|
Also dr dre (and Mk 1), I will happily (and humbly) stand and be counted beside people like these: and this man, https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...n-climate-lies (yes, published by more far right wingers so obviously any facts in here automatically don’t count....I guess). And yes, I have read this: https://skepticalscience.com/Nils-Ax...evel-rise.html and plenty more on that and likeminded websites. It makes me want to weep for the future of millenials when I think (not too often, I do have a life, even if I am getting to the latter end of it), of the multiple billions spent by governments around the world every year ‘fighting’ climate change! Imagine all the good that could have been done with that money. Building power stations in Africa for a start and then the children could have light to study with at night and their parents have electric stoves to cook food on instead of burning dried cow dung, paid for by working in the factories that could now be set up, producing basic necessities at first and then as the newly better educated workforce grows up, progressing to more sophisicated products. (Never mind just bringing clean water to everyone there). This for every impoverished people around the world. And then they could get on with living a dignified and happier life in this world instead of only trying to survive miserably in it until they get to wherever their particular promised land is. Yes, I know, I am just an old fool who thinks way too simplisticly about these things. I am all for a cleaner environment. I hate waste of any kind. But I do not believe in keeping the rest of the world impoverished while we in the developed one live ‘high on the hog’ and waste incredible, vast amounts of money on crazy, vanity renewable energy products etc that never pay for themselves and only serve to make the rich richer. All based on unproven premises delivered by fantastically well funded (at vast taxpayer expense), lobby groups and individuals of every variety imaginable that are driven on by money grabbing politicians, delighted for the opportunity to invent new taxes every year to ‘save us from climate change’...... And so yes, from where I stand climate change ‘alarmists’ are suffering from (or for sound financial reasons are willingly and knowingly going along with) this obscenely well funded mass hysteria and have proven that they are immune to facts and the evidence in front of their noses. And as they have the backing of the majority of those said moneygr.. sorry, noble, trustworty and wise people we refer to as politicians, I have no doubt that it is highly unlikely that I will live long enough to see an end to this madness. If you have read this far and and you share dr dre and Mk 1’s amazement that dinosaurs like me still exist, feel free to ignore the aberration that we obviously are. (“97% of climate scientists agree...” - don’t make me laugh, absolute bunkum!) |
If you don't agree that climate change is occurring
|
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10478440)
The only way we change is when we become motivated to change. We could be motivated sufficiently by a cost savings ( new technology) or by fear for our lives....not much else. Can anyone think of something else that would motivate the majority of human kind to change their behaviours? I can’t. With that in mind we should be pouring a fair bit of money into R&D because Joe Bloggs won’t fear for his life until the waves are crashing at his door and it’s 48 degrees in the shade. Worldwide famine. When there is no food in our bellies, what do we think about. Many examples of its consequences, one that is close to the flavour of our forum, aviation, is the Andes Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 crash . Nothing less than the ultimate disaster of complete lack of food is capable of changing our behaviour. |
msjh, thanks for not asking for anything too complicated requiring formula and calculation from me - my engineering days are a long way behind me now.. Quote: “You need to somehow show that that extreme weather isn't getting more extreme and more frequent.” https://www.investors.com/politics/e...-more-extreme/ https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...