" ??
If anyone out there can even come close to telling me how this is "cost effective" at a time where every penny is being pinched - now is the time to make your stand.

If I've ever seen such a pack of "green" PR drivel I surely read it in todays SCMP. They must truly believe that everybody is stupid and can't do simple math and work with percentages.

This is one of the most condescending CX articles I have ever read regarding another BET that CX has made that will NEVER even come close to paying off. They already dumped a stack of money on this in 2014 and now their trying to justify this folly to the world at the same time they crying broke to investors and worldwide staff. They should be ashamed..

Jeff Ovens (CX's BioFuel Tzar) said "and the pricing we have is competitive with traditional fuels.”..... If anyone believes this BS I have land in Florida to sell you.

Another bet gone bad - who gets to pay...

[Farman Biplane]

We the workers and customers get to pay!

"Cathay Pacific Airways has pledged an 80 per cent cut in the amount of climate-changing gases some of its longest flights pump into the Earth’s atmosphere, by betting big on biofuels."

I don't see the competitor airlines pledging such a stance and trying to go "green", they are simply doing what CX should be doing, trying to stay profitable in a declining revenue environment!

Standby for another massive mark to market fuel loss in the next few years!

[Natca]

Wonder where your profit share or hkpa increase went? Its called hiding money/profits....

[SweepTheLeg]

Almost any alternative looks cheap when you're locked in to paying nearly $90/barrel...

[KABOY]

This Biofuels deal is a desperate attempt at reducing their fuel hedge f@#k up.

They have locked in a price per barrel which will be significantly less than their current hedge over the next few years.

And not only that, they will receive concessions for reducing their CO2 emissions on flights over certain countries, aka carbon tax.

Going green used to be about saving the planet from global warming, now it's about ways for companies to save money and maximise profits.

[Arfur Dent]

Oh PLEASE let the "Hedging Gurus" do the Biofuel deal. I just can't wait………

[Flex88]

Kaboy
Sorry to burst your bubble but there is no way in hell this ridiculous folly is going to "save money and maximize profits" that's just pure BS.
The only reason they are doing it is because of the 21st century's liberal need for corporations to "have an appearance of being green" It's just pure corporate PR boilerplate drivel.
Look at the info they gave in the article, do the math.
And just for fun - have this company say in a corporate news letter what the "into wing" cost will be. This is an expensive corporate indiscretion - no more...

[KABOY]

This is an expensive corporate indiscretion - no more...

You really think they can continue on this path..... I somehow don't think that can continue with these indiscretions

[onetrack]

Fulcrum Bioenergy do have an interesting approach to producing biofuel - producing it from organic waste which would normally go to expensive-to-operate landfills.
Fulcrum is rightly bragging about "zero-cost feedstock", which is a big factor in input costs.
Fulcrum is using current-technology waste treatment plant technology to produce their clean feedstock, and utilising heat generated during the treatment process to produce electricity, which again lowers treatment costs.

The clean gas feedstock is then fed into a standard Fischer-Tropsch process plant - the same plant used in a substantial number of gas-to-liquid refineries around the world.
The FT process was commercialised in 1936 and the Nazis used the process to produce a sizeable proportion of their liquid fuels from coal during WW2.

Fulcrum claims to be able to produce jet and diesel biofuel for around US$1.00 gallon. This is the crucial figure, and whether Fulcrum can actually achieve this production cost figure on a consistent basis is the $64 question.
There are very few biofuel producers that can produce biofuels at less cost than crude-oil sourced fuels, but Fulcrum does stand a modest chance of doing so.
One of the biggest unknown factors is whether the feedstock supply is adequate to produce substantial production levels of biofuel.

