Getting Ready

[Toe Knee Tiler]

An employer in the region has published this.

Getting Ready for Direction Setting for 2018

We all have a role to play in transforming our business and having clear, informed goals and a development plan for the year ahead will help contribute to our success. We will start the 2018 Performance Management cycle for ground staff employees from Tuesday 9 January (The Region and Outports).

The Direction Setting should be completed by Friday 16 February 2018. During this six-week period, employees should meet with their direct appraisers to discuss expectations (including goals and competencies), career aspirations and development plans for 2018 and record these in the Performance Platform.


The last time I saw a similar approach to this was in 1975.

A friend of mine was working for a company, that used this 43 years ago, and duly gave all of the information, as requested, that ended up in being terminated as "No longer required"

Be very careful ground staff.

[mngmt mole]

Usual soulless corporate-speak. The term 'ground staff' is a clue that it's probably CX. Love the bit, 'help contribute to our success'. What they mean is 'contribute to the managers success'. The company dies little by little each day.

[Flex88]

Yup, probably the same company that apparently have envisioned the (get this) "Our Sustainable Development Cargo Carriage Policy has now been published"

Please enlighten us eager, stupid, dense commoners how floging cargo around the world in a jumbo aircraft that burns 8 tons of kerosene an hour is SUSTAINABLE ?

But then if THEY say so THEY must be correct yes ?

Someone please say this garbage aint so..

[cxorcist]

... try 10 tonnes an hour. 8 tonnes if the plane is empty. 12+ at TOC following MTOW!

As for sustainable, I don’t think the earth will be running out of oil anytime soon. If it’s carbon emissions that are of concern, look back through the annals of history and see how carbon ppm now compares to times long ago. Also, note that airliner traffic contributes very little to the total amount of global carbon emissions.

[Air Profit]

Sadly, many of our colleagues buy into the 'global warming/climate change' rubbish. Meanwhile, most of North America is heading into the early stages of the next Ice Age. :ugh:

[Captain Dart]

'Virtue Signalling' is a must-do for most organisations these days. Just following the herd.

[cxorcist]

No better than “everyone else is doing it” so we will too. Nothing great was ever accomplished with that mindset. Oh btw, doesn’t CX have bigger fish to fry at this point? Just a bunch of feel-good, happy horse manure.

[Average Fool]

Direction setting?

Sewing the head back on the chicken ain't gonna make it fly.

[hkgcanuck]

Sadly, many of our colleagues buy into the 'global warming/climate change' rubbish. Meanwhile, most of North America is heading into the early stages of the next Ice Age. :ugh:

Yeah, how odd that some people believe the scientists who have devoted their lives to studying this type of thing.

[Trafalgar]

Oh, you mean those scientists who faked reams of data, outright changed data (do we need to mention the infamous 'hockey stick'?), and who mostly have seen that the liberal left have turned it into their 'religion', with of course coerced tax payer funded research grants to underwrite it all. How's your temperatures in Calgary and Toronto this week...? :ooh:

And how do you explain the many eminent scientists who say the complete opposite?

[Air Profit]

...and don't forget all that industrial CO2 in the middle ages that caused temperatures to be even warmer then than they are now.....oh, wait... :rolleyes:

[Curtain rod]

Traf/AP, I'm not expert, and the media is continuously full of junk science and fake news, but you should probably also read about that single incident of semi-manipulated stuff you mentioned (the hockey stick scandal thing), that came from 1 source, was quickly debunked and dismissed, and did not affect the other zillion sets of data, experiments, conclusions and predictions made based on the worldwide body of evidence, and the media went with cherry picked email comments between a couple of guys that were also misinterpreted and taken out of context. The conspiracy nuts also cherry pick and manipulate to suit their causes, and assume that scientists can't tell the difference between valid data, valid evidence, and the probably of the accuracy of their hypotheses, and BS/mistakes/fake science/junk science/advertizing/nonsense.

So far, science and the scientific method has done pretty well compared to leeches and praying and incense, no? Antibiotics, GPS, jet engines, hip replacements, HIV drugs, evolution, penicillin, electricity, relativity, mapping DNA, x-rays.....how about we fly the planes and let the scientists build them, and sort out wtf human activity is (probably) doing to the environment and wtf we (probably) should be doing about it.....

Climate study, like weather forecasting, is not perfect, and neither is medicine.....but do you go to a doctor when you need surgery, or just do it yourself? Yes, there are politics and money and corruption involved - just like health care and everything else. But in the end, science, which is always discovering, is open-sources, and assumes nothing is known for sure, always prevails...and junk science is always debunked.