-more-extreme/ Yes, I know that there are a lot more articles saying that it is. I refer you back to my earlier comments about the incredibly well tax-payer funded worldwide ‘climate change’ industry.... Remember, no-one I know is arguing that climate is not changing. It always has and always will. I just find it incredible that so many people are so set on giving away billions to those that are already the richest for what will almost certainly be zero, and probably a negative return. Quote: “You need to prove that CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not have a greenhouse effect or that they aren't increasing.” Why? I prefer to believe what an expert such as the physicist Professor Williiam Happer has to say on the beneficial effects of an increase in CO2. If you have not heard him speak as he has many times on the subject, you should search and listen to what he has to say. It could just put your mind more at ease. And as Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, and a former NASA scientist has said in the past, “The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…” The important word there is ‘significant’. He also said: “The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis about our climate which says it has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.” And who in the UK has forgotten the mind-blowingly stupid fiasco of the UK converting coal-fired power stations to burn wood pellets shipped in from the US, in order to meet EU carbon targets...... (You couldn’t make it up....) Quote: “You need to explain why governments should somehow conspire to promote the idea of climate change and why the oil and coal companies, who make tens of billions in profits each year aren't simply saying "Hold on, here's the real science".” That’s easy. Money. We know why the oil and coal companies do not shout out the facts too loudly. The ‘alarmists’ scream and shout that they are just lying so they can continue to make their billions. (By the way ‘their billions’ are just a shadow beside the trillions made by governments taxing their product.) And I have no doubt that they have worked out that most of us will keep driving our fossil fuelled cars for the forseeable future and in the meantime it is much easier to keep a low profile and just use their billions to get in on the money making climate change scam in any way they can. There are thousands of highly qualified scientists and real climate experts around the world with absolutely nothing to gain, and plenty to lose, who have been desperately trying to get the verifiable facts out to the world for years now. But they are shouted down and drowned out by the worldwide juggernaut that is the ‘Climate Change Industry’ which has grown from nothing and out of pretty much nothing, in a relatively short period of time. (The Washington Times ran an article in 2015 about the $1.5 trillion ‘global climate change industry’. In 2015! This was made up of an industry with “9 segments and 38 sub-segments”. I mean, just think about the climate change ‘consulting’ market alone. (I am sure there are plenty of more recent facts and figures avaiable but I do not want to give this any more of my Sat eve.) Then we have carbon-trading. You know, that gas of life that has been demonised by the green lobby. Our friend Mr Gore has done very nicely out of that particular scam while being a major producer of the stuff himself. (Again, you couldn’t make it up...) And you need to ask the question above....? |
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth. It is the wet dream of globalists seeking to transfer wealth from the 1st World to the rest.
In the last century the planet has warmed 0.9 degrees C. Not a big deal. Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas, less than 1% of the atmosphere The hysteria was created by a few scientists, like Michael Mann of Penn State University, who "created" a computer model to project what increases in carbon dioxide would have on temperatures around the world. His models used amplifier, called the "Feedback Loop", much like the feedback effect one gets when you move a microphone too close to its loudspeaker, a complete fabrication, which made the resultant increases in temperatures seem much more dire. It was all made up... and used by cynical politicians like Al Gore, to enrich themselves, and by others to demand fixes like the "New Green Deal", which cedes every increasing power and authority to government. 1/7 of the plant life on the planet is due to the increase in CO2. Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Prof. Lindzen of MIT, Raul Alegre of France, are just a few of more notable climate experts who have said AGW is the biggest scientific hoax ever perpetuated on the world. The very real threat is the fact that the sun has gone into a period of relative inactivity, which will cause significant cooling world wide. Or as Willie Soon said, "Its the Sun Stupid!" |
Originally Posted by laxman
(Post 10478943)
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth. It is the wet dream of globalists seeking to transfer wealth from the 1st World to the rest.
