Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : Hurricane


Missed Appch
08-26-2017, 11:08 AM
I'm just curious what your airline is doing with your crews and the hurricane. Frontier has chosen to leave crews there with the promise of "rations" that aren't going to make it.

How are the other airlines handling this?


WhiskeyKilo
08-26-2017, 11:30 AM
Cancelling flights.

yz450f177
08-26-2017, 12:38 PM
Went through Denton Tx. about 4 hour ago.
Everts Cargo must have moved their MD80, and a EMB120 up there.


Qotsaautopilot
08-26-2017, 08:23 PM
I'm just curious what your airline is doing with your crews and the hurricane. Frontier has chosen to leave crews there with the promise of "rations" that aren't going to make it.

How are the other airlines handling this?

What do you want them to do?

I think spirit moved crew's at the "long" location to the "short" locations (higher ground). I think though it was for selfish reasons to make it easier to get flights completed instead of having crew's stuck at the long location with a moat around them.

Sam York
08-27-2017, 06:47 AM
I can't speak for the smaller airlines but wrt to my airline when there is a large wx event (hurricane/snow storm) bearing down on a hub they will run ops up to a certain point then get everyone (airplane wise) out of town.

For example: bizzard headed for NYC, wx people say the crap will hit the fan at 8 pm Friday and will snow for 30 hours. The last flights in/ out will be about 5-7 pm Friday. At that time at an airport like lagarbage there may be 1 or 2 planes per airline left on the ground so snow can be easily removed. Basically get everyone away from the wx event then when it's gone send them back in. In the case above by Sunday morning the first flights will start arriving and by the end of the day Sunday or early Monday a regular sked will be restored.

The only down side is that there are many CXd flights so all flights for a few days after will be fuller than full as they clear the backlog of stuck pax.

IMO this method is the lesser of the evils. Many years ago we'd try to run as much as possible thru a wx event. You wind up with airplanes and crew stuck everywhere. Crews with planes but times out. Crews that can work but their plane diverted inbound so no jet available. Crews stuck in whatever hotel. It would take days just to put the sked back together.

TransWorld
08-27-2017, 12:17 PM
FAA closed IAH mid morning Sun 8/27. Reopen planned Noon Mon 8/28.

HOU (Hobby) closed early morning Sun 8/27. Reopen planned 8 am Weds 8/30.

Bobby
08-27-2017, 08:04 PM
So this happened today...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/27/us/southwest-humanitarian-airlift-hobby-airport/index.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DENpilot
08-27-2017, 09:00 PM
Frontier has chosen to leave crews there with the promise of "rations" that aren't going to make it.


I'm curious who told you this lie. I checked and we have zero crews in IAH right now.

This is a serious accusation, and during this period of negotiations, I suggest you remove your claim unless you have evidence to back it up.

Missed Appch
08-27-2017, 09:17 PM
I'm curious who told you this lie. I checked and we have zero crews in IAH right now.

This is a serious accusation, and during this period of negotiations, I suggest you remove your claim unless you have evidence to back it up.

You are 100% correct. The FO I talked to is in Austin. Not IAH. My mistake.

IWalkJun12
08-28-2017, 09:14 AM
NK has crews in IAH

SonicFlyer
08-28-2017, 04:55 PM
https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21151539_1284056285037859_5317806061821356761_n.jp g?oh=e788958b9cdd11bf4ac3716272349268&oe=5A28A3BE



https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21192516_1284470244996463_4230957676654733311_n.jp g?oh=b148d6aca62b33b556d3593844b81c3a&oe=5A2DEAD5

ShyGuy
08-28-2017, 05:10 PM
Now that's funny! :D



My only question is why didn't the city authorities have mandatory evacuations? Quite a few cities in the red zone (including parts of Houston) should have been evac'ed.

trip
08-28-2017, 06:19 PM
The RJ be saying- glub,glub,glub...

itsmytime
08-28-2017, 09:12 PM
Both are photo shops.

putzin
08-29-2017, 04:20 AM
Now that's funny! :D



My only question is why didn't the city authorities have mandatory evacuations? Quite a few cities in the red zone (including parts of Houston) should have been evac'ed.

Google it and you'll find your answer. You're a millennial, you should know that.

putzin
08-29-2017, 04:24 AM
What do you want them to do?

I think spirit moved crew's at the "long" location to the "short" locations (higher ground). I think though it was for selfish reasons to make it easier to get flights completed instead of having crew's stuck at the long location with a moat around them.

No, they're downtown.

ShyGuy
08-29-2017, 07:07 AM
Google it and you'll find your answer. You're a millennial, you should know that.

I couldn't find an answer, that's why I asked. If they are saying evac kills many ppl like it happened during Katrina, that's because that evac order came late. There was plenty of warning and time for Harvey.

CBreezy
08-29-2017, 07:45 AM
I couldn't find an answer, that's why I asked. If they are saying evac kills many ppl like it happened during Katrina, that's because that evac order came late. There was plenty of warning and time for Harvey.

It wasn't Katrina. It was Rita. The flooding didn't kill people during Rita. From what I understand, there were more deaths that occurred on the roads outside of Houston than did by he landfall of the Hurricane itself. People saw what happened to those who stayed in NO during Katrina and over 3.7 Million people evacuated prior to the storm. They sat in a 100 mile gridlock, windows down, and no A/C to conserve gas. Dozens of people died on the road (it was 100 degrees out there) after a horrific bus crash and of heat exhaustion.

Even worse, Rita didn't hit Houston. It missed and weakened.

putzin
08-29-2017, 08:20 AM
I couldn't find an answer, that's why I asked. If they are saying evac kills many ppl like it happened during Katrina, that's because that evac order came late. There was plenty of warning and time for Harvey.



Maybe your google is broke?:D

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-evacuation-hurricane-harvey-20170828-htmlstory.html
Why didn't Houston evacuate? - CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/27/us/houston-evacuation-hurricane-harvey/index.html)

CBreezy
08-29-2017, 08:57 AM
Maybe your google is broke?:D

Why didn't Houston evacuate before Harvey? It's not that simple - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-evacuation-hurricane-harvey-20170828-htmlstory.html)
Why didn't Houston evacuate? - CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/27/us/houston-evacuation-hurricane-harvey/index.html)

Everyone knows that if it's in the news, it's fake... Except when it isnt. Duh.

putzin
08-29-2017, 09:21 AM
Everyone knows that if it's in the news, it's fake... Except when it isnt. Duh.

I know AND it's not really raining in Houston. 😂

ShyGuy
08-29-2017, 09:25 AM
I still don't see a decent reason. You can't just say well last time we tried to Evac, ppl died and the hurricane wasn't that bad! If the govt wants an evac it should be done in an orderly fashion, e.g., have both directions of interstates be changed to one way exits, have LE agencies coordinate timeframes of evac by certain regions/zip codes. Most importantly, the key should be to have evac plans spread out over a period of time so no one feels like they all must blitz at the same time. The deaths before with the bus fire was tragic, but that's a one off event. Running out of gas shouldn't happen if ppl were prepared (who doesn't stock up on food or gas in a high risk area?)

Problem with Harvey is a couple days before it hit, the NWS and even CNN weather were saying the most troubling aspect of this hurricane is then once it makes landfall, the computer models show that it stalls. And that stalling without continuing inland means the storm is going to be remain strong as it drops tremendous amounts of rain, let alone wind damage. If the govt didn't order an evac, this should still have been alarming on an individual level.

Right now they're reporting many deaths with people driving (in control) cars into flooded streets/waters and their cars being swept away. Quite a few deaths like this already, this was preventable.

CBreezy
08-29-2017, 10:34 AM
I still don't see a decent reason. You can't just say well last time we tried to Evac, ppl died and the hurricane wasn't that bad! If the govt wants an evac it should be done in an orderly fashion, e.g., have both directions of interstates be changed to one way exits, have LE agencies coordinate timeframes of evac by certain regions/zip codes. Most importantly, the key should be to have evac plans spread out over a period of time so no one feels like they all must blitz at the same time. The deaths before with the bus fire was tragic, but that's a one off event. Running out of gas shouldn't happen if ppl were prepared (who doesn't stock up on food or gas in a high risk area?)

Problem with Harvey is a couple days before it hit, the NWS and even CNN weather were saying the most troubling aspect of this hurricane is then once it makes landfall, the computer models show that it stalls. And that stalling without continuing inland means the storm is going to be remain strong as it drops tremendous amounts of rain, let alone wind damage. If the govt didn't order an evac, this should still have been alarming on an individual level.

