Fly without fuel?
But most of the nonsense crap science that has been written comes from via oil company $$'s!
Looking at you Exxon!
Climate change is undisputed, but the man made part is. This has become an ideology and some entire industry living on being funded on fear.
It is good to protect the environment but we are not doing it with new copper cable networks and lithium mines all over the world. This is somebody else's economical interest that gets communicated cult style and simplified in the digital media age.
In fact Greta is a PR company's child. Google Ingmar Rentzhog for starters.
https://pluralist.com/ingmar-rentzhog-greta-thunberg/
It is good to protect the environment but we are not doing it with new copper cable networks and lithium mines all over the world. This is somebody else's economical interest that gets communicated cult style and simplified in the digital media age.
In fact Greta is a PR company's child. Google Ingmar Rentzhog for starters.
https://pluralist.com/ingmar-rentzhog-greta-thunberg/
Last edited by Less Hair; 10th May 2021 at 10:30.
I know you military guys are made of strong stuff but if you really trust that idiot in no.10 to make the right decisions when it comes to putting men and women in harms way you're braver than I thought.
Hopefully not yours. Where is your point? Try to contribute something instead of insults.
Thread Starter
Salute!
Actchally, most of the crap "science" is written and promoted by folks that get their money from government grants. All they have to do is make a connection, however bizarre, with the words climate or pollution or renewable or sustainable, then the coup de gras.... more study is needed.
The question is how much do we try to change a humongous system when we have no empirical evidence that what we have done for the last 20 or 25 years has made a hundredth of a degree of difference. Make no mistake, the climate is changing and the jury is still out as to what will happen in a thousand years, or even a hundred years with any statistical certainty even using questionable models. However, the warmists have won so far. We are gonna turn into Venus, and the tipping point is upon us. The evil trace gas that does not trap heat, but re-radiates the sun rays down and up in a different wavelength is what causes surface and low atmosphere temp to heat or cool. The elephant in the room is harder to use as a thermostat that we mortals can fool with, and it is water vapor and actual solar insolation from 93 million miles away.
I wish the RAF to do well with bio-jet fuel or recharging the electric motors on their new F-35 planes.
Gums opines...
Actchally, most of the crap "science" is written and promoted by folks that get their money from government grants. All they have to do is make a connection, however bizarre, with the words climate or pollution or renewable or sustainable, then the coup de gras.... more study is needed.
The question is how much do we try to change a humongous system when we have no empirical evidence that what we have done for the last 20 or 25 years has made a hundredth of a degree of difference. Make no mistake, the climate is changing and the jury is still out as to what will happen in a thousand years, or even a hundred years with any statistical certainty even using questionable models. However, the warmists have won so far. We are gonna turn into Venus, and the tipping point is upon us. The evil trace gas that does not trap heat, but re-radiates the sun rays down and up in a different wavelength is what causes surface and low atmosphere temp to heat or cool. The elephant in the room is harder to use as a thermostat that we mortals can fool with, and it is water vapor and actual solar insolation from 93 million miles away.
I wish the RAF to do well with bio-jet fuel or recharging the electric motors on their new F-35 planes.
Gums opines...
The followers of St Greta of Aspergers believe a reported temperature change over a hundred years is significant. However, the climate changes in tens of thousands of years so any conclusions drawn from a century are just not valid. Also, are temperatures measured 100 years ago comparable with those of today taken by satellites. I would suggest, not.
B) good of you to think of the above. I'm sure the people that rigourously study climate change haven't thought of that, maybe you should write and tell them.
For what it's worth I'm pretty confident that scientific consensus is occasionally wrong. They told us that dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid, but there's plenty of living evidence right here on this thread.
Scientific consensus did a u-turn within a few years as you might have noticed.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tis' not climate change that's ruining the planet, it's overpopulation and the need for societies to keep progressing. Oceans will continue to be overfished and natural wilderness will continue to be cleared while the population keeps growing.
So how then will driving a battery powered car or plane save us from this? It just won't, the "green" argument is complete BS and the transition to "green" will require even more energy to achieve, meanwhile the population keeps increasing.