In the last century the planet has warmed 0.9 degrees C. Not a big deal. Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas, less than 1% of the atmosphere The hysteria was created by a few scientists, like Michael Mann of Penn State University, who "created" a computer model to project what increases in carbon dioxide would have on temperatures around the world. His models used amplifier, called the "Feedback Loop", much like the feedback effect one gets when you move a microphone too close to its loudspeaker, a complete fabrication, which made the resultant increases in temperatures seem much more dire. It was all made up... and used by cynical politicians like Al Gore, to enrich themselves, and by others to demand fixes like the "New Green Deal", which cedes every increasing power and authority to government. 1/7 of the plant life on the planet is due to the increase in CO2. Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Prof. Lindzen of MIT, Raul Alegre of France, are just a few of more notable climate experts who have said AGW is the biggest scientific hoax ever perpetuated on the world. The very real threat is the fact that the sun has gone into a period of relative inactivity, which will cause significant cooling world wide. Or as Willie Soon said, "Its the Sun Stupid!" |
John Boeman Just picking up on one of your points. Perhaps you should re-think who you ‘believe’ in their commentary on climate science. Professor William Harper is a physicist, not a climate scientist so probably has as much credibility in this field as a journalist commenting on aviation. You probably won’t ‘believe’ this article but it provides a brief debunking of Professor Happer’s erroneous claims https://skepticalscience.com/even-pr...-mistakes.html |
(“97% of climate scientists agree...” - don’t make me laugh, absolute bunkum!) Multiple peer reviewed studies published in reputable scientific journals have backed up the 97% figure. Here’s NASA’s take on the subject: Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming (but hey, I guess they faked the moon landing so they’re experts at hoaxing the public right?) Yes, I know you can point to a handful of deniers with supposed authority to back up your claims, but you fail to mention things like supposed expert William Happer is an optical physicist with no formal education in climate science, or Leslie Woodcock writes for conspiracy theorist claptrap site Breitbart, or Nils-Axel Mörner’s (again a geologist not a climate scientist) work has been debunked multiple times by actual climate scientists, or Patrick Moore (again, a biologist not a climate scientist) is paid by the fossil fuel industry. You’ll accuse me of playing the man, not the ball. I don’t need to, the ball has been played many times already by the tens of thousands of actual Climate scientists and reputable worldwide scientific organisations who have spent decades studying in this specific field and whom all lead to the same conclusion. And so yes, from where I stand climate change ‘alarmists’ are suffering from (or for sound financial reasons are willingly and knowingly going along with) this obscenely well funded mass hysteria and have proven that they are immune to facts and the evidence in front of their noses. If you have read this far and and you share dr dre and Mk 1’s amazement that dinosaurs like me still exist, feel free to ignore the aberration that we obviously are It does give me hope that the current popular fight against climate change is being led by the youth, their leader being 16 years of age. They will be the ones who will have to deal with this problem in 2075. Why so far in the future? That’s when they will be the same age as the current US President. You can see why they are greatly concerned. |
Originally Posted by msjh
(Post 10478785)
- “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.” - “low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods.” - “streamflow trends since 1950 are non-statistically significant in most of the world’s largest rivers.” Despite their own evidence, the authors of the report then go on to say that extreme weather has already increased. In the real world, this is called lying or fraud. The problem with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is that you need to show the Catastrophic part, otherwise it's a little like a fart in crowded elevator; a little embarrassing, a little annoying, but ultimately forgettable and of no real consequence. All of the CAGW alarm is based on the word "if". A very power word is if, but if we are going to rent our hair shirts, then I would prefer proof, not wet dreams. There is no evidence to date of the C part of CAGW. There are projections, predictions, fears & hopes but nothing that stands alone as proof. Even the IPCC is not silly enough to go there (except of course with the discredited, by their own attached report, summary for policy makers sections). |
Originally Posted by beardy
(Post 10478953)
Thanks I haven't laughed so much for so long. Oddly I think you believe it 😁
Do a proper research, talk with professionals from universities and cross check what you hear. Study study and study some more to draw your OWN conclusions about the “issue” and you’ll see that CO2 isn’t what they want it to look like. Don’t be like the chemtrail/flat earth people. Do ask around. |
Originally Posted by Bankstown Boy
(Post 10478961)
then I would prefer proof, not wet dreams
Do something about it now to prevent it (or more accurately now just dampen the effects) and because it wasn’t as bad as what was forecast you’ll claim that the money spent was a total waste. Sort of like the year 2000 “Millenium Bug” scare when skeptics pointed out afterwards, despite forecasts of disaster, that nothing bad happened therefore the money spent was a total waste, completely disregarding the fact that the billions spent on updating software prior to the event prevented much of the forecasted computer failures. Like I said in my previous post I’m glad the popular fight (the knowledge fight has already been won by the overwhelming bulk of the science world) is now being led by the youth. 16 year olds who will have to deal with these issues in 2075 when they are the same age as the current US President, and long after almost all climate deniers have long since departed. |
Originally Posted by dr dre
(Post 10478971)
The only problems is you types It's your lot's theory, give us some proof. |
Originally Posted by Bankstown Boy
(Post 10478961)
.... if we are going to rent our hair shirts, then I would prefer proof, not wet dreams. There is no evidence to date of the C part of CAGW. There are projections, predictions, fears & hopes but nothing that stands alone as proof.