Biofuels Digest - Fulcrum claims low-cost biofuel (http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2015/02/23/fulcrum-bioenergy-biofuels-digests-2015-5-minute-guide/)

[Flex88]

OneTrack
Stop with the patronizing condescending "it can be done" BS. The process has been around forever, we're not stupid.
This is pure unadulterated CX "Green" PR propaganda garbage that is cutting further into CX employees "Non Existent" profit share.
They are blowing CX cash on a pie in the sky scheme when everybody else has been sent to check under the sofa cushions for lost coins. :yuk::yuk:

If it's "TIME TO WIN", according to Tom Owens "There will be an EVOLUTION of the strategy" then here is a good place to start. STOP wasting hard earned cash on Fu***** Pie in the Sky BS "Green" PR bull****.

[Shep69]

Good luck with that. Despite hundreds of billions in subsidies over the years, biofuels remain at best five times the cost of regular fuels at any meaningful production level.

I can come up with optimistic business models too. All kinds of them if you pay me :)

Out of concern over supplies, the US military has tried this experiment already on several occasions over several decades (cost being a secondary issue because it's taxpayer money after all). Result was the same; costs at least 5 times over what they could otherwise get under best conditions and sometimes orders of magnitude more. And the US has been continuing this boondoggle as well on a smaller scale with the ethanol mandate (a fraction of gasoline being spiked with ethanol--usually 10 percent or so); horrendously inefficient conversion cycle, higher crop prices (meaning higher food and feed prices), increased long term wear on fuel systems (many bios are hygroscopic and readily absorb water), no benefit whatsoever.

And for what ? We've repeatedly debunked the 'green' scam (where CO2 is somehow thought to be a pollutant which is isn't and somehow increases our planet's temperature--which it doesn't) on this very site. The '97' percenters being carefully chosen to be a small sample of 'scientists' who agree with the 'theory' (and NO scientist uses words like 'incontrovertable' or 'irrefutable' to try to shut others with different opinions and conclusions up).

When you can measure something with limited precision only to 1.1 , arguing whether it's 1.050069 or 1.050070 is meaningless. And ol' sol is just a big hydrogen campfire of sorts whose output does vary from time to time; any variation in that or orbital factors of the earth dwarf what anything manmade can do.

But Rutan says it better than I can

http://burtrutan.com/downloads/EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4o3.pdf

His charts are prettier too...

So the 'green' scam has simply been to line folks' pockets and make up a tax scheme to tax energy (no matter how clean you burn a hydrocarbon you ALWAYS get CO2 and water--it's tough for a rabid green to argue against more fresh water so they target carbon which has the added psychological effect of people thinking 'dirty' rather than 'diamonds.'). And there's no shortage of cases of models that don't work or even faking data so they kinda work--for a while. When you tie in funding with making 'scientific' conclusions and an ability of governments to get more money through taxes on the seemingly well off you get a very unholy alliance.

The planet do what she do. We can make it locally junky for a time period (with REAL pollutants--which is the place that efforts to fix things should be targeted toward) but even these wash away in a relatively short time by terrestrial standards.

Any form of energy has externalities. I just hope folks aren't spending too much money making themselves feel good about themselves for no scientific rational reason. But maybe if they feel good that's good enough (just don't spend MY money as a part of it).

I do hope this works; most of history so far says it won't. Will the human race run out of fossils some day ? Sure. But we've never run out of energy sources. Best to spend the money on making our own little suns rather than something based on a myth I think.

But best of luck !

[Curtain rod]

Let me guess: Guns don't kill people, people kill people...

[DropKnee]

Let me guess: Guns don't kill people, people kill people...

Now your figuring out👍

[cxorcist]

Let me guess: Guns don't kill people, people kill people...

Knives kill people too, or hadn't you noticed (UK). Should we outlaw "assault" knives too? What about about the Viking axes then? Those things are lethal. A pencil to the eye can be dangerous as well. Maybe we should all just stay home indefinitely until the government legislates cradle to grave "safety", to include those pesky CO2 molecules. Or maybe, we can decide for ourselves what's safe or unsafe and the rest of y'all can drink a big cup of Shut the Fxxx Up!

