Winter storms in USA
"It's not about pilots and flying. The airports simply can't keep up with the snow removal and deicing that's required to move all the flights."
cxorcist,
Precisely. It's also about ATC capacity...and airlines keeping track of who went where when they couldn't go someplace else...angry pax/crews stranded in airports.
I've been lost with a few crews in a hotel for several days when I couldn't reach crew sked to even tell them who I was or where.
We used to pretty much launch the fleet into the maw of the beast. Preemptive cancellations are a much better idea. I'm hard pressed to criticize management decisions in this regard.
But I can tell you if you fly in the NE quadrant of the USA for very long, you're going to see a lot more winter than you'd like. It doesn't make any pilot demographic better than any other. It's the job you signed up for and you'd better be damned careful at it.
cxorcist,
Precisely. It's also about ATC capacity...and airlines keeping track of who went where when they couldn't go someplace else...angry pax/crews stranded in airports.
I've been lost with a few crews in a hotel for several days when I couldn't reach crew sked to even tell them who I was or where.
We used to pretty much launch the fleet into the maw of the beast. Preemptive cancellations are a much better idea. I'm hard pressed to criticize management decisions in this regard.
But I can tell you if you fly in the NE quadrant of the USA for very long, you're going to see a lot more winter than you'd like. It doesn't make any pilot demographic better than any other. It's the job you signed up for and you'd better be damned careful at it.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Space
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cxorcist,
I think you missed the point on: "The only thing I know about man-made global warming is that there ain't no money in denying it!" Of course, the opposite is true, for those doing the denying, anyway.
As for your understanding of "science" (to copy your use of quotation marks, indicating to me your disrespect and/or disbelief in the scientific process), quoted from Skeptic.com:
1. In science, a theory doesn't mean a guess or an opinion.
2. A scientific theory is an established body of knowledge (e.g. germ theory, theory of evolution)
3. Science is a disciplined process for testing hypotheses. It progresses slowly but inexorably as new discoveries build on old ones.
4. Science doesn't claim to have the truth: Science reached provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence and it is always ready to change those conclusions if new, better evidence comes along.
5. Scientific studies are repeated, and they are either confirmed or discredited. A body of evidence gradually accumulates to the point that experts in the field can reach a consensus.
6. Science makes mistakes, but a self-correcting system is in place: It is a collaborative effort, studies are peer-reviewed and scientists scrutinize each others' work.
7. Science can be relied upon to give us knowledge that works and can be used to make accurate predictions.
If you, or anyone, has any new, valid evidence supporting a hypothesis that contradicts any scientific consensus, like the ones about atomic theory or how man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming, please provide that evidence for testing by the world's scientists of all countries, religions, ages, etc., because they want to make science better. However, that's only for valid evidence, with properly collected and verifiable data and repeatable experimentation, and not opinions, preferences, anecdotes, personal beliefs, ignorant misrepresentations or discredited interpretations (such as junk science).
Bonus Ted Talk, just for you. You're welcome!
https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_gale...wrong#t-685637
I think you missed the point on: "The only thing I know about man-made global warming is that there ain't no money in denying it!" Of course, the opposite is true, for those doing the denying, anyway.
As for your understanding of "science" (to copy your use of quotation marks, indicating to me your disrespect and/or disbelief in the scientific process), quoted from Skeptic.com:
1. In science, a theory doesn't mean a guess or an opinion.
2. A scientific theory is an established body of knowledge (e.g. germ theory, theory of evolution)
3. Science is a disciplined process for testing hypotheses. It progresses slowly but inexorably as new discoveries build on old ones.
4. Science doesn't claim to have the truth: Science reached provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence and it is always ready to change those conclusions if new, better evidence comes along.
5. Scientific studies are repeated, and they are either confirmed or discredited. A body of evidence gradually accumulates to the point that experts in the field can reach a consensus.
6. Science makes mistakes, but a self-correcting system is in place: It is a collaborative effort, studies are peer-reviewed and scientists scrutinize each others' work.