Science is messy; there is almost always incomplete data, uncertainty, anomalies and disagreement. That’s why those of us who aren’t climate scientists go with the scientific consensus. To do otherwise is to assume you know enough to go with a minority opinion. You can’t Google your way into being a climate scientist. But you can Google your way into having just enough understanding to bolster your own prejudices. |
Originally Posted by Bankstown Boy
(Post 10478993)
It's your lot's theory, give us some proof.
https://skepticalscience.com/ Oh and if you didn’t read my post before: Drought, wind and heat: Bushfire season is starting earlier and lasting longer |
Originally Posted by dr dre
(Post 10479004)
Start reading champ: https://skepticalscience.com/ Oh and if you didn’t read my post before: Drought, wind and heat: Bushfire season is starting earlier and lasting longer Do have anything factual? |
layman, I view your ‘skepticalscience’ website the way you probably (and dr dre definitely) view the ouput of the NIPCC. I think we are wasting each others time here. All the information is out there. I chose to believe the unfunded underdogs, based on the evidence they present and the evidence in front on my eyes, combined with some common sense. The only reason I have come into this discussion, with my ‘egregious’ (give me a break dre!) contribution was because it looked extremely one sided to me (a bit like watching the BBC dealing with Brexit...). So dr dre, you have written a lot of words yourself which from my point of view I will only label as misinformed. The mythical 97% figure so beloved of politicians and the misinformed has been utterly debunked many times over. Multiple peer reviews in scientific journals my ass. Most people nowadays are aware of these peers who love to massage each others egos and keep the money rolling in. Stop kidding yourself, you are certainly not kidding the informed. I am not going to get into a point by point pissing contest with you right now (and probably not in future either, chasing lost causes is too depressing and a waste of time) but I am interested to hear your description and criticism of Patrick Moore and the video I linked earlier. Please do tell us why HE doesn’t know what he is talking about. |
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b67345f729.png Can anyone explain to me why the above graphic shouldn’t be referenced or is somehow unreliable? Genuine question. PS Thanks to all contributors to this thread regardless of which position you hold. I am finding it useful. |
Originally Posted by John Boeman
(Post 10479021)
So dr dre, you have written a lot of words yourself which from my point of view I will only label as misinformed. The mythical 97% figure so beloved of politicians and the misinformed has been utterly debunked many times over. Multiple peer reviews in scientific journals my ass. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Please do tell us why HE doesn’t know what he is talking about. Here’s some actual climate scientists debunking his claims. There were a lot more but I couldn’t be bothered posting them all: https://skepticalscience.com/moore-2012.html https://amp.theguardian.com/environm...cience-deniers Patrick Moore vs. Patrick Moore on Climate Change | PolluterWatch He may have been involved with Greenpeace decades ago but it’s obvious he’s sold out his beliefs and his trailing to be a paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Some people will say anything as long as you pay them the money. The problem is deniers think there is a legitimate debate between legitimate scientists. There isn’t. Here’s a mathematically accurate representation of the debate: |
Well , if those of us following and contributing to this thread refrain from using terms that invoke emotion ( tree huggers, deniers, zealots, you types etc etc) and explain to each other what they think has happened, will happen, and why they think that, we might get a bit closer to developing a realistic understanding. We essentially have two teams, the ‘ All our grandchildren are going to die’ team and the ‘ this is all just hysteria’ team. I’d be surprised if the actual reality wasn’t hidden somewhere in between. Now......can anyone tell me why the graphic above with the thermometer reading depiction shouldn’t be used when assessing temperatures for that particular area and time span? |
I'm old. I'm shutting my mind to the world's problems. Almost.