People like Greta just like to see dolphins and wind farms but not wretched poverty and human despair found in thousands of city slums.
So true.
So how then will driving a battery powered car or plane save us from this? It just won't, the "green" argument is complete BS and the transition to "green" will require even more energy to achieve, meanwhile the population keeps increasing.
People like Greta just like to see dolphins and wind farms but not wretched poverty and human despair found in thousands of city slums.
Actchally, most of the crap "science" is written and promoted by folks that get their money from government grants. All they have to do is make a connection, however bizarre, with the words climate or pollution or renewable or sustainable, then the coup de gras.... more study is needed.
The followers of St Greta of Aspergers believe a reported temperature change over a hundred years is significant. However, the climate changes in tens of thousands of years so any conclusions drawn from a century are just not valid. Also, are temperatures measured 100 years ago comparable with those of today taken by satellites. I would suggest, not.
Although there are many contenders - I think this post should win an award for comedy - I hope you don't do a job that requires intellect!
Perhaps asking about climate change is a good way of finding is someone is a " fit and proper person" - many fails above!
I wonder if many of the posters have problems with other scientific theories? Or is it just climate science that is false?
Anyone like to argue with Newton's laws of motion? Bernoulli's principle?
How about Quantum theory - that sounds dubious?
Surely Einstein's general relativity seems a bit more dodgy than a planetary greenhouse effect?
Love to hear some experts above give us their wisdom!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,755
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
The followers of St Greta of Aspergers believe a reported temperature change over a hundred years is significant. However, the climate changes in tens of thousands of years so any conclusions drawn from a century are just not valid. Also, are temperatures measured 100 years ago comparable with those of today taken by satellites. I would suggest, not.
Bar the odd freak weather in 63, the last time the thames was frozen solid was
The Thames froze over for the first time since 1814
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryU...s-Frost-Fairs/
Between 1600 and 1814, it was not uncommon for the River Thames to freeze over for up to two months at time. There were two main reasons for this; the first was that Britain (and the entire of the Northern Hemisphere) was locked in what is now known as the ‘Little Ice Age’. The other catalyst was the medieval London Bridge and its piers, and specifically how closely spaced together they were. During winter, pieces of ice would get lodged between the piers and effectively dam up the river, meaning it was easier for it to freeze.
During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas of southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from shore, the most famous frost fair was held: The Blanket Fair. The famous English writer and diariest John Evelyn described it in extensive detail, writing:
During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas of southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from shore, the most famous frost fair was held: The Blanket Fair. The famous English writer and diariest John Evelyn described it in extensive detail, writing:
A 'shrug of the shoulder' by one of the larger volcanoes will render any discussion of Climate Change and the causes null and void. The expert 'consensus tell us that it is not a matter of 'if ' but 'when.' It was thought this, along with low sunspot numbers to have caused the little ice age.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typerated.
That is a load science denying nonsense.
Try learning some of facts from these scientist and physicists.Here's any easy one to start with.
Professor William Happer
Scientist Ian Plimer
Dr Willie Soon
Freeman Dyson, FRS
Greg Flato
Professor Valentina Zharkova
That is a load science denying nonsense.
Try learning some of facts from these scientist and physicists.Here's any easy one to start with.
Professor William Happer
Scientist Ian Plimer
Dr Willie Soon
Freeman Dyson, FRS
Greg Flato
Professor Valentina Zharkova
Climate change denier video posted by campaigners.
At least one of their papers has been retracted
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...ets-retracted/
One of them has received direct funding from the fossil fuel industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon
One of them owns a mining company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
Clever people but not on the side of consensus, or evidence.
It is true that predictive models are predictive and models, so may not be entirely accurate.
At least one of their papers has been retracted
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...ets-retracted/
One of them has received direct funding from the fossil fuel industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon
One of them owns a mining company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
Clever people but not on the side of consensus, or evidence.