7. Science can be relied upon to give us knowledge that works and can be used to make accurate predictions.
If you, or anyone, has any new, valid evidence supporting a hypothesis that contradicts any scientific consensus, like the ones about atomic theory or how man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming, please provide that evidence for testing by the world's scientists of all countries, religions, ages, etc., because they want to make science better. However, that's only for valid evidence, with properly collected and verifiable data and repeatable experimentation, and not opinions, preferences, anecdotes, personal beliefs, ignorant misrepresentations or discredited interpretations (such as junk science).
Bonus Ted Talk, just for you. You're welcome!
https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_gale...wrong#t-685637
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cxorcist,
I think you missed the point on: "The only thing I know about man-made global warming is that there ain't no money in denying it!" Of course, the opposite is true, for those doing the denying, anyway.
As for your understanding of "science" (to copy your use of quotation marks, indicating to me your disrespect and/or disbelief in the scientific process), quoted from Skeptic.com:
1. In science, a theory doesn't mean a guess or an opinion.
2. A scientific theory is an established body of knowledge (e.g. germ theory, theory of evolution)
3. Science is a disciplined process for testing hypotheses. It progresses slowly but inexorably as new discoveries build on old ones.
4. Science doesn't claim to have the truth: Science reached provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence and it is always ready to change those conclusions if new, better evidence comes along.
5. Scientific studies are repeated, and they are either confirmed or discredited. A body of evidence gradually accumulates to the point that experts in the field can reach a consensus.
6. Science makes mistakes, but a self-correcting system is in place: It is a collaborative effort, studies are peer-reviewed and scientists scrutinize each others' work.
7. Science can be relied upon to give us knowledge that works and can be used to make accurate predictions.
If you, or anyone, has any new, valid evidence supporting a hypothesis that contradicts any scientific consensus, like the ones about atomic theory or how man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming, please provide that evidence for testing by the world's scientists of all countries, religions, ages, etc., because they want to make science better. However, that's only for valid evidence, with properly collected and verifiable data and repeatable experimentation, and not opinions, preferences, anecdotes, personal beliefs, ignorant misrepresentations or discredited interpretations (such as junk science).
Bonus Ted Talk, just for you. You're welcome!
https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_gale...wrong#t-685637
I think you missed the point on: "The only thing I know about man-made global warming is that there ain't no money in denying it!" Of course, the opposite is true, for those doing the denying, anyway.
As for your understanding of "science" (to copy your use of quotation marks, indicating to me your disrespect and/or disbelief in the scientific process), quoted from Skeptic.com:
1. In science, a theory doesn't mean a guess or an opinion.
2. A scientific theory is an established body of knowledge (e.g. germ theory, theory of evolution)
3. Science is a disciplined process for testing hypotheses. It progresses slowly but inexorably as new discoveries build on old ones.
4. Science doesn't claim to have the truth: Science reached provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence and it is always ready to change those conclusions if new, better evidence comes along.
5. Scientific studies are repeated, and they are either confirmed or discredited. A body of evidence gradually accumulates to the point that experts in the field can reach a consensus.
6. Science makes mistakes, but a self-correcting system is in place: It is a collaborative effort, studies are peer-reviewed and scientists scrutinize each others' work.
7. Science can be relied upon to give us knowledge that works and can be used to make accurate predictions.
If you, or anyone, has any new, valid evidence supporting a hypothesis that contradicts any scientific consensus, like the ones about atomic theory or how man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming, please provide that evidence for testing by the world's scientists of all countries, religions, ages, etc., because they want to make science better. However, that's only for valid evidence, with properly collected and verifiable data and repeatable experimentation, and not opinions, preferences, anecdotes, personal beliefs, ignorant misrepresentations or discredited interpretations (such as junk science).
Bonus Ted Talk, just for you. You're welcome!
https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_gale...wrong#t-685637
http://burtrutan.com/downloads/EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4o3.pdf
Numbers came out similar to mine fwiw.