This program really grabbed me. 129 billion tonnes of water in the world's atmosphere. Well, it all started from doing tests on one cloud. The tonnage of a CB. Sheesh, no wonder they gave me the sh . . . ivers. But one thing was astonishing. The surface temperature of the oceans. A big player. The particulate matter in the atmosphere - it's complicated and works in reverse when the particles are fine. I really am starting to believe in Gyre. You know what I mean. Perhaps she can communicate with the sun and tell it to throttle back a bit. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p026yzxz |
I can't assert why the climate is changing, but I assert that it appears to be. In addition to my clients, who research the climate for a living, and telling me they have documented change, I simply see the change myself! I have watched the weather as a GA pilot for more than 40 years, and the last two years have been noticeably different weather than from years prior. patterns I came to expect are no longer there. Patterns we were not used to, are more common, and repeating. Forecasters describing a "once in a hundred year weather event" for the second time in the same year, where we'd never had one in memory before that.
I see the change, and I read reports. As my work is responsible for some of the climate change measurement, when I see the results of the measurements, I know that they're true. Maybe this is just a very long period cycle in the weather, and not attributable to mankind, but so far, for all the pollution we throw into the atmosphere, I believe those who say climate change is at least in part due to mankind. I pay more attention to what I expel into the atmosphere than I did five years ago. Do I think that mankind will succumb to climate change? I do not. But, I'm imaging a different world for my great grandkids, than I know from my lifetime. It may not be as nice. For those who live very close to sea level, I imagine them having to move. My work measures arctic and antarctic ocean ice thickness - and in the last 12 years I've been approving that research equipment in the airplanes, there has been measurable sea ice reduction - that's indicative of land ice pack reduction too, and sea level is going to increase. How much? Not mine to speculate. But some places I have visited cannot withstand much without a dramatic change to their society! As I said to my charge, while I mentored her flying a 180HP PA-18, "enjoy this now, because when you're my age, burning gas like this to go 85 MPH will just not be tolerated by society!". So as we price out polluting, including light airplanes, what will the pilots of the future fly in to build their experience? The techies will build super simulators, and self flying planes, so our sim trained pilots just sit in the seat, in case the red light flashes, then try to apply skills they only ever learned in the sim, and hope that they don't really have to actually fly the plane to safety. So not only will my great grandkids live in a different world, but they'll travel in it differently too - probably not near as much as we do now, nor with so well trained and experienced pilots! |
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
(Post 10479057)
So as we price out polluting, including light airplanes, what will the pilots of the future fly in to build their experience?
And before the naysayers chip in, yes it has limited range and there are some considerations with charging, so it’s not perfect yet, but the technology will be improved and become more efficient and user friendly over time as more R&D is done in the field. It’s like witnessing the first flight of the Wright Flyer in 1903 and exclaiming “pfft, a fabric and wire contraption that can’t even travel 100m, as if people will cross oceans in that one day, might as well give up and stick with coal burning ships!” |
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10479047)
Now......can anyone tell me why the graphic above with the thermometer reading depiction shouldn’t be used when assessing temperatures for that particular area and time span? This happens to be a rather poor choice of scale , considering 99% of the real estate of the graph doesn't contain any information, but one could think of even worse ways to plot this. It is a bit like Boeing publishing a graph of how many souls were safely transported on their planes per year in percent (a quantity close to 100% for any year) on a scale starting a 0%. The MAX deaths are in that figure, just not so trivial to see as if you plotted the deaths directly, or zoomed into the region between 99,9 and 100%.. |
The oldest records are only in hundreds of years, the planet's age billions.
