None of our lot would do this..............
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who seriously attempts to compare the reality of vaccines to the gibberish of 'climate change' has obviously lost the plot. The whole point of this debate is 'valid evidence'...and that is something that is sorely lacking from the climate change crowd. Only you and the other blind sheep who have bought into the myth are too blind to see the great con for what it is. You need some time off CR....
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: far west
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was watching few days ago a program on the NGC about comets and how water formed on earth. A British scientist was interviewed and his statement was as follow:
"Billions of years ago the earth was bombed with comets ( who allegedly carry oxygen found through spectrometry).The surface of the moon is a perfect representation of what happened then. We just now don't have the same evidence to show regarding the earth".
So, they speak with absolute certainty of something they can't support or justify.
And then if the same thing happened to the moon ( bombed with comets) then why there isn't any water or oxygen on it?
"Billions of years ago the earth was bombed with comets ( who allegedly carry oxygen found through spectrometry).The surface of the moon is a perfect representation of what happened then. We just now don't have the same evidence to show regarding the earth".
So, they speak with absolute certainty of something they can't support or justify.
And then if the same thing happened to the moon ( bombed with comets) then why there isn't any water or oxygen on it?
Because the moon's mass is not enough to have the gravity required to retain an atmosphere. Water would have boiled off into space.
Last edited by Captain Dart; 30th Apr 2015 at 20:51.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CR
I think I'm up to speed now....that said, I won't presume to possess your depth of knowledge, and obvious intelligence, but I think you're saying:
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling.....run for your lives, the sky is falling"
Typical lefty.....
I think I'm up to speed now....that said, I won't presume to possess your depth of knowledge, and obvious intelligence, but I think you're saying:
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling.....run for your lives, the sky is falling"
Typical lefty.....
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the ozone hole
Continuing on the thread drift.....
I recall about 12-14years ago, scientists were certain that CFCs were causing an ozone hole. In fact they stated that even if all CFC production was ceased, because of the time it takes for them to get to the ozone layer to destroy it, the hole would get bigger till 2050 - then reduce. But because of economics, China and India, as 'developing nations', were exempt from reducing CFC production.
So the scientific consensus was that the ozone hole was going to get bigger and bigger for decades to come.
Ten or more years later....what ozone hole????
I am always wary of scientific consensus...but I do agree with the research that shows if dinosaurs hadn't driven so many gas guzzling cars and 4WDs they wouldn't have altered their climate and be extinct!
I recall about 12-14years ago, scientists were certain that CFCs were causing an ozone hole. In fact they stated that even if all CFC production was ceased, because of the time it takes for them to get to the ozone layer to destroy it, the hole would get bigger till 2050 - then reduce. But because of economics, China and India, as 'developing nations', were exempt from reducing CFC production.
So the scientific consensus was that the ozone hole was going to get bigger and bigger for decades to come.
Ten or more years later....what ozone hole????
I am always wary of scientific consensus...but I do agree with the research that shows if dinosaurs hadn't driven so many gas guzzling cars and 4WDs they wouldn't have altered their climate and be extinct!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ten or more years later....what ozone hole????
Scientists predict that if the international community continues to comply with the Montreal Protocol, the ozone layer should recover to pre-1980 levels between 2050 and 2065.
Ozone and the ozone layer Australia
I tend to believe the Ozone layer is recovering because of deliberate, targeted action. The chemistry behind is simple, and well understood. One could argue this is unscientific, as there was no control in this experiment, so possibly the Ozone layer would have recovered without any reduction of CFCs etc, but since we are limited to one earth to play with, it seems prudent to err on the side of caution.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burt Rutan did a good treatise on this and his results were very similar to mine when I had a good look at the 'science' involved.
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritiq...ience.v4.3.pdf
It's ironic that those who pound the table on the 'science' involved are advocating something (trying to limit so-called greenhouse gases) that, given the actual data and tolerances, is more akin to the superstition of promoting human sacrifices for good crops than dealing with an issue and pioneering irrigated farming.
As far as science and religion it's important to keep in context science historically has been nothing more than an attempt to model a few things in a universe which is often beyond the realm of human comprehension. So long as the models seem to work and satisfy the rules made up by the human minds for themselves it is though of as 'rational.' But there are many things which will always remain outside of this and science becomes pig headed and self-serving when it arrogantly fails to acknoledge this--or of the limits of what it can quantify.