Right now they're reporting many deaths with people driving (in control) cars into flooded streets/waters and their cars being swept away. Quite a few deaths like this already, this was preventable.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/28/546721363/why-didn-t-officials-order-the-evacuation-of-houston

It's more complex than you're making it.

ShyGuy
08-29-2017, 10:45 AM
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/28/546721363/why-didn-t-officials-order-the-evacuation-of-houston

It's more complex than you're making it.

Sounds like some state officials wanted an evac, including the governors office, but local officials did not want an evac. The reasons are BS. "We can't handle the physical aspects of an evacuation, and don't want to be blamed for evac deaths. So just stay home and die is better, at least it isn't our fault!"

Bush had his Katrina. Some politicians and city officials wanted Trump to have his Harvey. And to blame storm strength on climate change. Yes, I've already read articles insinuating both. Amazing how far some people will go for their hatred of Trump and his office.

CBreezy
08-29-2017, 10:50 AM
Sounds like some state officials wanted an evac, including the governors office, but local officials did not want an evac. The reasons are BS. "We can't handle the physical aspects of an evacuation, and don't want to be blamed for evac deaths. So just stay home and die is better, at least it isn't our fault!"

Bush had his Katrina. Some politicians and city officials wanted Trump to have his Harvey. And to blame storm strength on climate change. Yes, I've already read articles insinuating both. Amazing how far some people will go for their hatred of Trump and his office.

You can't be serious that the mayor did this so he could blame Trump. That's an incredible accusation. If anything, allowing this to happen so Trump can swoop in to take the credit for rebuilding humanizes and bolsters his image.

And yes, this Hurricane's intensity and track can be partially attributed to climate change. I don't have time nor do I want to make the effort to go into the science behind it.

ShyGuy
08-29-2017, 10:52 AM
You can't be serious that the mayor did this so he could blame Trump. That's an incredible accusation. If anything, allowing this to happen so Trump can swoop in to take the credit for rebuilding humanizes and bolsters his image.

And yes, this Hurricane's intensity and track can be partially attributed to climate change. I don't have time nor do I want to make the effort to go into the science behind it.

Thanks for showing your political motivation. There is zero proof that Harvey, itself, was influenced by climate change. "Scientists" have cautioned that this cannot be conclusively proven. Their generic warning is as oceans warm, storms will gain greater strength and therefore be powerful heading to land. But this Harvey climate change is pure BS to try and yet again trash Trunp and his office.

CBreezy
08-29-2017, 11:01 AM
Thanks for showing your political motivation. There is zero proof that Harvey, itself, was influenced by climate change. "Scientists" have cautioned that this cannot be conclusively proven. Their generic warning is as oceans warm, storms will gain greater strength and therefore be powerful heading to land. But this Harvey climate change is pure BS to try and yet again trash Trunp and his office.

In a peer reviewed scientific study, hurricane intensity is directly proportional to climate change. The number of storms reaching major hurricane status will be a larger percentage of storms than in previous decades. There is no correlation of number of storms to climate change.

The path exhibited by this storm is a result of climate change. Peer reviewed scientific studies have indicated that global and regional weather patterns and long wave activity will stagnate as climate change progresses. To a non atmospheric scientist, the highs and ridges that drive the weather stay in place longer causing system stagnation. It's one of the primary reasons this hurricane sat in the same area for a week (unprecedented) and similar to the extreme heat in the Pacific NW, extreme drought in the SE and flooding in California.

And I'm not supporting his decision to not evacuate. I understand his hesitation after the last storm and the complexity of moving 6 million people. I'm saying I find the accusation that he did it do Trump looks bad to be stupid.

ShyGuy
08-29-2017, 11:59 AM
In a peer reviewed scientific study, hurricane intensity is directly proportional to climate change. The number of storms reaching major hurricane status will be a larger percentage of storms than in previous decades. There is no correlation of number of storms to climate change.

First major hurricane to hit the US in almost 12 yrs, and yeah it's climate change :rolleyes:

The path exhibited by this storm is a result of climate change.

There is ZERO evidence to support that claim. None. Anyone claiming otherwise is pulling it out of their rear end.

Peer reviewed scientific studies have indicated that global and regional weather patterns and long wave activity will stagnate as climate change progresses. To a non atmospheric scientist, the highs and ridges that drive the weather stay in place longer causing system stagnation. It's one of the primary reasons this hurricane sat in the same area for a week (unprecedented) and similar to the extreme heat in the Pacific NW, extreme drought in the SE and flooding in California.

And I'm not supporting his decision to not evacuate. I understand his hesitation after the last storm and the complexity of moving 6 million people. I'm saying I find the accusation that he did it do Trump looks bad to be stupid.

Anytime I read about "peer reviewed scientific studies" my first question for the scientists is what's their primary source of funding/income? Second question is if they receive donations for research, what political affiliation did the money come from?

CBreezy
08-29-2017, 12:43 PM
First major hurricane to hit the US in almost 12 yrs, and yeah it's climate change :rolleyes:



There is ZERO evidence to support that claim. None. Anyone claiming otherwise is pulling it out of their rear end.



Anytime I read about "peer reviewed scientific studies" my first question for the scientists is what's their primary source of funding/income? Second question is if they receive donations for research, what political affiliation did the money come from?

You do realize that if a Hurricane doesn't hit land, it's still a Hurricane, right? Just because it's the first to hit land is completely irrelevant.

There is zero evidence according to you because you don't read climate or meteorological publications. Keep flying airplanes, you're much better at it. Leave the meteorology to the meteorologists.

And please leave your Breitbart click-bait elsewhere. Real climate scientists aren't being denied funding if they are looking to disprove it. But I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. You're so buried in your echo chamber that nothing I can say will change your opinion and I have better things to do with my time.

ShyGuy
08-29-2017, 12:52 PM
You do realize that if a Hurricane doesn't hit land, it's still a Hurricane, right? Just because it's the first to hit land is completely irrelevant.

There is zero evidence according to you because you don't read climate or meteorological publications. Keep flying airplanes, you're much better at it. Leave the meteorology to the meteorologists.

And please leave your Breitbart click-bait elsewhere. Real climate scientists aren't being denied funding if they are looking to disprove it. But I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. You're so buried in your echo chamber that nothing I can say will change your opinion and I have better things to do with my time.

#triggered like a typical liberal. All personal attacks, zero provable facts. :rolleyes:

CBreezy
08-29-2017, 12:55 PM
#triggered like a typical liberal. All personal attacks, zero provable facts. :rolleyes:

Says the guy who has twice insulted my supposed political affiliation to prove his point.

I'm not triggered. I just have better things to do. Read some real research. I have. And I spent 6 years in college studying it.

BlueMoon
08-29-2017, 01:00 PM
Anytime I read about "peer reviewed scientific studies" my first question for the scientists is what's their primary source of funding/income? Second question is if they receive donations for research, what political affiliation did the money come from?

As long as you apply this logic uniformly. Especially to climate change dening studies.

And I agree you can't contribute A single storms stregnth to the climate change. A storm is weather, climate is long term and if we see a pattern of these storms then we can say they are caused by the climate changing.

Also, this isn't some anti trump conspiracy. We all know he controls the Dept of defense, which over sees the dispersal of weather controlling chemtrails.

CBreezy
08-29-2017, 02:44 PM
As long as you apply this logic uniformly. Especially to climate change dening studies.

And I agree you can't contribute A single storms stregnth to the climate change. A storm is weather, climate is long term and if we see a pattern of these storms then we can say they are caused by the climate changing.

Also, this isn't some anti trump conspiracy. We all know he controls the Dept of defense, which over sees the dispersal of weather controlling chemtrails.

It isn't a single storm. Nor would a strike by a single hurricane cause this level of flooding. The stagnation of weather systems due in part to climate change has caused heavy rain events to sit over swaths of land for abnormally long periods of time. Houston has had 3 x 500 year storms in 3 years. Missouri had 2 record breaking 500 year floods in 18 months. Dating back to the 1800, the highest crest in 2015 was surpassed the 1915 mark by an astounding 5 feet. That record was beaten again in 2017.

FlyingMaryJane
08-29-2017, 03:10 PM
Just saw Kingwood,TX on the news... thats a hotbed for United and Expressjet pilots and FA's all these nice homes underwater, completely devestating! Prayers to all you pilots and FA's living in Kingwood

ShyGuy
08-29-2017, 03:36 PM
It isn't a single storm. Nor would a strike by a single hurricane cause this level of flooding. The stagnation of weather systems due in part to climate change has caused heavy rain events to sit over swaths of land for abnormally long periods of time. Houston has had 3 x 500 year storms in 3 years. Missouri had 2 record breaking 500 year floods in 18 months. Dating back to the 1800, the highest crest in 2015 was surpassed the 1915 mark by an astounding 5 feet. That record was beaten again in 2017.