Therefore, change has likely been the constant. However, changing weather patterns aside, other industries are actively transitioning away from hydrocarbon based fuel. Perhaps, focusing on the declining availability of a non-renewable resource is the actual challenge. To this point, the aviation industry has no ETS in place; it doesn't start for 8 more years. Its strategy relies on assumptions of dubious robustness. Yet, most strikingly, is the industry has no plan, timeline or cohesive strategy to get the industry away from the current fuel source. Motherhood statements on bio-fuel undermine the technical and practical complexity. Battery technology is but a wish and laminar flow flying wings would require a rather lot of fossil fuel to be expended building an entirely new infrastructure. Climate change or not, what viable alternative is there? |
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10479047)
Well , if those of us following and contributing to this thread refrain from using terms that invoke emotion ( tree huggers, deniers, zealots, you types etc etc) and explain to each other what they think has happened, will happen, and why they think that, we might get a bit closer to developing a realistic understanding. We essentially have two teams, the ‘ All our grandchildren are going to die’ team and the ‘ this is all just hysteria’ team. I’d be surprised if the actual reality wasn’t hidden somewhere in between. Now......can anyone tell me why the graphic above with the thermometer reading depiction shouldn’t be used when assessing temperatures for that particular area and time span? The problem with the graph you quoted is that, by choosing a fairly arbitrary large scale, it minimises changes in temperature. As someone noted earlier, why not choose a Kelvin scale? The temperatures that matter are the ones at which we can reasonably live, and -40º is certainly outside that range! (1) Yes, these are just my opinions but I think they are true. No, I do not have any corroborating evidence. |
In what other branch of science do so many amateurs challenge the scientific consensus, based on selective Googling? Evolution? Nup. Quantum Theory? No way. The Big Bang? Waaay too complicated. But apparently climate science isn’t that hard! |
And still nobody is talking of shipping (marine)........
|
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10479124)
To this point, the aviation industry has no ETS in place; it doesn't start for 8 more year
|
It does not matter how the data is presented - any sane person will perform analysis on the raw data and not in the graph. The problem with the graph you quoted is that, by choosing a fairly arbitrary large scale, it minimises changes in temperature |
Originally Posted by oneeyed
(Post 10479184)
And still nobody is talking of shipping (marine)........
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...l#post10478744 :) |
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10479209)
What % of the public do you think performs analysis on the raw data? I would guess at less than 1%. Neither of these routes requires anyone to produce a useless graph such as the one we are talking about. |
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10479209)
The problem with the graph you quoted is that, by choosing a fairly arbitrary large scale, it minimises changes in temperature |
Originally Posted by CargoOne
(Post 10479208)
Excuse me but ETS is in place for a number of years for all European Union operators. How does it helps anyone including global climate change remains a mystery as effectively it is just yet another tax. And still nobody is talking of shipping (marine)........ The aviation industry has no such intention, it appears that consumption of hydrocarbon based fuel is their intent. |
Ok dr dre, I know I am fighting an unwinnable battle here. The resources lined up behind you, whose very existence depends on destroying their ‘opponents’ using whatever methods necessary means that only time will have a chance of exposing whatever is the truth. One of those ‘methods’ is to attack from all angles and denigrate and destroy anybody who does not agree with their position. Can I also point out that you tend to lose us people that you only refer to with the derogatory tag ‘deniers’, (I know, in weak moments I have referred to ‘alarmists’ a couple of times), the moment you refer to someone as being a “paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry”. If such people exist, people who actually give speeches contrary to what they believe in regard to this issue and receive money from the ‘fossil fuel industry’ for doing so, then I believe their number is an immeasurably tiny fraction when stood beside the vast army being paid around the world to create and inflate any reason to sustain the behemoth that the ‘climate change industry’ now is. (And may I again refer to to Al Gore...) A great example from earlier days was the BBC’s silencing of David Bellamy. I am afraid listening to the sainted David Attenborough now only reminds me of what was done to David Bellamy. Thank you very much for your reply regarding Dr. Patrick Moore and in particular the link ‘Patrick Moore vs. Patrick Moore on Climate Change’. Reading that felt like I was watching a synopsis of my own thought progression on climate change through the years. I one hundred per cent agree with the man regarding