Take for example Newton's laws (and ALL of these models have been contrived in a relatively short time period on a galactic scale). For years forces, inertia and gravity were known to exist and mankind used rules of thumb to make stuff work. Mankind developed slingshots, crossbows, and rifles (which all rely on the 'laws' of physics) without really knowing why they worked but that they did work--just like they knew if one fell off a cliff one would get hurt. In the name of science, Newton kinda quantified these and we got force equals mass times acceleration. And THIS seemed to work for centuries for everything from slingshots to scales to boolits to cars to airplanes. But then someone found out that as one approached the speed of sound somehow the forces weren't the same so the model was changed to account for forces no one really knew about that had to do with compressiblity and shock waves. There was a whole bunch of sky is falling mentality in this too with 'scientists' and the sound barrier.
Even worse, we started to discover that as one approaches the speed of light Newton's laws fall apart completely. This speed represents a barrier (again a theoretical and somewhat modeled) where more and more force applied results in exponentially less acceleration. At least as far as we know. And even relativistic considerations and quantum theory might well fall apart some day as we start to discover more things through observation--again nothing more than models which are only as good as their inputs. To this day there are folks who dogmatically assert (just like Newtonians and sound-barrier deniers) this speed can never be exceeded either.
But again, all we have is a model which seems to work within a particular regime of operation. No more valid than a particular religion; it just seems to be repeatable.
So a smug assertion that 'science' has any more validity than religion really has no basis in fact. It just literally makes one a legend in one's own mind. And contravenes the very scientific method which always acknowledges there is stuff one can't explain (and might not need to).
Moreover, science can be a fickle and sometimes dangerous mistress. We got atom bombs before atomic power. We get bioweapons before we get the cure. We get neat video cams yet get every aspect of our life under surveillence. We get the boon of the internet for good and also get folks perennially wrapped up in their iphones trying to walk and drive around. We get phenominally great navigation and autoflight systems yet get pilots who forget how to fly airplanes.
Now we face a 'theory' (which has been wholly unproven and in fact mostly discredited) of CO2 causing significant change in our planet's temperature. Something which not only cannot be proven with the tolerances of the data involved, but which also is being exploited as a basis to cause real harm. Taxes, carbon credits, laws restricting carbon output, laws dictating what kinds of fuel can be burned, reguatory standards, you name it. These do real harm to real people and real economies. And for what ? Even IF the theory were valid there's no way to reign in people who would choose to cheat (and this also propagates the culture of corruption in payoffs, bribes, crony 'capitalism' and wealth redistrubution). Nor do we have any way to quantify that any actions taken would have any effect. We just push mankind back toward the stone age.
So instead of dealing with the issue; namely that we MIGHT need more energy and more air conditioners, we have those who would practice the modern day equivalent of human sacrifices.
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritiq...ience.v4.3.pdf
It's ironic that those who pound the table on the 'science' involved are advocating something (trying to limit so-called greenhouse gases) that, given the actual data and tolerances, is more akin to the superstition of promoting human sacrifices for good crops than dealing with an issue and pioneering irrigated farming.
As far as science and religion it's important to keep in context science historically has been nothing more than an attempt to model a few things in a universe which is often beyond the realm of human comprehension. So long as the models seem to work and satisfy the rules made up by the human minds for themselves it is though of as 'rational.' But there are many things which will always remain outside of this and science becomes pig headed and self-serving when it arrogantly fails to acknoledge this--or of the limits of what it can quantify.
Take for example Newton's laws (and ALL of these models have been contrived in a relatively short time period on a galactic scale). For years forces, inertia and gravity were known to exist and mankind used rules of thumb to make stuff work. Mankind developed slingshots, crossbows, and rifles (which all rely on the 'laws' of physics) without really knowing why they worked but that they did work--just like they knew if one fell off a cliff one would get hurt. In the name of science, Newton kinda quantified these and we got force equals mass times acceleration. And THIS seemed to work for centuries for everything from slingshots to scales to boolits to cars to airplanes. But then someone found out that as one approached the speed of sound somehow the forces weren't the same so the model was changed to account for forces no one really knew about that had to do with compressiblity and shock waves. There was a whole bunch of sky is falling mentality in this too with 'scientists' and the sound barrier.
Even worse, we started to discover that as one approaches the speed of light Newton's laws fall apart completely. This speed represents a barrier (again a theoretical and somewhat modeled) where more and more force applied results in exponentially less acceleration. At least as far as we know. And even relativistic considerations and quantum theory might well fall apart some day as we start to discover more things through observation--again nothing more than models which are only as good as their inputs. To this day there are folks who dogmatically assert (just like Newtonians and sound-barrier deniers) this speed can never be exceeded either.
But again, all we have is a model which seems to work within a particular regime of operation. No more valid than a particular religion; it just seems to be repeatable.
So a smug assertion that 'science' has any more validity than religion really has no basis in fact. It just literally makes one a legend in one's own mind. And contravenes the very scientific method which always acknowledges there is stuff one can't explain (and might not need to).