Due in part to climate change you say. And absolutely nothing to do with a high pressure area that prevents a low pressure system from moving further inland. So now high pressure areas are forming because of humans burning fossil fuels and causing global warming.

Packrat
08-29-2017, 04:03 PM
Due in part to climate change you say. And absolutely nothing to do with a high pressure area that prevents a low pressure system from moving further inland. So now high pressure areas are forming because of humans burning fossil fuels and causing global warming.

If you had started flying to Alaska 20 years ago, you would have witnessed the amazing retreat of the glaciers in SE Alaska.

Deny it all you want, but the earth is warming and putting more water in the atmosphere. When that happens, you get bigger, more powerful storms. Harvey and Katrina are no coincidence.

Good thing we cut FEMA's budget to the bone. Those liberal government programs have to go. At least those red caps will help recover the bodies.

trip
08-29-2017, 04:09 PM
the earth is warming and putting more water in the atmosphere

The Earth will go through warming and cooling periods, it has in the past and will continue in the future, fact.

Packrat
08-29-2017, 04:10 PM
The Earth will go through warming and cooling periods, it has in the past and will continue in the future, fact.

I never said what caused it, just that its happening.

CBreezy
08-29-2017, 06:33 PM
Due in part to climate change you say. And absolutely nothing to do with a high pressure area that prevents a low pressure system from moving further inland. So now high pressure areas are forming because of humans burning fossil fuels and causing global warming.

That isn't what I said. What makes high pressure areas and ridges and trophs and what makes them move? There is much more to atmospheric Dynamics than the H you see on your surface analysis. Recent research has indicated that AGW is playing a roll in the increase of wave stagnation...like I said earlier. That has contributed to the longer duration extreme heat events and rain events that have lead to historic flooding...to include the hurricane..

Lemons
08-29-2017, 09:04 PM
Good thing we cut FEMA's budget to the bone. Those liberal government programs have to go. At least those red caps will help recover the bodies.

Yeah especially when their budget is twice the size it needs to be it has to waste money on things it doesn't need.

Lemons
08-30-2017, 05:19 AM
Recent research has indicated that AGW is playing a roll in the increase of wave stagnation...
There is no proof gw is caused by man.

CBreezy
08-30-2017, 06:03 AM
There is no proof gw is caused by man.

There is plenty of evidence that the human burning of fossil fuels is having a statistically significant effect on our climate. There is actually little credible evidence disproving it.

What is unknown is how this climate change will impact our future.

ShyGuy
08-30-2017, 07:28 AM
That isn't what I said. What makes high pressure areas and ridges and trophs and what makes them move? There is much more to atmospheric Dynamics than the H you see on your surface analysis. Recent research has indicated that AGW is playing a roll in the increase of wave stagnation...like I said earlier. That has contributed to the longer duration extreme heat events and rain events that have lead to historic flooding...to include the hurricane..

All weather is caused primarily due to the unequal heating of earth from the sun. You want add man's impact and fossil fuels to that, knock yourself out. So tell me, what percentage less of fossil fuels would we need to burn less to have stopped Harvey? :confused:

CBreezy
08-30-2017, 08:20 AM
All weather is caused primarily due to the unequal heating of earth from the sun. You want add man's impact and fossil fuels to that, knock yourself out. So tell me, what percentage less of fossil fuels would we need to burn less to have stopped Harvey? :confused:

You keep misquoting me. But I can understand your lack of understanding of how weather works. Thanks for the Private Pilot answer to "what makes weather."

Harvey wasn't caused by global warming. Certainly you could make the argument that its quick rise to a category 4 was helped by the fact that the Gulf water temps were between 3 and 7 degrees F above average. I'm not making that argument, though. Harvey would have been a Hurricane even if temperatures were average. The argument, however, is that the long wave pattern, the thing that is the force behind why Highs and lows move and the number of such systems globally, has been experiencing a greater frequency of quasi-stationary events. It is what kept a large Hurricane and subsequent rain event mostly stationary for the better part of a week. It is what caused record flooding last year and the year before in Texas. It is what caused the record flooding in Missouri. It's what caused the dangerous heat wave in Seattle.

Xtreme87
08-30-2017, 10:19 AM
People arguing against climate change must REALLY REALLY not like clean air and water. I mean worst case scenario if all the scientists are wrong and you spent all that money investing in cleaner energy, you will be left with cleaner air and water. I mean you can argue all you want about whether or not climate change is man made or not, but what you can't argue is that man has severely effed up this planet in the last hundred years. I mean we have prescription drugs in WILD salmon. It's only going to get worse.

AboveMins
08-30-2017, 11:41 AM
Regardless of what is causing temperature rise, there are folks on the gulf coast who lost everything. Let's put our petty squabbling aside for a bit, and redirect that energy to help those affected by this disaster. My thoughts and prayers are with all those who suffered due to Harvey, especially those in the APC family.

Besides P4P, are there any other charities that anyone on here would recommend?

ShyGuy
08-30-2017, 01:11 PM
You keep misquoting me. But I can understand your lack of understanding of how weather works. Thanks for the Private Pilot answer to "what makes weather."

Harvey wasn't caused by global warming. Certainly you could make the argument that its quick rise to a category 4 was helped by the fact that the Gulf water temps were between 3 and 7 degrees F above average. I'm not making that argument, though. Harvey would have been a Hurricane even if temperatures were average. The argument, however, is that the long wave pattern, the thing that is the force behind why Highs and lows move and the number of such systems globally, has been experiencing a greater frequency of quasi-stationary events. It is what kept a large Hurricane and subsequent rain event mostly stationary for the better part of a week. It is what caused record flooding last year and the year before in Texas. It is what caused the record flooding in Missouri. It's what caused the dangerous heat wave in Seattle.

"I understand weather, other people don't." Then you wonder why your side doesn't get taken seriously. Long wave pattern? I guess we never had stationary high or low fronts in the past until now. You'll counter with we're having stationary fronts more frequently. But there's no evidence to say this Harvey blocked by a high pressure system wouldn't have happened if we had burned less fossils. We had a high pressure system, just by chance and that caused this storm system to stall.

tomgoodman
08-30-2017, 01:37 PM
Regardless of what is causing temperature rise, there are folks on the gulf coast who lost everything. Let's put our petty squabbling aside for a bit, and redirect that energy to help those affected by this disaster. My thoughts and prayers are with all those who suffered due to Harvey, especially those in the APC family.

Besides P4P, are there any other charities that anyone on here would recommend?

An excellent suggestion. This nonprofit site offers an alphabetical list of 3- and 4-star rated charities, based on financial health and accountability/transparency. Click on any listed charity for further details about their record.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=5239&from=homepage&order=charity

CBreezy
08-30-2017, 01:41 PM
"I understand weather, other people don't." Then you wonder why your side doesn't get taken seriously. Long wave pattern? I guess we never had stationary high or low fronts in the past until now. You'll counter with we're having stationary fronts more frequently. But there's no evidence to say this Harvey blocked by a high pressure system wouldn't have happened if we had burned less fossils. We had a high pressure system, just by chance and that caused this storm system to stall.

You act like I'm making up long wave patterns. It's not a new thing. It's what drives weather. I'm not talking about stationary fronts because that's not what we are talking about. And yes, I understand weather not as good as most of the scientists but I understand better than every single non meteorologist pilot. I have degrees in it. It is a complex field of study. When a doctor or an engineer or a pharmacist or a meteorologist says "this is how this works," is your first response, "quit being so arrogant with your knowledge and maybe I'll believe you?" I'm not going to go through fluid Dynamics here so that you can understand. Learning is your responsibility. I've read studies published at multiple universities that indicate quasi-stationary long wave patterns are a direct result of AGW. They have been occurring with greater frequency at a statistically significantly rate and proportional to AGW.

AboveMins
08-30-2017, 02:37 PM
An excellent suggestion. This nonprofit site offers an alphabetical list of 3- and 4-star rated charities, based on financial health and accountability/transparency. Click on any listed charity for further details about their record.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=5239&from=homepage&order=charity

Good find. Thank you, Tom!

