The dawn of the 100 mile final?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If concern over CO2 emissions can get governments to do what simple fuel economy can't, so much the better. Our Hydrocarbon resources are limited, and their real cost to the human race is considerably more than the current cost to pump 'em out of the ground. That's the basic flaw in the capitalistic model.
Aviation takes a big hit in these debates. In part it's because a significant portion of any aviation cost consists directly in burning huge amounts of hydrocarbons. But in this world, burning huge amounts of hydrocarbons is integral to all transportation systems, including so-called "Green ones", and if you consider secondary costs (such as fuel burned by staff getting to work, line maintenance, and the rest), I doubt aviation would appear as huge an offender.
Those who think that Global Warming (or anthropogenic climate change) is not the scientific consensus need to talk to scientists before coming to that conclusion. Those who think that sudden climate change can occur in history without catastrophic results to human societies need to speak to historians.
It's gonna be bad, but killing aviation is not the answer. In fact, the very simplicity of Aviation's use of energy makes it a prime candidate for a green solution, which is why major companies are playing with swapping the kerosene-burners for algae-burners.
Aviation takes a big hit in these debates. In part it's because a significant portion of any aviation cost consists directly in burning huge amounts of hydrocarbons. But in this world, burning huge amounts of hydrocarbons is integral to all transportation systems, including so-called "Green ones", and if you consider secondary costs (such as fuel burned by staff getting to work, line maintenance, and the rest), I doubt aviation would appear as huge an offender.
Those who think that Global Warming (or anthropogenic climate change) is not the scientific consensus need to talk to scientists before coming to that conclusion. Those who think that sudden climate change can occur in history without catastrophic results to human societies need to speak to historians.
It's gonna be bad, but killing aviation is not the answer. In fact, the very simplicity of Aviation's use of energy makes it a prime candidate for a green solution, which is why major companies are playing with swapping the kerosene-burners for algae-burners.
Denialism on climate change is a mental affliction
We may be going through a period of warming BUT is it anthropogenic or not?
Well, it doesn't really matter because we are not going to reverse this process - not a chance.
Seems a great opportunity for the UK Chancellor to tax anything car related - but wait, didn't I hear today that we are to scrap our cars and buy new ones to get the economy going? Well at least just building them doesn't produce CO2, does it?
We will have to adapt to a warmer climate.
Now who'd like to join Basil's Northern Rocks Farmland Purchase Fund?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, some points of clarification:
First off: my post was an attempt at burying the thread. If you put out a painfully long post with annoying details that have to be considered before responding, there's no need to kick it to jet blast: the thing just dies. So, please, when you see a 2-day-old thread, you're only doing a disservice by punting it with a comment "Why hasn't this been kicked to jet blast?" Why? Because the dang thing's moribund.
Second: There's no doubt it's anthropogenic. And there's no doubt things are headed hotter. The only question now is how bad are we going to let things get, and, arguing from historical evidence, the "least bad" is going to be really nasty. I'm not alarmist about it; just pragmatic.
Third: Yes, politicians do not have our best interests at heart, any more than the idiots who protest aircraft. "Democratically Elected" Politicians, when presented with a problem, will determine that the solution is the action that irritates the least number of people while scoring points with the constituency that cited the problem: to the press and the public, one trillion pounds and one million pounds both get the same typeface. Likewise, most environmental activists will go after whatever's iconic instead of whatever can do the greatest good; and they tend to be biased against anything you can classify under "secrets Man was not meant to know."
So, in other words: just because there are a lot of idiots saying stupid things doesn't make anyone right. There's no need to shunt this thread. Just let it die.
First off: my post was an attempt at burying the thread. If you put out a painfully long post with annoying details that have to be considered before responding, there's no need to kick it to jet blast: the thing just dies. So, please, when you see a 2-day-old thread, you're only doing a disservice by punting it with a comment "Why hasn't this been kicked to jet blast?" Why? Because the dang thing's moribund.
Second: There's no doubt it's anthropogenic. And there's no doubt things are headed hotter. The only question now is how bad are we going to let things get, and, arguing from historical evidence, the "least bad" is going to be really nasty. I'm not alarmist about it; just pragmatic.
Third: Yes, politicians do not have our best interests at heart, any more than the idiots who protest aircraft. "Democratically Elected" Politicians, when presented with a problem, will determine that the solution is the action that irritates the least number of people while scoring points with the constituency that cited the problem: to the press and the public, one trillion pounds and one million pounds both get the same typeface. Likewise, most environmental activists will go after whatever's iconic instead of whatever can do the greatest good; and they tend to be biased against anything you can classify under "secrets Man was not meant to know."
So, in other words: just because there are a lot of idiots saying stupid things doesn't make anyone right. There's no need to shunt this thread. Just let it die.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Second: There's no doubt it's anthropogenic. And there's no doubt things are headed hotter.
In the mean time, here is a link to a petition by scientists purposely to debunk the myth that "most scientist agree" with AGW.
Global Warming Petition Project
There's 30-odd THOUSAND scientists who disagree. But why let FACTS question the new "religion"?
Next we can move on to why a warmer planet would be catostrophic, or even bad?
There's 30-odd THOUSAND scientists who disagree. But why let FACTS question the new "religion"?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a list of the 100 airports using PBN?
About global warming:
I posted here about 5 years ago who believes it is true - I was pretty much alone. There are still a lot of pilots who wish to ignore. One proof more that pilots don't have to be very knowledgable. The numbers of ignorants will decrease. Let's hope that they don't use more fuel than necessary - the price of it will make them behave rationally...
Dani
About global warming:
I posted here about 5 years ago who believes it is true - I was pretty much alone. There are still a lot of pilots who wish to ignore. One proof more that pilots don't have to be very knowledgable. The numbers of ignorants will decrease. Let's hope that they don't use more fuel than necessary - the price of it will make them behave rationally...
Dani
Shoot some cows??
If one believes in global warming, shouldn't one be out there shooting cows rather than worrying about airplanes?
Over the same time period as the establishment of the Aviation business - say, about 60 years, the Industrialisation of the production of cows has grown at a much faster rate.
Man did not have domestic cows 100 years ago. A few farmers had a very few, but they were prohibitively expensive and only less than 0.1% of the population ate Beef..
As each cow is worse at global warming than each plane flight, I guess we all ought to buy some guns and shoot some cows.
Over the same time period as the establishment of the Aviation business - say, about 60 years, the Industrialisation of the production of cows has grown at a much faster rate.
Man did not have domestic cows 100 years ago. A few farmers had a very few, but they were prohibitively expensive and only less than 0.1% of the population ate Beef..
As each cow is worse at global warming than each plane flight, I guess we all ought to buy some guns and shoot some cows.