[Tea time]

I don't know , there is so much gutter oil floating around HK from restaurants.
if CX was driving bowsers around to collect it for free or levying a small charge they could convert that to bio jet fuel as well .Win Win for everyone.

[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:

Knives kill people too... :ugh:
"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.

Maybe we should all just stay home indefinitely... :ugh:
"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. :sad:

[Shep69]

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:

:ugh:
"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.

:ugh:
"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. :sad:

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.

[Curtain rod]

Not surprising, of course...

:ugh:

[Yonosoy Marinero]

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

Sure...

The correlation between the rise in CO2 levels and the global temperature rise is widely acknowledged by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

Now, you can entrench yourself behind the disagreement that some have over the magnitude and consequences of said warming, or the exaggerations of those who tell fifth hand accounts of scientific reports for the advancement of their own agendas, but if you cut through the crap from both sides of the argument and listen to what basically all of those who follow scientific reasoning and who have spent a significant proportion of their career studying the subject have to say, then the only debate is what to do about it...

On your side, those of the 'Trump' cult who'd rather disregard every fact that doesn't suit them and keep doing what we do since it keeps snowing in January anyway so how bad can it be?..

On the other extreme, there's the eco-freaks who say we should go back and live as cavemen so as to stop any further harm to mother Gaia.

And in the middle, there's all the rational people who are trying to debate how to best deal with it and find compromises between reducing the pace of the warming, weathering its effects and still accommodating global population and economic growth amid the already evident signs of increased weather-related macroeconomic and humanitarian hardship.

But it's easier to just stick your head in the sand, right?

Now, I don't believe for a second that CX or any other airline are dipping their toes in the alternative fuel pool for the sake of the planet. They couldn't give a damn about that.
They're after a source of sustainable fuel in a time when oil is falling out of favor and, more importantly, one which is not dependent on wild market fluctuations. CX have shown us how inept they are at dealing with that.

It's not the stupidest thing they've done (which isn't saying much) but don't believe for a second that they're any sort of pioneers in the field. This is pure PR.
CX, as usual, will only properly venture into using bio fuels when every other airline has cleared the way and proven it to be a viable solution, and then they'll still find a way to mess it up.

[onetrack]

Bottom line is, the fuel and energy market is continually becoming more fractured with a wider range of energy choices, as end-users seek to become substantially less dependent on one fuel type, primarily sourced from several unstable areas, largely run by groups who are intent on continually shafting those end-users with price-fixing/output restrictions.

I believe it's very important that attempts to produce alternative fuels at economic costs, are funded and encouraged.
Global Corporations unfortunately are not the best people to be funding these attempts, as they are always self-serving, and rarely in the best interests of the man in the street.

As for Global Warming/CO2 measurements, calculations and projections, I consider that any attempt to measure and project climate accurately is doomed to failure as the inputs into climate are so multiple and so varied - and the effects of those inputs are invariably pondered over, as to their individual strengths - that not even all the worlds scientists working 70 hrs a week with unlimited funding, would be able to measure all those inputs precisely.
At best, those inputs are "calculated", and that is where the GW/CO2 true believers are treading on swampy ground.

Finally, it is extreme scientific arrogance to be able to claim full knowledge about climate changes, merely by measuring (often with local inaccuracies) weather and climate conditions over a period of less than a lifetime, when climate has been in existence for billions of years.

This is the equivalent of trying to fully explain a nations air network and systems by microscopically examining one small stone in runway surfacing.

[cxorcist]

We will all be long dead... and the oceans will have risen no more than a few millimeters, and the temps globally will have changed less than 1 degree. Some places will get warmer while others cool. Do I give a crap? Not really, I refuse to endorse turning the global economy on its head over all this uncertainty. With all the problems in the world, we have much bigger fish to fry. There is one rogue nation and the largest state sponsor of terrorism test launching ballistic missiles and developing nuclear weapons. FFS, you might want to concern yourself with that over climate change. Duh!