It is true that predictive models are predictive and models, so may not be entirely accurate.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The internet is a great resource and we can find all sorts of things to refute or backup what we believe or disbelieve.
Michael Mann, hockey stick, discredited.
The IPCC was set up for the benefit of some. Al gore and his cronies. Michael Mann, hockey stick, discredited.
The whole thing comes down to.
Manufacture a problem and monetise the solution.
Michael Mann, hockey stick, discredited.
The IPCC was set up for the benefit of some. Al gore and his cronies. Michael Mann, hockey stick, discredited.
The whole thing comes down to.
Manufacture a problem and monetise the solution.
Let me pose a thought experiment. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that none of us (as individual ppruners) actually know what is going on with the climate.
Let's say there are 2 possibilities. On one side, we have "climate change is induced by human-caused emissions of various kinds". On the other side we have "climate change is going to happen anyway or not happen at all".
The choice you are asked to make is between those two. Now base your actions on the safest choice to make. Either "do something, just in case" or "do nothing because it won't make any difference".
Worst case, in doing something you get your electric from a wind turbine and some solar panels, pay maybe a little more for it in the short term, but hey, you're loving a comfy western lifestyle so hey.
Worst case in doing nothing, quite a lot worse.
Why would you choose to do nothing?
Let's say there are 2 possibilities. On one side, we have "climate change is induced by human-caused emissions of various kinds". On the other side we have "climate change is going to happen anyway or not happen at all".
The choice you are asked to make is between those two. Now base your actions on the safest choice to make. Either "do something, just in case" or "do nothing because it won't make any difference".
Worst case, in doing something you get your electric from a wind turbine and some solar panels, pay maybe a little more for it in the short term, but hey, you're loving a comfy western lifestyle so hey.
Worst case in doing nothing, quite a lot worse.
Why would you choose to do nothing?
Absolutely spot on.
And anything which makes the military more fuel efficient and military aviation less dependent on imported hydrocarbons has strategic and tactical advantages.
First thing I'd do would be to abolish ironing on deployment.
And anything which makes the military more fuel efficient and military aviation less dependent on imported hydrocarbons has strategic and tactical advantages.
First thing I'd do would be to abolish ironing on deployment.
Last edited by flyingorthopod; 14th May 2021 at 06:22.
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me pose a thought experiment. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that none of us (as individual ppruners) actually know what is going on with the climate.
Let's say there are 2 possibilities. On one side, we have "climate change is induced by human-caused emissions of various kinds". On the other side we have "climate change is going to happen anyway or not happen at all".
The choice you are asked to make is between those two. Now base your actions on the safest choice to make. Either "do something, just in case" or "do nothing because it won't make any difference".
Worst case, in doing something you get your electric from a wind turbine and some solar panels, pay maybe a little more for it in the short term, but hey, you're loving a comfy western lifestyle so hey.
Worst case in doing nothing, quite a lot worse.
Why would you choose to do nothing?
Let's say there are 2 possibilities. On one side, we have "climate change is induced by human-caused emissions of various kinds". On the other side we have "climate change is going to happen anyway or not happen at all".
The choice you are asked to make is between those two. Now base your actions on the safest choice to make. Either "do something, just in case" or "do nothing because it won't make any difference".
Worst case, in doing something you get your electric from a wind turbine and some solar panels, pay maybe a little more for it in the short term, but hey, you're loving a comfy western lifestyle so hey.
Worst case in doing nothing, quite a lot worse.
Why would you choose to do nothing?
Solar panels in Scotland ? Northern Germany ? A waste of money. I was in Germany in January and drove past a bunch of solar panels between Prague and Nuremberg covered in 15cm of snow. A joke.
There is a middle path. Pragmatism. Not zealotry.
Aircraft burn kerosene.
Ships burn diesel.
Regional trains are diesel electric.
Oh , and google search for the websites were you can monitor in real time the energy generation in Britain. Not within a bulls roar of renewable.
Setting non achievable goals are a political exercise and essentially useless.
The solutions will be technology driven and economically competitive. Otherwise we are wasting time and money.