ShyGuy
08-30-2017, 03:15 PM
You act like I'm making up long wave patterns. It's not a new thing. It's what drives weather. I'm not talking about stationary fronts because that's not what we are talking about. And yes, I understand weather not as good as most of the scientists but I understand better than every single non meteorologist pilot. I have degrees in it. It is a complex field of study. When a doctor or an engineer or a pharmacist or a meteorologist says "this is how this works," is your first response, "quit being so arrogant with your knowledge and maybe I'll believe you?" I'm not going to go through fluid Dynamics here so that you can understand. Learning is your responsibility. I've read studies published at multiple universities that indicate quasi-stationary long wave patterns are a direct result of AGW. They have been occurring with greater frequency at a statistically significantly rate and proportional to AGW.

Not really. I don't buy AGW with the way it's presented. It's unfortunate but global warming/climate change has become politicized and so it has to be taken in the political context. My first question is, what do you (or a group) stand to gain from getting what they want? Who stands to profit and who stands to lose. That shows who the key players are on both sides.

SonicFlyer
08-31-2017, 12:06 AM
People arguing against climate change must REALLY REALLY not like clean air and water.


False dichotomy:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

deadseal
08-31-2017, 06:25 AM
It's a fact that that the atmospheric particulate count has risen tremendously beyond millions of years of historical norms since the industrial revolution.
Why is this so hard to understand? And why aren't people willing to even attempt to believe that this could be the leading contributor to the other scientifically proven fact that the earth is warming at a higher rate than any previous ice age cycle.
And why are these people always republicans who lash out like little babies and call people snowflakes?
Weird childish behavior

dmeg13021
08-31-2017, 06:58 AM
Much like everything else these days, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, but everyone is too busy being outraged to consider another perspective.

The climate changes, always has. What is unclear is how much human activity is contributing to the pace and whether changing human behavior can have any meaningful effect to arrest it.
(Versus say, a Krakatoa-like natural event)

Liberals tend to think they can (and need to) save the planet, conservatives tend to think the planet will save itself. At least until the sun scorches us in 80 billion years.

Whatever your opinion, buy flood insurance. Hope Houston has a speedy recovery. Resume "I know you are, but what am I" if you must.

SonicFlyer
08-31-2017, 11:54 AM
It's a fact that that the atmospheric particulate count has risen tremendously beyond millions of years of historical norms since the industrial revolution.
Why is this so hard to understand? And why aren't people willing to even attempt to believe that this could be the leading contributor to the other scientifically proven fact that the earth is warming at a higher rate than any previous ice age cycle.Saying it is possible is one thing, saying it as fact is another.

Mesabah
08-31-2017, 01:54 PM
It's a fact that that the atmospheric particulate count has risen tremendously beyond millions of years of historical norms since the industrial revolution.
Why is this so hard to understand? And why aren't people willing to even attempt to believe that this could be the leading contributor to the other scientifically proven fact that the earth is warming at a higher rate than any previous ice age cycle.
And why are these people always republicans who lash out like little babies and call people snowflakes?
Weird childish behavior
Climate change is an engineering problem, yet the left wants to make it a political problem.

Packrat
08-31-2017, 02:32 PM
Yeah especially when their budget is twice the size it needs to be it has to waste money on things it doesn't need.

I guess if it benefits someone else, its just waste.

Lemons
09-01-2017, 06:47 AM
People arguing against climate change must REALLY REALLY not like clean air and water. I mean worst case scenario if all the scientists are wrong and you spent all that money investing in cleaner energy, you will be left with cleaner air and water. I mean you can argue all you want about whether or not climate change is man made or not, but what you can't argue is that man has severely effed up this planet in the last hundred years. I mean we have prescription drugs in WILD salmon. It's only going to get worse.

It's the man-made we have a problem with and the reason is that it's allowing people like Al gore and Bernie Sanders to pass new taxes and bans on things. It also has opened up a new venue for corporate welfare in the industry of Green. Nobody is saying don't invest we are just saying let the free market handle it.

Lemons
09-01-2017, 06:49 AM
It's a fact that that the atmospheric particulate count has risen tremendously beyond millions of years of historical norms since the industrial revolution.
Why is this so hard to understand? And why aren't people willing to even attempt to believe that this could be the leading contributor to the other scientifically proven fact that the earth is warming at a higher rate than any previous ice age cycle.
And why are these people always republicans who lash out like little babies and call people snowflakes?
Weird childish behavior

The data doesn't prove the people are the cause. Either way we shouldn't be required or asked to change a damn thing about our lifestyle.

Lemons
09-01-2017, 06:50 AM
I guess if it benefits someone else, its just waste.

Spending millions and millions equipment that other agencies already have a surplus of is a waste. The agency obviously has too much money if it's in a use it or lose it spending mode.

deadseal
09-01-2017, 08:53 AM
The data doesn't prove the people are the cause. Either way we shouldn't be required or asked to change a damn thing about our lifestyle.

So we aren't the cause of particulates? And shouldn't try and change our life style to clean up the earth for generations to come? You got yours huh? And **** anyone else. Copy

Lemons
09-01-2017, 08:54 AM
So we aren't the cause of particulates? And shouldn't try and change our life style to clean up the earth for generations to come? You got yours huh? And **** anyone else. Copy

do we have proof "particulates" are the cause? No we don't.

Yeah we shouldn't have to change our lifestyle. Sorry not gonna happen, i'm going to continue to eat meat, drive an suv and go on vacation when I want to.

FlyingMaryJane
09-01-2017, 09:54 AM
Enough of the Climate Change debating..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I8sJG5FV_k

fast forward a few minutes and listen to the beginning of the presentation...

I think we all know AL Gore and allies are a fraud and that its been admitted that all the data those 97% scientists used were manipulated... lets stop being so easily manipulated

Now this article was about the Hurricane and I know quite a few pilots and Flight attendants lost homes and my prayers are with them

Packrat
09-01-2017, 10:00 AM
Spending millions and millions equipment that other agencies already have a surplus of is a waste. The agency obviously has too much money if it's in a use it or lose it spending mode.

If that's your rationale, I'd start with the DoD 'cause that's how they've operated since the '50s.

CBreezy
09-01-2017, 12:24 PM
The data doesn't prove the people are the cause. Either way we shouldn't be required or asked to change a damn thing about our lifestyle.

Yes. The data does show that the burning of green house gases is, at the least, a part of the climate change. Just because you don't agree with that fact doesn't make it less true.

Lemons
09-01-2017, 03:53 PM
Yes. The data does show that the burning of green house gases is, at the least, a part of the climate change. Just because you don't agree with that fact doesn't make it less true.

Wrong it does not. It's a theory and not proven.

Packrat
09-01-2017, 03:57 PM
Wrong it does not. It's a theory and not proven.

You know something Breezy? Arguing with a lemon is like trying to teach a pig to whistle. Its a waste of your time and it irritates the pig.

Lemons
09-01-2017, 03:58 PM
You know something Breezy? Arguing with a lemon is like trying to teach a pig to whistle. Its a waste of your time and it irritates the pig.

You don't argue, you just **** post.

CBreezy
09-01-2017, 05:04 PM
You know something Breezy? Arguing with a lemon is like trying to teach a pig to whistle. Its a waste of your time and it irritates the pig.

I was going to say teaching a 3 year old how an airplane flies but I like yours way better. Haha

full of luv
09-02-2017, 08:55 AM
If that's your rationale, I'd start with the DoD 'cause that's how they've operated since the '50s.

Anybody whose been in the military knows the DOD wastes a #^|<?ton of money mostly buying the wrong equipment/supplies at the wrong time for the wrong place. All controlled by a mega D.C. Procurement bureaucracy/congress that's heavily influenced by suppliers.

Std Deviation
09-04-2017, 10:37 AM
Spending millions and millions equipment that other agencies already have a surplus of is a waste. The agency obviously has too much money if it's in a use it or lose it spending mode.

So you're saying Franklin, Indiana (population 23,000) does not need a 55,000 pound bulletproof MRAP assault vehicle with gun turret and "SHERIFF" emblazoned on the side???:eek:

Stopping a rogue tractor at the feed store might not be possible without it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/09/police-military-surplus-purchase-debate/10221551/

tomgoodman
09-04-2017, 02:10 PM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/09/police-military-surplus-purchase-debate/10221551/

"Americans should ... be concerned unless they want their main streets patrolled in ways that mirror a war zone," wrote Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., co-author of a USA TODAY article earlier this year. "We recognize that we're not in Kansas anymore, but are MRAPs really needed in small-town America?"

He is probably concerned that the weight of a MRAP might cause the small town to flip over. (Yep, that's the same guy) :p

Lemons
09-04-2017, 05:20 PM
"Americans should ... be concerned unless they want their main streets patrolled in ways that mirror a war zone," wrote Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., co-author of a USA TODAY article earlier this year. "We recognize that we're not in Kansas anymore, but are MRAPs really needed in small-town America?"