If you think CO2 levels are so important, lead by example and refuse to make your living flying around in high altitude carbon emitters. After all, if no one would pilot airliners, the earth could reduce carbon emissions by a whopping 3-4% and still have almost no effect on climate change, which is more than any of these ridiculous climate accords are proposing.

This is all about government controlled income redistribution. The fix is in, and all the money is behind one side, except for those evil oil companies who keep the buildings warm, the lights on, and the transporters moving. How dare they make a profit! Corporate pigs!

Sorry, but I've got kids to raise and a retirement to plan for, this doesn't even crack the top 20 for my list of concerns. If it is high on your list, fine, but leave me out of it. I don't want to pay a single penny to this crackpot science which admits it cannot "fix the problem" without sending us all back to living in cold, dark caves where we won't even be allowed to light a wood fire for fear of the dreaded CO2 molecule. Oh btw, you might find one of those nasty assault rifles handy if you are living in that cave someday.

Now back to your cup of stfu!

[Yonosoy Marinero]

Finally, it is extreme scientific arrogance to be able to claim full knowledge about climate changes, merely by measuring (often with local inaccuracies) weather and climate conditions over a period of less than a lifetime, when climate has been in existence for billions of years.

Hmm. Scientists are not arrogant (the good ones). They publish their findings and subject them to peer review. Not all their peers are going to agree, but in the long run, large amounts of data and studies do indicate trends and consolidate beliefs.
The fact that many of us are uneducated on the subject doesn't mean that we should not believe what they say just because we don't like what they say, albeit it is a very primal reaction to just dismiss and deny things we don't want to be true. Nor should we ignore the underlying message because they do not all agree on the details.


And while there is disagreement on the projected effects of global warming, there is a consensus that the effect will be damaging. Just how much is what's still being debated.
The more data there is, the better the guess becomes.

But even if you're an optimist, if you have been told that you might have cancer and that it could be caused by your smoking, would you wait until it's confirmed to try to quit?


Weather data has been collected for more than a lifetime. Accurate data has been recorded for over a century. No matter how deep you want to delve into the debate, the deniers don't seem to want to offer an alternate explanation for the sharp rise in temperatures since the beginning of the industrial era about 70 years ago, nor do they want to explain the linear correlation between such increase and the increase in atmospheric CO2. Coincidence maybe?
The frequency and magnitude of severe weather events is also higher than ever recorded.

We will all be long dead... and the oceans will have risen no more than a few millimeters, and the temps globally will have changed less than 1 degree.

The oceans are rising at around 1/8 inch every year. That's over 3mm.
The average global temperatures have risen by 0.8°C since I was born. With any luck, I can expect to live the same amount of time again and, extrapolating the current rate of increase, they will have risen to over 1.5°C by the time I kick the bucket.

There is one rogue nation and the largest state sponsor of terrorism test launching ballistic missiles and developing nuclear weapons.

When did Saudi Arabia launch a ballistic missile?

except for those evil oil companies who keep the buildings warm, the lights on, and the transporters moving. How dare they make a profit! Corporate pigs!

A staunch defender of corporate lobbies, I see. I find it a bit rich when you take every opportunity to point out how greedy and self-interested your own employers are.
But otherwise, I'm sure Trump has a valid reason for defunding climate research and erasing all the climate data. He probably just needs more space to store his tweets. He's "like, a really smart person" after all.

I don't want to pay a single penny to this crackpot science which admits it cannot "fix the problem" without sending us all back to living in cold, dark caves where we won't even be allowed to light a wood fire for fear of the dreaded CO2 molecule.

you will pay plenty of pennies because of global warming, and so will your kids. Whether you believe in it or not, the macro economic and social repercussions of global warming will be borne by a vast majority of the World population. Starting with the around 40% that lives near the coast where the initial nefarious effects are staring to be felt.