Trying to extrapolate data far beyond the ability to measure is not science; there is nothing scientific about the CO2 myth.
First it was the dire warnings about change and then it became the RATE of change is greater than anything in human history (also baseless). If your radioisotope dating has a tolerance of 5% -- which might be really really good -- that's still 500 years over 10000 years (either of which is less than the blink of an eye over either terrestrial history or even evolutionary life history).
And I doubt you'll find much really really accurate temperature data from 500 years ago -- even in the inhabited regions of our planet -- not to mention the vastly unexplored ones.
So the bottom line is we don't have a clue. It's ok not to have a clue but not ok to scam money or hurt people as a result of not having a clue.
I always found it interesting watching their propaganda videos where they show a power plant with billowing white plumes from the stacks and lamenting the demise of the human race.
The billowing white plume in actuality being steam -- plain old water vapor -- which is a result of the process used by scrubbers to remove REAL pollutants (like SO2 and various forms of NOx -- as well as some degree of particulates although these are often filtered in a more effective fashion) from the effluent of power plants. Actually doing something good for the environment.
The climate change hoax has nothing to do with science; only a few hucksters claiming it to be. Climate has been changing since the earth was formed and will continue to do so long after we are gone. We can either whine about it or develop energy sources (of all kinds to include nuclear, fusion, and fossils) to help us deal with what nature throws at us. She do what she do.
I don't know a lot of these hucksters who preach their mantra from anything but large climate climate controlled comfortable quarters. Perhaps while sipping their chilled wine and complaining the filet is undercooked. I'd be much more likely to believe someone who has actually built something.
Last edited by Shep69; 16th Mar 2017 at 21:55.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CR,
Can't even bring myself to read your posts. They are so tiresome, repeating the same talking points. Blah, blah, blah... Oh well, we disagree. Who cares? Not me.
That said, I really think you should quit your job flying WBs internationally. The hypocrisy is so ripe! You could stay home, build windmills and buy local and change the world for the better, if that's what you believe in.
"Be the change you want to see..." or do you just want everyone else to change while you keep making a living off burning 100T per flight?
Can't even bring myself to read your posts. They are so tiresome, repeating the same talking points. Blah, blah, blah... Oh well, we disagree. Who cares? Not me.
That said, I really think you should quit your job flying WBs internationally. The hypocrisy is so ripe! You could stay home, build windmills and buy local and change the world for the better, if that's what you believe in.
"Be the change you want to see..." or do you just want everyone else to change while you keep making a living off burning 100T per flight?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know a lot of these hucksters who preach their mantra from anything but large climate climate controlled comfortable quarters. Perhaps while sipping their chilled wine and complaining the filet is undercooked. I'd be much more likely to believe someone who has actually built something.
I hope you don't mind next time a climate scientist enters the flight deck and gives you a proper lesson how to fly an airplane. If you could be so kind to return the favour.
Hm, comfy chair, sipping wine, filet Mignon.. sure you're not talking about a pilot??
Ps. I am pilot, not a scientist.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Space
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone who may still be confused by unscientific BS (other than Shep and cxorcist):
1. The main reason some people foolishly ignore/oppose the scientific consensus on evolution is their religious beliefs. What do you think motivates people (including Trump, Shep and cxorcist) to ignore/oppose the scientific consensus on global warming?
2. Despite being respected as an aeronautical engineer, Burt Rutan is not a climate scientist and his presentation has been repeatedly discredited. A quick google search will find lots of results, like this one.
3. Extrapolating data (making predictions) is exactly how science proves a hypothesis is correct. In climate science, retroactive examination of data shows that current extrapolation remains correct.
4. I never said I care if Miami and the Maldives are under water in 100 years, or claimed I know or care what needs to be done about it. I meant to explain that a scientific consensus describes an understanding better than anyone's opinion because and it should be relied upon because everything else is still a discredited or unfounded hypothesis. I also said that a scientific consensus can only be changed when sufficient, valid evidence is discovered and presented.