He is probably concerned that the weight of a MRAP might cause the small town to flip over. (Yep, that's the same guy) :p

Remember he was that saved us from the previous occupant of that seat. Can't forget ole' Cynthia McKinney.

TransWorld
09-04-2017, 05:26 PM
Stranded Houston flood victims sure appreciated being rescued by some of those vehicles. They could go through water neither a car nor a SUV could not get through.

CBreezy
09-04-2017, 06:14 PM
Stranded Houston flood victims sure appreciated being rescued by some of those vehicles. They could go through water neither a car nor a SUV could not get through.

If only there was an organization who could be deployed during a crisis that has other uses for it, like fighting a war. Some kind of state sponsored national type guard.

Local police have no business having MRAPs.

Lemons
09-04-2017, 09:06 PM
If only there was an organization who could be deployed during a crisis that has other uses for it, like fighting a war. Some kind of state sponsored national type guard.

Local police have no business having MRAPs.

Why not???

tomgoodman
09-05-2017, 06:26 AM
After Katrina, the search and rescue task was far greater than the National Guard could handle, even with every Hummer in its armory (MRAPs had not yet been developed). We were grateful when local cops got through the flooded streets in surplus military vehicles, handing out MREs and restoring security.
Looters, however, may have felt a microaggression. :p

Std Deviation
09-05-2017, 07:43 AM
After Katrina, the search and rescue task was far greater than the National Guard could handle, even with every Hummer in its armory (MRAPs had not yet been developed). We were grateful when local cops got through the flooded streets in surplus military vehicles, handing out MREs and restoring security.
Looters, however, may have felt a microaggression. :p

I say this as a Texan... never underestimate the power of rednecks with boats.:) Do we stock up on MRAPS for black swan events like Katrina? You don't build a church just for Christmas. Oh wait, that's what JetBlue told me about why we're understaffed all summer. Never mind.

tomgoodman
09-05-2017, 10:12 AM
Do we stock up on MRAPS for black swan events like Katrina?

If I were a police chief, I would not "stock up on MRAPS"; but neither would I turn down a free one that the military no longer wanted. Rather than scrapping it, why not loan it to the city and recall it if needed in wartime? A natural disaster is not the only situation in which it might be found useful.

badflaps
09-05-2017, 10:47 AM
Saturday night MRAP races?

Std Deviation
09-05-2017, 10:53 AM
If I were a police chief, I would not "stock up on MRAPS"; but neither would I turn down a free one that the military no longer wanted. Rather than scrapping it, why not loan it to the city and recall it if needed in wartime? A natural disaster is not the only situation in which it might be found useful.

Reminds me of a small police department in Montana that received a donated dog from the Israeli Defense Force (rather than spending 20K on a Belgian Malinois trained from scratch). Dog didn't respond to commands. Officers had to find one of the few Rabbis in Montana to get language training because it turned out the dog only understood Hebrew. True story. Sometimes the free one comes with strings!:D

jsled
09-05-2017, 04:19 PM
do we have proof "particulates" are the cause? No we don't.

Yeah we shouldn't have to change our lifestyle. Sorry not gonna happen, i'm going to continue to eat meat, drive an suv and go on vacation when I want to.

Yeah. Me too. Especially since I live at 5800ft. I don't have to worry about Hurricanes. :rolleyes:

pause
09-05-2017, 08:46 PM
You act like I'm making up long wave patterns. It's not a new thing. It's what drives weather. I'm not talking about stationary fronts because that's not what we are talking about. And yes, I understand weather not as good as most of the scientists but I understand better than every single non meteorologist pilot. I have degrees in it. It is a complex field of study. When a doctor or an engineer or a pharmacist or a meteorologist says "this is how this works," is your first response, "quit being so arrogant with your knowledge and maybe I'll believe you?" I'm not going to go through fluid Dynamics here so that you can understand. Learning is your responsibility. I've read studies published at multiple universities that indicate quasi-stationary long wave patterns are a direct result of AGW. They have been occurring with greater frequency at a statistically significantly rate and proportional to AGW.

He went to college. He has two degrees therefore he must be correct. Don't believe everything you read or what the Professors in college tell you. You most likely aren't aware that back in the 70's those "professionals" were talking about an "ice age". I.e. "Global cooling". Indoctrinated. If only the rest of us were as "smart" as you professionally indoctrinated...errr. I mean educated folks.

Mesabah
09-05-2017, 10:09 PM
The Russian INMCM4 climate model was the only model that was remotely accurate in predicting current actual temperatures. Funny that this model lacks the CO2 bias of the other models.

http://i68.tinypic.com/9is5ub.png

prex8390
09-06-2017, 08:31 AM
My gf who works for American just got a fa wide email telling its Miami FA not leave south Florida or be "out of base" real nice, stay there and maybe get killed so you can go to work for us.

Mover
09-06-2017, 10:35 AM
If only there was an organization who could be deployed during a crisis that has other uses for it, like fighting a war. Some kind of state sponsored national type guard.

Local police have no business having MRAPs.

Nonsense.

We've used 5-ton mil-surplus vehicles many times to perform high water rescues with our local SO.

BeechedJet
09-06-2017, 11:46 AM
My gf who works for American just got a fa wide email telling its Miami FA not leave south Florida or be "out of base" real nice, stay there and maybe get killed so you can go to work for us.

Woah woah woah, this thread is for politics only. Read the title.

jcountry
09-06-2017, 12:48 PM
As long as you apply this logic uniformly. Especially to climate change dening studies.

And I agree you can't contribute A single storms stregnth to the climate change. A storm is weather, climate is long term and if we see a pattern of these storms then we can say they are caused by the climate changing.

Also, this isn't some anti trump conspiracy. We all know he controls the Dept of defense, which over sees the dispersal of weather controlling chemtrails.


I got ahold of a bad burrito and dropped some serious unauthorized chemtrails off at the airport men's room a few moons ago.

Mesabah
09-06-2017, 01:30 PM
The airlines should not have marked fares up, 600% in some cases, for people trying to get out of the storm path.

terminal
09-06-2017, 02:29 PM
The airlines should not have marked fares up, 600% in some cases, for people trying to get out of the storm path.

Clearly you don't have a clue how airline pricing works. I'm guessing you got this from the Twitter lady who screwed up and was comparing a Delta economy ticket with a mixed cabin first class ticket?

jcountry
09-06-2017, 02:58 PM
The airlines should not have marked fares up, 600% in some cases, for people trying to get out of the storm path.

A seat on a plane which is only 20% booked a month out is a different product from the last available seat the day before a flight. Regardless of weather.

Mesabah
09-06-2017, 03:13 PM
Clearly you don't have a clue how airline pricing works. I'm guessing you got this from the Twitter lady who screwed up and was comparing a Delta economy ticket with a mixed cabin first class ticket?
Nope, Jetblue capped fares, then the other airlines were forced to respond. Now Jetblue looks like the good guy, while the others get bad press. Doesn't matter if the story is true or not to the public.

bay982
09-06-2017, 03:18 PM
He went to college. He has two degrees therefore he must be correct. Don't believe everything you read or what the Professors in college tell you. You most likely aren't aware that back in the 70's those "professionals" were talking about an "ice age". I.e. "Global cooling". Indoctrinated. If only the rest of us were as "smart" as you professionally indoctrinated...errr. I mean educated folks.

You are incorrect. Abridged version: "There was never scientific consensus that the Earth was cooling. That is a myth."

For those who want more information, source:
The Myth of the Global Cooling Consensus | RealClearScience (http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html)

Cycle Pilot
09-06-2017, 05:06 PM
I'm going to try and steer this thread away from political and global warming debate... I can't believe it, but here's a positive article written about an airline! In the USA Today, also.

Delta Flight Beats Hurricane Irma (https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/09/06/delta-flight-races-hurricane-irma-puerto-rico-and-back-and-wins/639648001/)

todd1200
09-06-2017, 05:23 PM
I'm going to try and steer this thread away from political and global warming debate... I can't believe it, but here's a positive article written about an airline! In the USA Today, also.

Delta Flight Beats Hurricane Irma (https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/09/06/delta-flight-races-hurricane-irma-puerto-rico-and-back-and-wins/639648001/)

Wonder how the ride was? ;)


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJDl7JwXUAAusTx?format=jpg

CBreezy
09-06-2017, 07:02 PM
Wonder how the ride was? ;)


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJDl7JwXUAAusTx?format=jpg

Surely it was higher than constant light chop.