Oh, and if you bothered to look into it a little, no one but a few hard core hippies is seriously considering a solution that curtails global economic growth and prevents you from living with all the comforts you currently enjoy. It's all about solutions which favor sustainability, efficiency or the diversification of energy sources. If anything, they create potential for economic growth and a fairer distribution of resouces rather than the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few who control the global energy reserves and would like it to stay that way.
That said, I'm sure you love to see the Sauds fly around in their gold plated private jumbo jets. They deserve it after all, and it's not like some of that money funds terror groups... No, that's only Iran, right?
And it's perfectly fine to have an Oil tycoon head the US foreign affairs. I'm sure it's because he's so good at international diplomacy and nothing else.

Your rhetoric is indicative of your understanding of the issue and your level of progressive and inquisitive thinking. You bring nothing to the debate other than your unshakable belief that it's all false because you say so and want so. Facts are so yesterday.

But whatever floats your boat. It's all a conspiracy. Fake news. Hail Trump. Believe him and no one else. He says it like it is. He is the messiah.

:hmm:

[Trafalgar]

The worlds average temperature has been falling for almost 20 years. The global warming cabal has doctored temp evidence (proven) and when that is taken out of the statistics, there, again, has been no warming. The worlds oceans are not rising. There has been record arctic ice for the pastd two years. The global warming crowd are for the most part the same liberal, power hungry group of elites that use the quasi-religion that is 'global warming' as yet another method to dictate to the masses, and tax and profit from them at the same time (...and just a bunch of hippies?....really. The head of the UN environmental group admitted this week that their 'goal' is to change our system of economic freedom). Even with our 'best' efforts, we could only effect the global temp about 1/10th of 1 degree C, at the cost of trillions of $$$. Mankind would benefit far more if that was dedicated to eradicating disease. And btw YM, it's always the same...say it's to 'save the children'. I'm sick of the entire lot of you. If you want to 'save the planet', then YOU can start by selling your car, stop flying an airplane and contributing YOUR income voluntarily to the 'cause'. Stay out of my pocket. Thank you.

[onetrack]

Weather data has been collected for more than a lifetime. Accurate data has been recorded for over a century. No matter how deep you want to delve into the debate, the deniers don't seem to want to offer an alternate explanation for the sharp rise in temperatures since the beginning of the industrial era about 70 years ago, nor do they want to explain the linear correlation between such increase and the increase in atmospheric CO2. Coincidence maybe?
The frequency and magnitude of severe weather events is also higher than ever recorded.

1. And just how long is a century in terms of global ages and climate variations?

2. The Industrial Revolution is generally regarded as having started in the early 1800's, not just 70 years ago. Pollution from coal-burning was widespread and highly visible in cities such as London by the late 1800's.

3. The frequency and magnitude of weather events is reflected in the flood and drought events. We have flood and drought events measured in terms of;

1 in 20 year flood or drought events
1 in 50 year flood or drought events
1 in 100 year flood or drought events
1 in 200 year flood or drought events
1 in 500 year flood or drought events

These flood or drought events are recorded in flood heights, or lack of rainfall, and recognised by every authority from planning authorities, to agricultural authorities, to building authorities, and even recognised by scientists.

If these regular, extreme flood and drought events are recognised, why doesn't the GW/CO2 fraternity recognise and acknowledge that extreme climate events are linked to these flood and drought events?

The greatest heatwave in Western Australia happened during 1933, during the Great Depression (1929-1933), a period of the least industrial and human activity in the Nation.
Industrial activity in Australia was running at 1/3rd of the level of industrial activity prior to 1929, during 1933.
The heatwave records created during the 1933 W.A. heatwave have not yet been broken.

[Eyes only]

If CX is betting big on something related to fuel, one could bet the rest of the industry will be doing the exact opposite. Yet again they look for the most expensive fuel they can buy.

A certain large US operator has its own oil refinery, they posts ed massive profits (and large staff bonuses).

[Shep69]

It's a typical reaction from the smug, self-serving elitists that us knuckle dragging plebeians 'just don't get it' and are far too stupid to analyze what these smart 'scientists' are doing. And we simply turn our back on the so-called 'science.'