nuclear energy. Of course location of the power plants will always be a problem. We are all NIMBYs when it comes to those. But surely the latest designs do offer the one efficient, relatively low cost way to ensure a plentiful reliable supply of energy in the future? With regard to his contrarian statements, I see a man like Keynes who changes his mind when the facts change. What do you do? However your attempt to dismiss him with the statements: “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about because (like you) he isn’t considered legitimate for many reasons (lack of expertise in the field, obvious connections to fossil fuel companies) by the climate science community.” and “He may have been involved with Greenpeace decades ago but it’s obvious he’s sold out his beliefs and his trailing to be a paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry” (sic), is classic! His story - feel free to point out any lies he is telling: Patrick Moore: Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide? | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) This is a man who Greenpeace themselves acknowledged on their website as a founder member back in the day (he was one of the guys in the dinghy sheltering the whales from the Russian whalers for gawdsake!). An archived Greenpeace webpage: https://web.archive.org/web/20051216...story/founders But he has now been written out of that position and Greenpeace have written and contributed to dozens of articles denigrating his contribution ever since. Nice! Even Google got in on the act.. https://www.neogaf.com/threads/googl...-scam.1473676/ Admittedly it may have had something to do with his views on what Greenpeace has morphed into: Why I Left Greenpeace ? Dr. Patrick Moore He is not alone in his views about the current Greenpeace (to give just one tiny example): https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/...-full-of-****/ So frankly, I guess I should thank you for providing a perfect example of how the Climate Change Industry deals with naysayers. I am just grateful that despite their best efforts, there are still brave people willing to stand up against the onslaught coming their way whenever they try to point out and discuss facts. I will just say again something I think we can all agree on. The climate is changing. If you ask a man to find a trend and tell him his livelihood depends on it, he will find a that trend, somewhere, somehow. I will do my best to bow out here now. I know I am literally wasting my time....... |
I’m a big believer in looking after the environment but I’m not quite sure that the general population of earth will suddenly reduce the amount of flying they do based on their love for nature. The reason I say this, is that about 15 years ago the developed world was making a massive fuss about American-style SUV fuel guzzlers and how they were the enemy of the future of the earth. Fast forward a few years and here we are with all developed countries’ populations driving expensive oversized luxury SUVs despite us all apparently despising them. I predict aviation will be no different. |
Air transport operates within the earths atmosphere. Extreme wx events are showing a dramatic increase over the last twenty to thirty years. There could well come a time when such wx conditions would make it very difficult and unsafe to operate within the bands of the atmosphere which can support flight by aircraft of our times. It is not just convective wx that may be a problem. Increase in volcanic activity and its combined effects of spread due to strong convective atmosphere and jet stream activity that would be a major issue when such conditions become permanently established as the norm rather than the exception.
Here is the link to articles on the subject of extreme wx: https://nca2 014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather#intro-section-2 Richard Branson and his Virgin Galactic may perhaps be the answer to the future of aviation. |
I forgot to include, regarding the bunkum 97% con-census: The ?97% Con-sensus? ? Use Due Diligence on? Climate Chronus, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over anything produced by the NCA (or the IPCC). https://realclimatescience.com/2018/...ssment-part-1/ https://realclimatescience.com/2018/...ssment-part-2/ |
. Always have a look on what the motives and benefits are. |
Population
Originally Posted by xorrox
(Post 10478239)
Totally agree: population growth is the elephant in the room that no one is talking about. We should have stopped at between 3 and 4 billion people. We can reduce each person's individual footprint all we can but if the world population just keeps rising it won't do any good. If we don't come up with a plan to stop and reverse this growth back to a sustainable level, pollution, disease, starvation and war will do it for us.
|
What happens when cheap mass oil runs out, in 50 or 60 years? Trains and cars can go electric, ships can use sails and electric, but what's the answer for planes? Knowing how long it takes to get revolutionary new technology into commercial everyday service, I'd have thought there would be some good alternatives to oil surfacing from Rolls/P&W etc by now,..
But yes the big problem is over population and over consumption. G |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:24. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.