Sam York
09-07-2017, 07:08 AM
Ignore edited

hvydvr
09-07-2017, 07:18 AM
If I were a police chief, I would not "stock up on MRAPS"; but neither would I turn down a free one that the military no longer wanted. Rather than scrapping it, why not loan it to the city and recall it if needed in wartime? A natural disaster is not the only situation in which it might be found useful.

What a lot of these towns are forgetting is the log tail to support these things. The MRAP may be pretty but now you have to train people to maintain it and then source spare parts. Probably not worth the effort.

On second thought, with the number of meth labs in middle America maybe we should be giving them M-1s

Lemons
09-07-2017, 03:19 PM
What a lot of these towns are forgetting is the log tail to support these things. The MRAP may be pretty but now you have to train people to maintain it and then source spare parts. Probably not worth the effort.

On second thought, with the number of meth labs in middle America maybe we should be giving them M-1s

Meth isn't a big thing anymore, It's heroin. Most, these junkies all end up od'ing so it works itself out.

WutFace
09-07-2017, 04:30 PM
Meth isn't a big thing anymore, It's heroin. Most, these junkies all end up od'ing so it works itself out.

How in the hell are you not banned yet?

Lemons
09-07-2017, 05:44 PM
How in the hell are you not banned yet?

why would I be banned?

SourGrapes
09-07-2017, 05:49 PM
Surely it was higher than constant light chop.

delta had Kenny G onboard to keep people calm-----DELTA SMOOTH ---------- the funny thing is nobody cared that he wasn't wearing his seatbelt

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/edYmLi5Sz_A/maxresdefault.jpg

deadseal
09-07-2017, 06:52 PM
why would I be banned?

Maybe because you so blithely advocate for the death of other human beings like a child. It's interesting how folks probably think of themselves as good people yet can so easily joke about ending the life of another human.

jcountry
09-07-2017, 07:25 PM
delta had Kenny G onboard to keep people calm-----DELTA SMOOTH ---------- the funny thing is nobody cared that he wasn't wearing his seatbelt

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/edYmLi5Sz_A/maxresdefault.jpg

No one cared-

Because their damn ears were bleeding!

Lemons
09-07-2017, 09:09 PM
Maybe because you so blithely advocate for the death of other human beings like a child. It's interesting how folks probably think of themselves as good people yet can so easily joke about ending the life of another human.

Wouldn't say I advocate, I just don't have much empathy.

terminal
09-08-2017, 12:53 AM
Nope, Jetblue capped fares, then the other airlines were forced to respond. Now Jetblue looks like the good guy, while the others get bad press. Doesn't matter if the story is true or not to the public.

That's a different story than complaining about the airlines jacking up prices when it is far from the truth.

Xtreme87
09-08-2017, 02:56 AM
Wouldn't say I advocate, I just don't have much empathy.

That would make you a psychopath. Glad you admitted it. Thanks.

LNL76
09-08-2017, 03:33 AM
That would make you a psychopath. Glad you admitted it. Thanks.

"Psychopath?" Insensitive, perhaps, but not a psychopath.

Mesabah
09-08-2017, 03:41 AM
That's a different story than complaining about the airlines jacking up prices when it is far from the truth.
No it's not, when an evacuation is ordered, if fares aren't capped, the algorithm will jack up prices based on the sudden extreme demand.

ShyGuy
09-08-2017, 06:12 AM
In a true capitalistic environment, there shouldn't be limits on price gouging. The value of anything is always dependent on location, time, and circumstance. The price for water today in Montana can be $1. But in southern Florida today because of excessively high demand, the price can be $12.

Same with air fares, even without hurricanes. Those who buy months in advance pay a certain lower amount, because the value of that seat months in advance is low. Now that same seat today is worth a LOT because to someone, this seat today is extremely valuable today and must travel. 6 months ago the fare for this same seat is $100. Today, last minute fare for same-day travel is $600.

Lemons
09-08-2017, 07:13 AM
That would make you a psychopath. Glad you admitted it. Thanks.

Thank your doctor.

CBreezy
09-08-2017, 07:41 AM
In a true capitalistic environment, there shouldn't be limits on price gouging. The value of anything is always dependent on location, time, and circumstance. The price for water today in Montana can be $1. But in southern Florida today because of excessively high demand, the price can be $12.

Same with air fares, even without hurricanes. Those who buy months in advance pay a certain lower amount, because the value of that seat months in advance is low. Now that same seat today is worth a LOT because to someone, this seat today is extremely valuable today and must travel. 6 months ago the fare for this same seat is $100. Today, last minute fare for same-day travel is $600.

Except in your true capitalism argument, people who can't afford the extreme air fare or $90 bottles of water die. You shouldn't get to live because you have more money.

Xtreme87
09-08-2017, 08:53 AM
In a true capitalistic environment, there shouldn't be limits on price gouging. The value of anything is always dependent on location, time, and circumstance. The price for water today in Montana can be $1. But in southern Florida today because of excessively high demand, the price can be $12.

Same with air fares, even without hurricanes. Those who buy months in advance pay a certain lower amount, because the value of that seat months in advance is low. Now that same seat today is worth a LOT because to someone, this seat today is extremely valuable today and must travel. 6 months ago the fare for this same seat is $100. Today, last minute fare for same-day travel is $600.

...And that is the problem with today's world. The reason why everybody treats each other like a piece of garbage, mass shootings, etc... In your world, everything is just money and numbers, there is no humanity in this capitalistic system. Capitalism is great and all, but when you take all sense of humanity from people, you take the only thing that sets people apart from animals.

Lemons
09-08-2017, 09:56 AM
...And that is the problem with today's world. The reason why everybody treats each other like a piece of garbage, mass shootings, etc... In your world, everything is just money and numbers, there is no humanity in this capitalistic system. Capitalism is great and all, but when you take all sense of humanity from people, you take the only thing that sets people apart from animals.

There are billions of people in the world, hundreds of thousands die daily from disease, poverty and war. It's life and you can't change it. Life is to short to worry about other people.

There is no such thing as humanity, that is a social construct so is supposed "good" and "evil".

Mesabah
09-08-2017, 10:23 AM
In a true capitalistic environment, there shouldn't be limits on price gouging. The value of anything is always dependent on location, time, and circumstance. The price for water today in Montana can be $1. But in southern Florida today because of excessively high demand, the price can be $12.

Same with air fares, even without hurricanes. Those who buy months in advance pay a certain lower amount, because the value of that seat months in advance is low. Now that same seat today is worth a LOT because to someone, this seat today is extremely valuable today and must travel. 6 months ago the fare for this same seat is $100. Today, last minute fare for same-day travel is $600.
You can still get super saver fares same day short notice. For example, AA is charging $68 for LAX-ORD daily right now, it's that price months from now too.

Furthermore, price caps are capitalism, the airlines were charging $600+, till Jetblue came in and offered $99 for all seats. There is nothing more capitalistic than undercutting competition.

todd1200
09-08-2017, 12:34 PM
There are billions of people in the world, hundreds of thousands die daily from disease, poverty and war. It's life and you can't change it. Life is to short to worry about other people.

There is no such thing as humanity, that is a social construct so is supposed "good" and "evil".

Somebody's been reading their Nietzsche; although he sounded like a sociopath sometimes too :D

dwightkschrute
09-08-2017, 01:05 PM
There are billions of people in the world, hundreds of thousands die daily from disease, poverty and war. It's life and you can't change it. Life is to short to worry about other people.

There is no such thing as humanity, that is a social construct so is supposed "good" and "evil".

Except when you have the ability to help or not screw over your fellow man, you do the right thing. When things go downhill quickly, all that separates us from animals is the ability to be empathetic and altruistic. You don't alienate others simply because they don't have the means to pay exorbitant prices in their time of need. It's the same reason you wouldn't leave a handicapped person behind.

Life is indeed short but what makes for the warmest and most fulfilling stories? People helping people (or animals).

dogpilot
09-08-2017, 02:08 PM
Wouldn't say I advocate, I just don't have much empathy.
An often misused term, empathy, which is easier because you would have experienced a similar event to the suffering party. Sympathy, on the other hand, requires imagining oneself in the suffering party's shoes and having feelings of compassion and hope they work it out. Justice comes to all I believe, hopefully in your suffering hour someone will empathize or sympathize with you, or will you suffer alone to gain strength to the Id.

ShyGuy
09-08-2017, 02:08 PM
Except in your true capitalism argument, people who can't afford the extreme air fare or $90 bottles of water die. You shouldn't get to live because you have more money.