When exactly the opposite is true. Many of us DO come from scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical modeling backgrounds. And understand when there might be a rational basis for regulation and when there isn't. Which makes things worse in that we see what a deliberate lie it is. Many of us HAVE actually looked at the models, the adsorption spectra of carbon, the ability of the earth to re-radiate absorbed electromagnetic radiation in the IR bands, the concentration variation of CO2 over the (recorded) years (as well as have analyzed the tolerances in dating samples from the past as well as radiocarbon dating tolerances in general). Many of us do understand that no orbit is completely stable, the sun's mass does change as it converts matter to energy (resulting in varying gravitational pull), and see that figuring out what the solar constant does to four significant figures is a relatively recent development.

And many of us remember when only several decades ago the entire computing capacity of a nations' air defense system was a small fraction of the computing power of the computer these very words are being typed on. And when electron tubes ruled the day with analog computers and (by today's standards) very imprecise recorded measurements of anything.

And when fierce tornadoes and storms attacked sparsely populated areas without anyone knowing anything about it--or when they did they read it by newspaper several days later and didn't see radar images at all or even primitive video of it. When there was a whole bunch of space with a whole bunch of nothing and no one there to figure out WHAT the temperature might be--and even if someone did go out to write it down from time to time it was a guy with a mercury thermometer with a printed scale (of varying quality) on the side and a watch that ticked. Perhaps even using a real honest to goodness map and compass to figure out where he or she kinda was.

This is just within the last half-century; far too fast to rate even a blink of an eye in the history of humans walking the planet. Even less so compared to what the earth has done over her entire history where humankind itself is a short blink of its history so far.

We understand rates of change as well as understand what the earth has done through recorded history--and that is a very small fraction by terrestrial standards of what we really know.

We understand that CO2 levels might tend to follow median earth temperature (within the tolerances of us being able to actually date it which are quite wide to begin with and get wider the further back we go). And that 'tend to follow' does not imply a cause and effect relationship any more than someone putting their car in their garage causes it to rain outside.

We understand how glaciers covered (and carved out beautiful scenery) where some of us now live with the green grass a growing. All without any human interference whatsoever.

And that so-called 'science' has been wrong, politicized, and has sometimes even lied to populations throughout history (with noble or nefarious intent) in order to manipulate groups of people. Usually for the gain of a few self-proclaimed mortal saviors.

And that NO true scientist uses words like 'settled science,' 'irrefutable,' 'incontrovertible' and the like to try to browbeat those with opposite ideas in order to shut them up. True scientists realize the limitations of their modeling, that they don't know what they don't know, and realize they might be wrong--embracing those who might challenge their conclusions and have other ideas.

Which is exactly the opposite of what the so-called scientists, parrots, and politicians propagating the global warming myth have done.

Is it good to pursue other forms of energy ? Of course. But gas stations, oil refineries, and pipelines grew up as the demand for oil increased--funded by the folks who wanted to drive their car or airplane from where they were to where they weren't. Not from bazillion dollar boondoggles fueled by regulation, restriction, and taxpayer dough.

'Green' energy is a myth; ALL sources of energy 'pollute' in some way--with beauty being in the eye of the beholder as to whether a wind farm or coal power plant looks better. The ONE objective standard is cost which usually determines the best form of energy to be used at the time.

And maybe I'd listen maybe a little harder to the parrots when they'd stop flying their bizjets with their carbon guzzling entourage to the vital environmental conference they just have to attend--burning well more energy in the process than my family will use over the next decade--because they think they are the important ones and get to tell everyone else how to live.

[Curtain rod]

The spin, myths, unfounded nonsense, doublespeak and logical fallacies are now officially off the charts...:rolleyes:

This is just like talking about religion with those believing in imaginary stuff wholeheartedly and don't want or need any valid evidence at all, while ignoring all the opposing evidence and employing as many logical fallacies as possible to maintain their beliefs. :ugh:

Just like I don't spend time looking for Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Osiris or Jesus, I've shifted my focus onto finding out why otherwise smart people, such as Shep, cxorcist, Traf and others, so easily reject science that doesn't fit their received opinions - which, like religion, are largely based on the accident of birth (nationality/religion/parents/location) rather than the actual facts of science.