Moreover, science can be a fickle and sometimes dangerous mistress. We got atom bombs before atomic power. We get bioweapons before we get the cure. We get neat video cams yet get every aspect of our life under surveillence. We get the boon of the internet for good and also get folks perennially wrapped up in their iphones trying to walk and drive around. We get phenominally great navigation and autoflight systems yet get pilots who forget how to fly airplanes.
Now we face a 'theory' (which has been wholly unproven and in fact mostly discredited) of CO2 causing significant change in our planet's temperature. Something which not only cannot be proven with the tolerances of the data involved, but which also is being exploited as a basis to cause real harm. Taxes, carbon credits, laws restricting carbon output, laws dictating what kinds of fuel can be burned, reguatory standards, you name it. These do real harm to real people and real economies. And for what ? Even IF the theory were valid there's no way to reign in people who would choose to cheat (and this also propagates the culture of corruption in payoffs, bribes, crony 'capitalism' and wealth redistrubution). Nor do we have any way to quantify that any actions taken would have any effect. We just push mankind back toward the stone age.
So instead of dealing with the issue; namely that we MIGHT need more energy and more air conditioners, we have those who would practice the modern day equivalent of human sacrifices.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Here ---> X
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no credible link between man produced CO2 and the earth's temperature at present.
Of course there are. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 and average atmospheric temperature over the last few hundred thousand years have been extrapolated from arctic ice sampling, and the results and correlation between the two are quite clear. Even the most dedicated GW denier would not refute that anymore, well at least the smart ones.
Another thing that is quite clear and easily verified is that CO2 levels are higher than they've ever been in the last half million years or son and that their levels have never risen as fast as they have in the last 100 years, which also happens to coincide with the beginning of the massive release of human-produced CO2 since the start of the industrial age and a quick increase of average temperatures.
It's out there and it's really not that hard to see for oneself...
The heart of the GW debate, for the non average 'muhrican right-winger, now lies around whether that increase in CO2 and temperature will self regulate, whether it will have a lasting negative effect on humankind and whether the measures taken and sacrifices (as Shep eloquently put) done to reduce our carbon footprint are justifiable in view of the possible and debated outcome of the irrefutable increase in atmospheric CO2 and the associated temperature rise.
There are powerful lobbies that would rather business remained as usual, Governments who could use the money from a carbon tax and many who would prefer if we could open up the energy business to a little 'outside' competition, for a change.
It's an interesting debate, but the facts are there for everyone but the most stubborn to see:
She is getting hotter, and Leon's getting larger...
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: china
Age: 61
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
Could we please redirect this thread back towards petty bitching and moaning that is endemic in our profession? I never thought I would want to hear more of it but compared to the last two pages of this thread, I will take it.
Could we please redirect this thread back towards petty bitching and moaning that is endemic in our profession? I never thought I would want to hear more of it but compared to the last two pages of this thread, I will take it.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Age: 65
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Executive compensation
Two things:
Consensus science doesn't mean squat! 100 years ago, roughly 100% of the physicists thought the sun was comprised in the same ratio of the elements found on the earth. One woman said "NO" Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. No one believed her hypothesis, for years!
Second, in order to understand why Parker would prefer to take his compensation as stock; one has to understand the US tax code. When Warren Buffet says the US taxes have to be fixed, he is correct. Long term capital gains (i.e. long term investments in stocks!), are only taxed at 15%. When Buffet sells his interests in a company he has built up (the actual shares) for $798 mil, he only pays 15% in taxes, as compared to the baseball player who makes $20 mil, who pays something like 50% in taxes.
Parker will still receive annual compensation, expenses, expensive company homes (supposedly, AMR had a small mansion in downtown London, used by the executives) and any corporate charters. Later on, if the stock stays high, he can sell off a little at a time and have a comfortable lifestyle.
RP
Consensus science doesn't mean squat! 100 years ago, roughly 100% of the physicists thought the sun was comprised in the same ratio of the elements found on the earth. One woman said "NO" Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. No one believed her hypothesis, for years!
Second, in order to understand why Parker would prefer to take his compensation as stock; one has to understand the US tax code. When Warren Buffet says the US taxes have to be fixed, he is correct. Long term capital gains (i.e. long term investments in stocks!), are only taxed at 15%. When Buffet sells his interests in a company he has built up (the actual shares) for $798 mil, he only pays 15% in taxes, as compared to the baseball player who makes $20 mil, who pays something like 50% in taxes.
Parker will still receive annual compensation, expenses, expensive company homes (supposedly, AMR had a small mansion in downtown London, used by the executives) and any corporate charters. Later on, if the stock stays high, he can sell off a little at a time and have a comfortable lifestyle.
RP