All it takes is a quick read of 1 company email to know how easily any information can be biased. Believing in a worldwide, all-encompassing conspiracy about climate is pretty whacky. But that is not to say the "news" isn't full of complete baloney that drives scientists nuts, and quoted and much-distributed (by social media and new media) "studies" are rarely ever actually proper scientific evidence at all - just today's headline to sell ads. There is a supposed "study" - aka fake news - concluding everything and anything you want it to say. But that's just junk science and the real scientific consensus just ignores the people and conclusions that are not validated by the open-source system of science, the same way you ignore the Wednesday emails.

There are 1000's of incorrect beliefs not supported by science, and there are corrupt and bad scientists too, but science itself, as with health care for example, moves forward as a whole and has always progressed in the right direction, despite setbacks errors, bad people, money, etc...

It's fine to be a skeptic, but to be an armchair layman criticizing things like this takes more than some links to web sites that can say anything, post anything, manipulate anything, cherry pick anything and broadcast whatever they want to billions with zero credibility, consensus or foundation in science or reality....but people do love to latch onto this and FB the crap out of it all!

Alternatively, you can go with a common sense way of sorting out the facts from the fluff, which has a similar parallel at out work that you will surely notice, perhaps: If Donald Trump says it's true, then you know it probably isn't!

[mngmt mole]

CR, I really don't think anyone needs another extended debate on the issue, but I think as the years go by, it is becoming more evident by the day that there has been plenty of fraudulent science behind the GW debate, and even more to the point, I only have to look out the window in the hotel in Chicago to see that GW is probably not going to be a problem for a while yet. And as AP just mentioned, it was warmer in the Middle Ages, and i'm fairly confident in stating that there weren't too many cars around. :rolleyes:

[Lions Gate]

Something that never seems to get asked: who's to say what the 'correct' global temp should be? Maybe we will be better off if it gets warmer. Regardless, after they GW loonies get to spend their trillions in tax dollars and totally turn society upside down, they claim the total 'possible' change to average yearly temperatures will be 1/10 of one degree Celsius. I kid you not. Heaven forbid we spend a trillion dollars helping cure disease...i'm sure that wouldn't be a better way to apply the dollars. :/

[Freehills]

Pah - Curtain Rod. Next you will be telling us helicopters fly using the same principles of lift as normal aircraft when we all know it is just because they are so ugly the very earth repels them.

It is interesting how both the left & right have their own woo-woo. Left tends to homeopathy, crystals & anti-vaxx, Right tends to be creationism, anti-global warming & faith healing.

[Shep69]

I find it incredibly ironic that folks who mistrust our management based on words and demonstrated actions somehow place their blind trust in so-called 'scientists' and politicians whose track record (and degree of principle) is even worse. And whose 'bonuses' in the deal far exceed what anyone working here might get.

FWIW, NO true scientist uses words like 'incontrovertible' or 'irrefutable' when dealing with any model which has great tolerance in its data sources. And great sensitivity to minute data inputs far below what can actually be measured over time. The earth do what she do.

George Carlin of all people had remarkable insight into this and was actually funny in the process.

But we've beaten the man-made global warming myth to death here.

[hkgcanuck]

Reading this thread is seriously depressing. Thankfully it doesn't matter what you guys think, science is right whether you believe it or not.

As pilots, it is so obvious to us that reporters and non-industry people don't have a clue what they're talking about when aviation is the topic of discussion, and yet so many of you fall for the BS that climate change deniers spew without critically thinking. It's embarrassing, really.

[Curtain rod]

Well, first off, natural ice ages/natural climate changes/weather out your window have nothing to do with the man-made CO2 issue and its current and future effect on the planet.

The fundamental question today is whether human activity that causes greenhouse gases is causing an unnatural global warming or not. Scientifically educated people who examine this stuff, from all over the world, with different biases and different politics and different agendas and different sources of money and every other variable, have reached an overwhelming consensus based on 1000's of investigations and experiments (not a few corrupt and invalid ones), and after years of school and work using mathematics that most of us don't even know exists, they conclude with the body of evidence that almost surely human activity is vastly accelerating global warming and waiting longer before doing something about it is a very bad bet. They also know about ice ages and weather and all the other stuff to take into consideration when producing hypotheses, don't you think that's the whole point of science?

And, by the way, the industrial age (and the industrialized meat industry) came long after the Middle Ages. Anectodal stories about other times when it was hotter have nothing to do with the problem being addressed by those who understand these things.

How come nobody complains about how corrupt and stupid and foolish scientists are (even with their actual errors along the way) when they use the same process of investigation, discovery, experimentation and validation to figure out how to cure diseases, or get to the moon, or repair birth defects, or make better cars and planes and engines and computers and satellites and drugs and bomb detectors and tissue regeneration and contraceptives and MRI machines?