When there is a genuine scientific consensus about an issue, and no valid scientific controversy, why do people simultaneously (a) say they believe in science and (b) continue to disagree about the facts? It turns out that both sides of the argument do the same thing most of the time (basically, confirmation bias) but that is only about their personal opinions: The scientific facts are still true (and always improving and evolving). Even Charles Darwin, for religious reasons, tried as hard as humanly possible to find an alternative explanation for all the evidence of evolution that he collected for so many years all around the world, but there was and still is only one valid, observable, verifiable, non-supernatural explanation. And, there is no valid scientific controversy about this either.

Meanwhile, I'm going to rely on pilots to fly the airplanes and climate scientists to determine what's going on with the planet. :)

Further reading about how personalities work? Liked this explanation, from Why Smart People Deny Climate Change: http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/why-smart-people-deny-climate-change

"Americans tend to clump into two groups on this measure, one hierarchical-individualistic (let people alone and respect authority) and the other egalitarian-communitarian (reduce inequality and look out for the good of society). And it turned out that this measure of value was a much stronger predictor of concern about global warming than was scientific literacy or reasoning skill. Egalitarian-communalists were far more worried about global warming, and a better score on the science competence tests in their group correlated with slightly greater concern. But among the hierarchical-individualists, there was a stronger link between scientific literacy and less concern. That was what was responsible for the overall group result. (Hierachical-individualists were also a great deal less concerned about nuclear power than were egalitarian-communalists.)

Now, these results are a problem for the Enlightenment-era, rationalist model of politics, in which people weigh arguments according to standards of logic and evidence. In real life, people generally do that only when they have to—when, for example, it's required by their jobs.
For those who have to deal with it professionally, after all, climate change isn't in dispute. Agriculture experts, epidemiologists, disaster preparedness teams, civil engineers, military planners and the like can no more deny the state of the climate than an astronaut could believe in a Flat Earth."

[mngmt mole]

CR. Whether you will ever come to terms with it, human beings are created with a yearning need to be spiritually fulfilled. That 'hole' in someones soul is designed to be only properly filled by the God who created us. Human beings spend their lives looking for that 'fulfillment'. In your (and many other liberals) case, you fill that emptiness with a substitute 'religion': global warming, or 'climate change'. You need something (and don't deny it, you come on here frequently and vociferously attacking religion), without you realising the irony that your religion is only another form of the need to be 'spiritually' fulfilled. btw, your dismissive attitude towards the considered belief of others, which suggests your own sense of intellectual superiority is ample evidence of why you seem so blinded to the voice of God. "None is so blind as one who will not see". You would do well to continue considering why other of your equally educated and intelligent colleagues feel differently about this subject.

[Curtain rod]

Not surprising, again: One must have a "hole" that "needs" to be filled because one rely upon valid evidence instead of junk science, ancient fairy tales, dreams, voices in my head or what my parents taught me to believe.

It has been well argued for a long time that this "need" to believe in silent, invisible, impotent, mythological characters, that many people "yearn" for, is just a side effect of evolution, just like every new Windows edition has its viruses too. Just because some people yearn for something does not make that thing true, real or right. Evidence makes things true, real and right. You recall may there was a time, just a little while ago in geological terms, that people yearned for Apollo, Thor, Mars, etc., and those yearned-for beliefs and gods came with burning at the stake, animal and human sacrifice, forced conversions, forced circumcisions, lifetime bans on divorce, subjugation of females - oh wait, a few of those still go on today - while "western" Judaism and Christianity came with everything in the Old Testament, too.