In case you missed it, a good Ted Talk for anyone who reacts as cxorcist did:
Why you think you're right - even if you're wrong
Have a nice day!
1. The main reason some people foolishly ignore/oppose the scientific consensus on evolution is their religious beliefs. What do you think motivates people (including Trump, Shep and cxorcist) to ignore/oppose the scientific consensus on global warming?
2. Despite being respected as an aeronautical engineer, Burt Rutan is not a climate scientist and his presentation has been repeatedly discredited. A quick google search will find lots of results, like this one.
3. Extrapolating data (making predictions) is exactly how science proves a hypothesis is correct. In climate science, retroactive examination of data shows that current extrapolation remains correct.
4. I never said I care if Miami and the Maldives are under water in 100 years, or claimed I know or care what needs to be done about it. I meant to explain that a scientific consensus describes an understanding better than anyone's opinion because and it should be relied upon because everything else is still a discredited or unfounded hypothesis. I also said that a scientific consensus can only be changed when sufficient, valid evidence is discovered and presented.
In case you missed it, a good Ted Talk for anyone who reacts as cxorcist did:
Why you think you're right - even if you're wrong
Have a nice day!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a good laugh, CR you have got to be one delusional poster. You incessantly post with such an arrogant tone as to think you are never wrong, then you provide a link to everyone else as to why they think they are right even if they are wrong! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Space
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said before, please just go ahead and supply all the reliable, valid and testable evidence that shows the worldwide, respectable, verifiable scientific consensus is wrong, and then we'll see if we can get those scientists to change their consensus asap.
I didn't say everyone else is wrong: That Ted Talk describes a hypothesis to explain why people who are definitely wrong still think they are right.
As for the pot/kettle about me: If the scientific consensus changes, I will surely hear about it. Meanwhile, the rants and opinions of anonymous pilots will not override the overwhelming worldwide determination of scientists who properly use the scientific method to reach verifiable conclusions.
I didn't say everyone else is wrong: That Ted Talk describes a hypothesis to explain why people who are definitely wrong still think they are right.
As for the pot/kettle about me: If the scientific consensus changes, I will surely hear about it. Meanwhile, the rants and opinions of anonymous pilots will not override the overwhelming worldwide determination of scientists who properly use the scientific method to reach verifiable conclusions.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The stupidness of some arguments here .....
The usual one "if climate change is real why dont you switch off electricty go hippy stop flying blah blah blah...."
Infantile. Yeah we can agree that climate change is happening but Said person still needs to provide a life for a family doesnt stop working is a hypocrite is utter bs. Most people have committed to a career and as this discovery of whats happening with climate grows most people dont do Hail Mary life changing moves......
As an individual there is little any effort on anyones part that is going to change or stop this. We can just do our best by not wasting what we do....air travel aint stopping just because u or someone else quits over climate change. So stop wheeling out that moronic demand like u have won the lottery of an argumenative statement. Everytime i hear that one.....
Remember people use to run around and say men werent meant to fly but science proved that wrong in the face of that dogma. Or walking on the moon....
But hey the worlds still flat when u fly right? Oh yeah science ,maths and consenus got that right too huh?
Am with Curtain Rod on this
The usual one "if climate change is real why dont you switch off electricty go hippy stop flying blah blah blah...."
Infantile. Yeah we can agree that climate change is happening but Said person still needs to provide a life for a family doesnt stop working is a hypocrite is utter bs. Most people have committed to a career and as this discovery of whats happening with climate grows most people dont do Hail Mary life changing moves......
As an individual there is little any effort on anyones part that is going to change or stop this. We can just do our best by not wasting what we do....air travel aint stopping just because u or someone else quits over climate change. So stop wheeling out that moronic demand like u have won the lottery of an argumenative statement. Everytime i hear that one.....
Remember people use to run around and say men werent meant to fly but science proved that wrong in the face of that dogma. Or walking on the moon....
But hey the worlds still flat when u fly right? Oh yeah science ,maths and consenus got that right too huh?
Am with Curtain Rod on this