Plenty of people die on this planet (sadly and unfortunately) because they don't have access to clean water or can't afford clean water. Other things like cancer might be survivable if you can afford the treatments and get it done in time. Someone who can't afford that will not live. I don't think anyone denies that you have a better chance of making it in life and/or living longer if you have the money or have more money than another.

...And that is the problem with today's world. The reason why everybody treats each other like a piece of garbage, mass shootings, etc... In your world, everything is just money and numbers, there is no humanity in this capitalistic system. Capitalism is great and all, but when you take all sense of humanity from people, you take the only thing that sets people apart from animals.

Are you really implying the reason we aren't animals is because we have humanity? The reason we're like this is because of our first world status, high literacy rate, people are educated, laws, law enforcement, and (mostly) taught to obey rules and be somewhat respectful of people's own business. Obviously not always, but to a degree people do.

Look at this evacuation pic:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/09/08/21/440D546900000578-4863996-image-a-204_1504902986455.jpg

People are trying to run away from potential death. Yet, look how orderly it is. No one is driving on the shoulder. No one in the grass. If this was a 3rd world country, you'd have mass choas with cars everywhere. In fact, in a 3rd world country, the opposite side would be forced off as cars would drive away in that direction too.

Humanity is a social construct, so some people have it and others don't. Still, business is going to be business for many people.

You can still get super saver fares same day short notice. For example, AA is charging $68 for LAX-ORD daily right now, it's that price months from now too.

Only because Frontier is offering $50 on that same route.

Furthermore, price caps are capitalism, the airlines were charging $600+, till Jetblue came in and offered $99 for all seats. There is nothing more capitalistic than undercutting competition.

Except when the ME3 do it :cool:

Except when you have the ability to help or not screw over your fellow man, you do the right thing. When things go downhill quickly, all that separates us from animals is the ability to be empathetic and altruistic. You don't alienate others simply because they don't have the means to pay exorbitant prices in their time of need. It's the same reason you wouldn't leave a handicapped person behind.

Life is indeed short but what makes for the warmest and most fulfilling stories? People helping people (or animals).

I like how "animals" are written off as if they are barbaric and unworthy. Humans are worse than animals, that's just fact. No other animal is and has been as destructive to this planet as humans. No species kills just for sport/fun/crime like humans have. No animal has slaughtered millions over the years their own version of what sky fairy they believe in. No animal has started wars with other animals over oil, money, or foreign alliances. Humans are much worse, and we are an over-rated species.

PRS Guitars
09-08-2017, 03:43 PM
Except in your true capitalism argument, people who can't afford the extreme air fare or $90 bottles of water die. You shouldn't get to live because you have more money.

Price Gouging can serve a purpose, it prevents people from buying excessive supplies (and hoarding them). Think about it, you walk into buy water or batteries, if the prices are "normal" you'll probably buy more than you need just in case, but if the prices are very high, you'll just buy the minimum, which will leave supplies for other people.

I gaurentee there will be people blaming the airlines for having all of their flights sold out, even though they increased the flights dramatically.

dwightkschrute
09-08-2017, 04:08 PM
I like how "animals" are written off as if they are barbaric and unworthy. Humans are worse than animals, that's just fact. No other animal is and has been as destructive to this planet as humans. No species kills just for sport/fun/crime like humans have. No animal has slaughtered millions over the years their own version of what sky fairy they believe in. No animal has started wars with other animals over oil, money, or foreign alliances. Humans are much worse, and we are an over-rated species.

What? You completely missed my point. When animals are hungry, they eat. When they're thirsty, they drink, etc. They don't take into account the suffering of other animals. If there's a weak link in their pack, they're the ones ending up getting killed. That ensures the survival of their species. The strong mate and pass on their genes, the weak die off. Not one person would argue that humanity is capable of some truly awful things, yet we are capable of some truly compassionate and awe-inspiring things as well.
By your logic, you'd rather save a dog than your average human given a choice?

Std Deviation
09-08-2017, 04:22 PM
Thank your doctor.

Lack of empathy is a more salient sociopathic trait. You can call me doctor as well. But technically only after my Ph.D. is awarded this spring.

Std Deviation
09-08-2017, 04:23 PM
What? You completely missed my point. When animals are hungry, they eat. When they're thirsty, they drink, etc. They don't take into account the suffering of other animals. If there's a weak link in their pack, they're the ones ending up getting killed. That ensures the survival of their species. The strong mate and pass on their genes, the weak die off. Not one person would argue that humanity is capable of some truly awful things, yet we are capable of some truly compassionate and awe-inspiring things as well.
By your logic, you'd rather save a dog than your average human given a choice?

Would depend on the human. My four Greyhounds get the first seats out in our Cherokee 6.

dwightkschrute
09-08-2017, 04:33 PM
Would depend on the human. My four Greyhounds get the first seats out in our Cherokee 6.

Haha, I wouldn't argue with you there. I'd take my dog AND 2 cats before most people I deal with on a daily basis.

SonicFlyer
09-08-2017, 06:59 PM
...And that is the problem with today's world. The reason why everybody treats each other like a piece of garbage, mass shootings, etc... In your world, everything is just money and numbers, there is no humanity in this capitalistic system. Capitalism is great and all, but when you take all sense of humanity from people, you take the only thing that sets people apart from animals.

Except in your true capitalism argument, people who can't afford the extreme air fare or $90 bottles of water die. You shouldn't get to live because you have more money.



Incorrect, there is always charity.

pause
09-08-2017, 07:22 PM
You are incorrect. Abridged version: "There was never scientific consensus that the Earth was cooling. That is a myth."

For those who want more information, source:
The Myth of the Global Cooling Consensus | RealClearScience (http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html)

Uh huh (sarcasm)

dogpilot
09-08-2017, 08:17 PM
Lack of empathy is a more salient sociopathic trait. You can call me doctor as well. But technically only after my Ph.D. is awarded this spring.
Sympathy, I doubt empathy is in his cards, usually it imbues humility, Mr. Future Dr.

450knotOffice
09-08-2017, 10:06 PM
What? You completely missed my point. When animals are hungry, they eat. When they're thirsty, they drink, etc. They don't take into account the suffering of other animals. If there's a weak link in their pack, they're the ones ending up getting killed. That ensures the survival of their species. The strong mate and pass on their genes, the weak die off. Not one person would argue that humanity is capable of some truly awful things, yet we are capable of some truly compassionate and awe-inspiring things as well.
By your logic, you'd rather save a dog than your average human given a choice?

The average human being? Hell yes, I'd take the dog. They are more worthy than the average scum we call humans. Look at how we massacre our own people. Over nothing. And we're cruel. We torture and maim animals mercilessly. Look at the dog meat trade in China. Look at how these people will literally take a blowtorch to these dogs while they are alive. They celebrate horrific cruel death. Humans have done this forever to each other. Draw and quarter. Ever heard of that? How about other medieval tortures. We as humans are the scourge of this planet. Yes, many are compassionate and would never knowingly hurt another animal or person, but, in general, most humans on this planet care only about one thing - themselves, and have little to no compassion for other living creatures. And we think we're the greatest thing since sliced bread to hit this planet. Smartest? Maybe. Best? Not by a long shot.

So yea, I'd take my dogs before some other nameless average human. Hell yea.

Sluggo_63
09-08-2017, 11:18 PM
No species kills just for sport/fun/crime like humans have.Obvioulsy you've never seen a house cat with a mouse/bird/chipmunk.

tomgoodman
09-09-2017, 04:44 AM
The planet is going to shake us off like a bad case of fleas! :D

-- George Carlin

putzin
09-09-2017, 07:51 AM
Haha, I wouldn't argue with you there. I'd take my dog AND 2 cats before most people I deal with on a daily basis.

I enjoy our animals, will always take care of them when able, but I'll always take the people. An animal is just that, an animal, no ability to reason other than be loyal to the next person that hands them a scrap of food.

People on other hand can do great things when encouraged, trained and supported, just as many of us have been. We can live without animals, not so much without each other.

LNL76
09-09-2017, 07:54 AM
People first....especially if you have to make a split-second decision, as in hitting an animal to save a human. EVERY time.

Turbosina
09-09-2017, 08:27 AM
People first....especially if you have to make a split-second decision, as in hitting an animal to save a human. EVERY time.

The only reason to hit the animal is because the animal can't sue you if you hit them.

And given the choice between saving a dog and saving a human, I'd save the dog 99 times out of 100.