Arguing in support of valid scientific education and knowledge is not a religion (look it up yourself, if needed) and while it may be personally fulfilling to "convert" an ignorant or brainwashed individual back to reality (many friends have eventually let go of their Bronze Age nonsense) it certainly isn't "spiritually" fulfilling.

I've come up with a better analogy: Discussing and/or debating with global warming deniers is like talking to Scientologists. Everyone knows they are completely crazy and brainwashed except themselves, and they just keep on believing and defending their ridiculous position because its their position they believe, since they yearned for something and think they've found it. They may feel very fulfilled with their crazy talk and beliefs - but that doesn't make what they found to be true, real or right.

Right, so global warming is a myth.....and oil burning is good for the planet....and CO2 is not a problem....and deforestation is OK.....and melting icecaps and glaciers are a hoax......and all of this is natural with no human cause.....right! Got it, so let's just press on, then!

[Trafalgar]

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html)


CR....let's stick to CX issues, and try and not comment on how you are obviously so intellectually superior to the rest of us, because you personally have concluded there is no God, so therefore the rest of us that disagree must either be crazy/retarded/easily led...etc, etc. A review of most of your commentary over the years shows the same disturbing tendency to denigrate the intelligence and judgement of those that believe differently than you do. I'll continue to trust, believe and put faith in my God. You can choose to rail against him or deny his existence. Ultimately, one of us will be proved correct....

btw, why do you regularly insist on going down this route? Your comments on most things are intelligent, thoughtful and well expressed. Until you turn your gaze on those that have concluded that the universe is structured differently than you perceive it to be. I find common cause with the company issues that you express, I just find it sad that you have such a blind spot as to your attitude and opinion towards those that have concluded their existence is based on a different reality than yours. Be well.

[positionalpor]

CR,
you are undoubtedly confused about the subject of God if you affirm such things.
Valid scientific data? The same data that change every decade or so? Hmm

[Curtain rod]

To answer your questions...

Traf: Because unfounded superstition and belief in the unverifiable supernatural, with a total disregard for valid evidence and logic, is the root of all evil, it's always influencing everything, and it's all around us every day.
(For you, some rhetorical questions - please don't answer: Which of the many did you choose? How do you know it shouldn't have been another? Do you respect the intelligence and judgment of those with different beliefs and realities than yours who flew planes on 9/11/conducted Crusades/led the well-organized prevention of prosecutions of Catholic priest pedophiles? All the above trusted, believed and had faith too.)

positionalpor: "Valid scientific data" means data continually evolves and is subject to revision, by qualified professionals, based on new evidence that is revealed through observation, discovery and experimentation verifiable by anyone anywhere (that is the whole foundation of science vs. magic/superstition/god did it), not through unverifiable texts or supposed dreams and voices heard about invisible, silent, supernatural things.
(Rhetorical for you: Which god am I confused about? Are you confused about Vishnu vs. Allah vs. Mercury vs. any other, or you just dismiss all of them but yours but others can't dismiss yours? Which scientific data changes every decade? The melting point of iron? Or did you mean the evolving hypotheses and/or theses based on the ever-evolving data because some things change over time, like CO2 levels in the atmosphere? And does that mean conclusions should never evolve as knowledge evolves - religion style?)

I still wonder why people aren't happy when they find out when they were wrong and can see the evidence for themselves for the way forward, like scientists do all the time (revising science continuously with new evidence, getting smarter and better rather than holding onto the past), and everyone is free to present contradictory, valid evidence and/or conclusions anytime - for open review.

[DropKnee]

I got lost on the whole idea when governments started extorting money from the people to pay for all their wacky ideas about the climate. Maybe its the 6 billion plus people on the planet. Half of which contribute nothing to the human race. Should we eliminate them in the name of the holy church of climitology? That would help, no?
Otherwise you nanny finger wagers. Mind your own dam business. When I see you resign from your jet job. Than I will maybe consider that you are serious about the climate. Until than, hypocrisy is on display here.

[positionalpor]

CR, keep on wondering.......