Climate Change and YSSY crosswinds?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The scientific naivety of pilots constantly astounds me.
Aircraft fly because science works.
Aircraft and indeed spacecraft have evolved since first flight because scientists worked out how they work, and how to make them fly faster, higher and more efficiently using... I hate to say it... science.
Now that science says something that economists don’t want to hear, the pilots all go right wing and agree with the economists: scientists must be full of ****.... this can’t be right because it might affect my nice little world.
Aircraft fly because science works.
Aircraft and indeed spacecraft have evolved since first flight because scientists worked out how they work, and how to make them fly faster, higher and more efficiently using... I hate to say it... science.
Now that science says something that economists don’t want to hear, the pilots all go right wing and agree with the economists: scientists must be full of ****.... this can’t be right because it might affect my nice little world.
Now that science says something that economists don’t want to hear, the pilots all go right wing and agree with the economists:
Would you fly an aircraft designed by an accountant rather than a aeronautical engineer?
Modern science began with Copernicus, Gallileo et al in the 16th century, and no serious scientist has ever said that the Earth is flat or the universe revolves around the earth since then.
In fact it has been widely known for about 2500 years that the earth is spherical, since the time of Pythagoras and Aristotle.
People start going all “right wing” when information is shoved down their throat 24/7.
The first to bleet would be the types you see getting around in Melbourne with multicoloured hair if we switched it all off and went back to cave living.
Most people support doing the right thing when it comes to the environment and most people couldn’t care less what their neighbour does in their bedroom. They do care when media, politicians etc start ramming hysteria and propaganda down children’s throats for their own ideological gain.
The first to bleet would be the types you see getting around in Melbourne with multicoloured hair if we switched it all off and went back to cave living.
Most people support doing the right thing when it comes to the environment and most people couldn’t care less what their neighbour does in their bedroom. They do care when media, politicians etc start ramming hysteria and propaganda down children’s throats for their own ideological gain.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle.
fact 1. The earths climate is always changing, due to many factors from the suns activity, tectonic plate movement, the earths tilt etc. etc. as well as by biological organisms, anything from microbes, phytoplankton, and all the way up to humans.
fact 2. Humans have been influencing micro climates for at least 30,000 years due to practices such as slash and burn, deforestation, damming etc.
fact 3. Humans are certainly polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of gasses and particles, which at some point needs to be addressed and reversed if possible.
The problem occurs when ideologies, political point scoring, beliefs, righteous anger and noble cause corruption take precedence over the facts and practical scientific solutions.
fact 1. The earths climate is always changing, due to many factors from the suns activity, tectonic plate movement, the earths tilt etc. etc. as well as by biological organisms, anything from microbes, phytoplankton, and all the way up to humans.
fact 2. Humans have been influencing micro climates for at least 30,000 years due to practices such as slash and burn, deforestation, damming etc.
fact 3. Humans are certainly polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of gasses and particles, which at some point needs to be addressed and reversed if possible.
The problem occurs when ideologies, political point scoring, beliefs, righteous anger and noble cause corruption take precedence over the facts and practical scientific solutions.
Thread Starter
The scientific naivety of pilots constantly astounds me.
For example;
A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[7]
Physicist Richard Feynman invoked the informal approach to communicating the basic principles of science in his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology (Feynman, 1985):
[There is an] idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution, not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. (pp. 311-312)
[There is an] idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution, not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. (pp. 311-312)
When people question why the hypothesis are being presented as fact they are met with insults and statement like
The scientific naivety of pilots constantly astounds me.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, man made or not, it’s happening. The main thing now is what are we doing to adapt to the new norm?
And I can tell you now, living in one of the most polluted parts of the world, creating cleaner technologies and removing coal fired power stations will not only potentially improve the environments health, but it’ll certainly improve the health of billions of people!
Thread Starter
I agree with anyone that says it’s a good idea to clean up our environment and significantly reduce pollution.
Like every other poster I can’t ‘know’ that we are in a ‘climate emergency’.
There appears to be no middle ground on this subject.
Like every other poster I can’t ‘know’ that we are in a ‘climate emergency’.
There appears to be no middle ground on this subject.
Firefighters generally aren’t, like what another poster alluded to, “multicoloured hair types living in inner city Melbourne”, or as our Deputy PM and leader of the National Party called “raving inner city lunatics”.
So if the experts in their field, acting on scientific evidence, who are trying to warn of the dangers are rudely dismissed by the second most important politician in this nation as a bunch a “raving lunatics” it seems there isn’t much politcial will to act and adapt to the “new norm”.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
23 former heads of Fire and Emergency Services in Australia have been trying to meet with the PM all year to warn of the “new norm” in regards to bushfires in this country (hotter, longer, earlier, less capacity to perform Hazard Reduction Burns) and the need to adapt to it by vastly expanding firefighting capability to counter it. He’s refused to.
Firefighters generally aren’t, like what another poster alluded to, “multicoloured hair types living in inner city Melbourne”, or as our Deputy PM and leader of the National Party called “raving inner city lunatics”.
So if the experts in their field, acting on scientific evidence, who are trying to warn of the dangers are rudely dismissed by the second most important politician in this nation as a bunch a “raving lunatics” it seems there isn’t much politcial will to act and adapt to the “new norm”.
We get all worked up if things aren’t within our very limited norm.
We are all living on a rather large molten core, covered by a thin crust, hurtling around a massive fusion reactor, the poles and continents are constantly moving, as this 3rd rock from the sun is in constant threat of either a super volcano awakening, Yellowstone Caldera, or one of the many very large lump of rocks currently flying around in space, whose orbits we have no idea of and are capable of species extinction.
Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Emergency means money transfer, from our pockets to theirs, that’s all.
Here in CA the increase in fires used to be blamed on Climate Change, until the causes of most of them was ascertained, ill maintained utility transmission lines, homeless folks, car accidents and the odd firebug.
i wonder what the animals used to think way back before humans arrived, lightning strikes, forest fires, sure wish the humans would hurry up and build around here, so they will pour millions of dollars into protecting them and us?
its a religion, nothing more, nothing less.
Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Emergency means money transfer, from our pockets to theirs, that’s all.
Here in CA the increase in fires used to be blamed on Climate Change, until the causes of most of them was ascertained, ill maintained utility transmission lines, homeless folks, car accidents and the odd firebug
its a religion, nothing more, nothing less.
Here in CA the increase in fires used to be blamed on Climate Change, until the causes of most of them was ascertained, ill maintained utility transmission lines, homeless folks, car accidents and the odd firebug
its a religion, nothing more, nothing less.
Morno. If you are living in China you will be disappointed to hear China is adding 1171 new coal powered power stations to the 2363 coal powered power stations they already have. In Australia we are planning to shut down the remaining 6 coal powered power stations to save the world.
Morno. If you are living in China you will be disappointed to hear China is adding 1171 new coal powered power stations to the 2363 coal powered power stations they already have. In Australia we are planning to shut down the remaining 6 coal powered power stations to save the world.
Wonder which government will be the first to inevitably raise taxes to counter those effects?
Wonder which government will be the first to inevitably raise taxes to counter those effects?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But how do you know if that’s too much or not? Maybe 0.51% could mean catastrophic consequences.
Look, man made or not, it’s happening. The main thing now is what are we doing to adapt to the new norm?
And I can tell you now, living in one of the most polluted parts of the world, creating cleaner technologies and removing coal fired power stations will not only potentially improve the environments health, but it’ll certainly improve the health of billions of people!
Only then, will you be taken serious that 0.05% carbon dioxide could be catastrophic.