[hkgcanuck]

THANK YOU, Curtain. A voice of reason. I guess in the end though you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't use reasoning to arrive at in the first place.

[Steve the Pirate]

I agree with Curtain rod on this.

I only have to look out the window in the hotel in Chicago to see that GW is probably not going to be a problem for a while yet

mole, seriously? I assume that your reference to global warming is tongue in cheek (hence the :cool: emoji I guess?) as the correct term, as I'm sure you're aware, is climate change. Anthropogenic influences, e.g. greenhouse gas emissions, are contributing to air and sea temperature increase and the resultant changes in climate are there for us all to see; increased frequency of extreme weather-related events, such as heat waves, cold spells, destructive storms and floods, to name but a few.

[mngmt mole]

Good grief. They changed the term to 'climate change' because they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar with fake data regarding 'global warming' (the world has actually been cooling the past 18 yrs....oops!). As far as 'deniers', I suppose you mean the many notable scientists who state the complete opposite of the GW crowd. The facts are, there is nothing much we can do either way, but spending trillions of dollars and turning your economy upside down to save 1/10 of one degree...seriously, does anyone think that make sense? The latest one they came out with yesterday was the best yet: that arctic ice melting is crushing the sea floor (seriously!). And I thought our management were full of :mad:....

[mngmt mole]

Water pouring off melting ice sheets making oceans heavier | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5228641/Earths-melting-ice-sheets-SQUASHING-Earth.html)

(for a real laugh and to appreciate the absurdity, read the reader comments after the article. Sums it up perfectly)

[mngmt mole]

You really can't make this stuff up...!

[mngmt mole]

And my favourite: America is colder than Mars (yes, really...but Al Gore says global warming is happening...) Quote from the article: "And in Hartford, Connecticut, a brutal cold of 10 degrees yielded a wind chill of minus 20. Weather experts say that Mount Washington in New Hampshire could hit -100f with wind chill - colder than the surface of Mars".

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5241909/Northeast-shivers-deadly-cold.html#ixzz53ezLEx69
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


NYC prepares for record breaking deep freeze | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5241909/Northeast-shivers-deadly-cold.html)

[mngmt mole]

STP, there has been violent weather throughout recorded history. Please, stop with the 'sky is falling' alarmism. Nothing mankind can or will do will make a dot of difference. The only thing this is about is political power and MONEY. End of. You and I will be seeing hot wx and cold wx when we are in our dotage. Just as it's always been.

[hkgcanuck]

It sounds like mole thinks that weather is climate, thus his confusion.

Mole, please name a reputable scientist with peer reviewed work that backs your claims. I'm interested to read.

[mngmt mole]

James Lovelock. Next....

[mngmt mole]

aka, the "Godfather of Global Warming". Until he realised that it wasn't

[mngmt mole]

...and had the courage and integrity to say so.

[mngmt mole]

hkcanuck. Since you asked...

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[25][26][27][28]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[29][30]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[31]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[32][33]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[34][35][36][37]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44]
Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[45][46]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[47][48][49]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[50][51]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[52][53]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[54][55]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[56][57][58][59]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[60][61]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[62][63]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[64][65]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[66][67]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[68][69]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[70][71]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[72]

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[73][74]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[75][76][77]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[78][79][80]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[81][82]
Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[83]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[84][85]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[86][87]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[88][89]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[90][91]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[92][93]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[94][95]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[96][97]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[98][99]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[100][101]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[102][103]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[104][105]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[106][107]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[108][109]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[110][111]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[112][113][114]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[115][116]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[117][118]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[119][120][121][122]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[123][124]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[125][126]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[127][128]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[129][130]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[131][132]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[133][134]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[135][136]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[137][138]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[139][140]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[141][142][143]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[144][145]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[146][147]
Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane Research Division.[148][149]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[150][151]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[152][153]
Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[154][155][156]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[157][158]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[159][160][161]
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[162][163]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[164][165]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[166][167]

Deceased scientists

These scientists have published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[168][169]
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[170][171]
Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[172][173]
William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[174][175]
Yuri Izrael (1930-2014), former Chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former Director, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); Vice-Chairman of IPCC, 2001-2007.[176][177][178]
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[179][180][181]
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[182][183]
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[184][185][186]

See also

[Shep69]

STP, there has been violent weather throughout recorded history. Please, stop with the 'sky is falling' alarmism. Nothing mankind can or will do will make a dot of difference. The only thing this is about is political power and MONEY. End of. You and I will be seeing hot wx and cold wx when we are in our dotage. Just as it's always been.
Yup....the MAIN difference is we SEE it more. There is more information flowing; not more bad weather happening. You get to see a tornado in Kansas pretty much right away rather than reading about it several days later in a newspaper. If at all.

Can't do much about ol' mother earth except enjoy her.

Now we CAN make our own backyards junky (with REAL pollution--not the CO2 BS) but even this is extremely short lived and localized in terrestrial terms. So the real question is do you prefer a clean or junky backyard for the short time you have on the planet.

[mngmt mole]

Global warming fraud:

https://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/climate-global-warming-ipcc/2016/05/31/id/731497/

[mngmt mole]

The bottom line is this: the money can be better spent on medical research, at last that will have a real impact on human health and happiness. 1/10 of 1 degree is not worth even worrying about. I'm more likely to benefit from a cure to cancer or the flu.

[mngmt mole]

Heck, why not. This one is always good to make the point.

https://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/astronomy-shaviv-svensmark-zharkova/2018/01/08/id/835726/

[Curtain rod]

Come on, MM, you get your science education from the Daily Mail? And you expect to be taken seriously?

The same page you sent about the oceans getting heavier (WTF!) is otherwise loaded with links to stories about Angelina Jolie ignoring Jennifer Aniston (now that's science!) and Rosie Whoever's new bikini and Princess Charlotte going to nursery school and Big Brother and a "top story" about meatballs.

So, that's the end of your credibility.

Meanwhile, Shep writes that our management and the scientific world are to be compared for their reliability? He stated that science, and trust in science, functions on "blind trust" when, in fact, science is the exact opposite of that, which is exactly why it is true whether you believe it or not...But he is correct: True (?) scientists do not EVER claim that their hypotheses and theories are final - ALL of science is subject to review, improvement, correction, discovery, etc. So go ahead, Shep, write up your thesis with a whole bunch of valid evidence and show the world your data, experimentation and validation of your conclusion. All the other scientists are already doing that, too. That's how they come to a consensus, by the way. Ever heard of evolution? Gravity? Rockets? Anybody disagreeing with the evidence and consensus is free to do so, but without valid and verifiable evidence, they get dismissed until they can do better. Key words: Valid and verifiable. "The earth do what she do" is a nice byline, but it has nothing to do with human activity's effect on what she do. Humans affect rivers, oceans, lakes, farms, animals and the atmosphere...but yeah, "the earth do what she do."

MM, do more research on your go-to scandal about that 1 supposedly manipulated data story, if you want to stop sounding like a moron to the rest of us. And, how come medical research is ok fine with you? No money and corruption there, right? But does medicine figure things out, improve and get it right most of the time? But...not about climate. Ok, got it. Keep on reading the Daily Mail Online for your astrophysics, geology, biology, biochemistry, oceanography and whatever other science to become so thoroughly and respectfully informed. Ugh!

And another FYI, scientific debate is all part of the program and nothing new. You can copy and paste a list of names from any web site you wish, but that's not how science and reality work. All you have to do is prove your findings and add to the body of evidence. If you want to change the understanding, hypotheses and theories that explain what has been observed, go ahead, but you have to prove it to smart people, not your anonymous Pprune and drinking buddies.

[Oasis]

and...

Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings (the flag was moving!),
the earth is really flat (gyroscopes!),
vaccines make kids autistic,
911 was an inside job..

It's often you find people that believe in these edgy 'contrarian' views all lumped together.

I will never understand that some pilots will believe in bernoulli's principle instead of fairy dust making the wings fly, but not actual hard data regarding global warming.

[hkgcanuck]

From what I've read so far, Lovelock made some pretty bold claims like that the Sahara desert would have moved as far north as Paris and that 80% of humans would die by the year 2100. He then admitted that those claims were too alarmist but he hasn't denied climate change that I can see. Where does he say this?

Even if he did, his word (that of a 98 year old chemistry and medical degree holder) is against the work of thousands of climate scientists.

Have you looked into that list of names you copy and pasted from Wikipedia and read their work? I'm looking for peer reviewed papers, not just names. I'm sure I could find a list of names of people claiming that we release chemtrails around at work... would you believe them? Why not? Serious question.

[broadband circuit]

THREAD DRIFT

Let's get back to the original point:

Be very careful ground staff.

[mngmt mole]

Fair point: yes, CX is obviously after their ground staff. Time for more winning :ok: (and give it up Canuck...seriously. It's :mad: freezing just about everywhere, and CR/Oasis, satellite measurements show there has been no appreciable warming for the past 20 years, but what do satellites know)

[hkgcanuck]

Actually that's a good point broadband, apologies for contributing to the massive thread drift.