Mozekian
09-09-2017, 08:37 AM
The only reason to hit the animal is because the animal can't sue you if you hit them.

And given the choice between saving a dog and saving a human, I'd save the dog 99 times out of 100.

I hope for your sake that your fellow Man doesn't have to make that same decision towards you if you're ever in harms way.

ShyGuy
09-09-2017, 08:48 AM
I enjoy our animals, will always take care of them when able, but I'll always take the people. An animal is just that, an animal, no ability to reason other than be loyal to the next person that hands them a scrap of food.

That definition covers a LOT of people, too: eg, no ability to reason, completely dependent on handouts of food, welfare, etc.


People on other hand can do great things when encouraged, trained and supported, just as many of us have been. We can live without animals, not so much without each other.

Animals can also do many great things when they are trained and supported. Blind assist dogs, deaf assist dogs, all for human beings. In fact, animals like dogs are SO good at their job, that people exploit them via FAKE "service animal" jackets and documents to take them everywhere for free. Or pay $79 online to get ESA documentation and now no one can question it.

firedup
09-09-2017, 10:22 AM
Jetblue brought a bunch (16 I think) airplanes to FLL and MCO to evacuate just crews and their families positive space. Yes we cancelled flights like everyone else. But I think they are handling this storm very well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LNL76
09-09-2017, 02:09 PM
The only reason to hit the animal is because the animal can't sue you if you hit them.

And given the choice between saving a dog and saving a human, I'd save the dog 99 times out of 100.

Let me guess, you don't have children.....

dustrpilot
09-09-2017, 03:10 PM
Let me guess, you don't have children.....



Or eat meat...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

450knotOffice
09-09-2017, 09:03 PM
Let me guess, you don't have children.....

Regardless your feeling of children, I like dogs better. Most kids are self centered *******s. But I bet you think yours aren't.

Yes, I'm cynical about humans, kids included. Some humans are awesome. Most are not. 53 years on this planet has proven that to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.

We are a self centered, cruel, despicable species as a whole.

Before you go writing me off as a miserable cynic, I'll let you know I'm a happy person around those few people I consider awesome human beings - those people who I call my friends, and my lovely wife of 30 years, an animal lover to the core. I also LOVE every moment of my time with my dogs. My dogs prove to me continuously that there is good in this world, even if it generally doesn't emanate from humans, or even despite us humans.

NEDude
09-09-2017, 11:45 PM
Regardless your feeling of children, I like dogs better. Most kids are self centered *******s. But I bet you think yours aren't.

Yes, I'm cynical about humans, kids included. Some humans are awesome. Most are not. 53 years on this planet has proven that to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.

We are a self centered, cruel, despicable species as a whole.

Before you go writing me off as a miserable cynic, I'll let you know I'm a happy person around those few people I consider awesome human beings - those people who I call my friends, and my lovely wife of 30 years, an animal lover to the core. I also LOVE every moment of my time with my dogs. My dogs prove to me continuously that there is good in this world, even if it generally doesn't emanate from humans, or even despite us humans.

If, in 53 years, you have concluded that most humans are not "awesome", I submit that you have not looked very hard. In groups we are indeed capable of some despicable acts, but as individuals, the overwhelming majority of people are awesome. Perhaps you should get out a bit more often, talk to people, explore other cultures and other parts of the world.

deadseal
09-10-2017, 07:05 AM
Regardless your feeling of children, I like dogs better. Most kids are self centered *******s. But I bet you think yours aren't.

Yes, I'm cynical about humans, kids included. Some humans are awesome. Most are not. 53 years on this planet has proven that to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.

We are a self centered, cruel, despicable species as a whole.

Before you go writing me off as a miserable cynic, I'll let you know I'm a happy person around those few people I consider awesome human beings - those people who I call my friends, and my lovely wife of 30 years, an animal lover to the core. I also LOVE every moment of my time with my dogs. My dogs prove to me continuously that there is good in this world, even if it generally doesn't emanate from humans, or even despite us humans.

Someone gave me some good advice once.
If you met one A hole today that guy was probably an A hole. If most everyone you met today was an A hole, then it's you.
The fact that you are basically saying you would save a dog over a child is pretty ridiculous and I call BS

hilltopflyer
09-10-2017, 07:07 AM
Someone gave me some good advice once.
If you met one A hole today that guy was probably an A hole. If most everyone you met today was an A hole, then it's you.
The fact that you are basically saying you would save a dog over a child is pretty ridiculous and I call BS

There is probably a reason no one wants to have kids with him.

tomgoodman
09-10-2017, 07:50 AM
Before getting too upset by a post, we should remember that Internet forums are like Mardi Gras for some people: a chance to put on a mask and become an outrageous character without suffering consequences. It's not reality. ;)

LNL76
09-10-2017, 09:01 AM
Regardless your feeling of children, I like dogs better. Most kids are self centered *******s. But I bet you think yours aren't.

Yes, I'm cynical about humans, kids included. Some humans are awesome. Most are not. 53 years on this planet has proven that to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.

We are a self centered, cruel, despicable species as a whole.

Before you go writing me off as a miserable cynic, I'll let you know I'm a happy person around those few people I consider awesome human beings - those people who I call my friends, and my lovely wife of 30 years, an animal lover to the core. I also LOVE every moment of my time with my dogs. My dogs prove to me continuously that there is good in this world, even if it generally doesn't emanate from humans, or even despite us humans.

My kids are adults. Were they ever selfish bleeps, sure, still are sometimes. So are you, I'm sure!

Either way, a human wins over an animal every damn time.

Btw, would you want your wife, parents, siblings or friends killed to spare an animal? If not, you're a hypocrite of the highest order.

detpilot
09-10-2017, 09:49 AM
Sooo..... Something something..... Hurricane?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

ShyGuy
09-10-2017, 09:51 AM
When I see someone beating up another human with a "No Hate" sign (that actually happened), I'm gonna save the dog over him. In fact I'd save an animal over most of the idiots I see on the news in a protest. Situation dependent. If I see an alligator or a dog attack a 3 yr old boy, I'd do what I could to save the boy.

terminal
09-10-2017, 10:42 AM
When I see someone beating up another human with a "No Hate" sign (that actually happened), I'm gonna save the dog over him. In fact I'd save an animal over most of the idiots I see on the news in a protest. Situation dependent. If I see an alligator or a dog attack a 3 yr old boy, I'd do what I could to save the boy.
So those who disagree with your politics deserve to be beaten and killed?

Dude you are a POS.

ShyGuy
09-10-2017, 10:57 AM
So those who disagree with your politics deserve to be beaten and killed?

Dude you are a POS.

It's like when someone says they like eating C, and your response is OMG you hate eating Q! I guess that makes sense to someone like you. Nowhere did I say someone deserves to be beaten or killed for their politics or political views. The conversation was in regards to saving an animal like a dog over humans. Which somehow is in a hurricane thread.

at6d
09-10-2017, 10:57 AM
So those who disagree with your politics deserve to be beaten and killed?
.

Liberal Millennial/Antifa/Hate group question of the year.

Mesabah
09-10-2017, 11:03 AM
We shouldn't be running over people or dogs, cats are ok though.

partypilot1
09-10-2017, 11:16 AM
Other than humans, surplus killing has been observed among zooplankton, damselfly naiads, predaceous mites, martens, weasels, honey badgers, wolves, orcas, red foxes, leopards, lions, spotted hyenas, spiders, brown and black and polar bears, coyotes, lynx, mink, raccoons, dogs, and house cats.

And humans have the capacity for rational thought, regardless if we use it of not.

Now back to the hurricane...

Lemons
09-10-2017, 12:01 PM
I still think it's funny that people think if we only drive teslas and give up meat that the climate won't change and there will be no more hurricanes.

Stop listening to al gore.

Turbosina
09-10-2017, 03:02 PM
I still think it's funny that people think if we only drive teslas and give up meat that the climate won't change and there will be no more hurricanes.

Stop listening to al gore.

I don't think anyone's saying that. But since the very word 'climate change' seems to throw Trumpniks into a religious, mouth-frothing sort of hysteria, keep on believing what you believe. I'll rely on science.

Lemons
09-10-2017, 07:17 PM
I don't think anyone's saying that. But since the very word 'climate change' seems to throw Trumpniks into a religious, mouth-frothing sort of hysteria, keep on believing what you believe. I'll rely on science.

Well the science disagrees with you.

And instead of calling everyone trumpkin just say the majority that matter.

JamesNoBrakes
09-10-2017, 07:50 PM
Well the science disagrees with you.

And instead of calling everyone trumpkin just say the majority that matter.

It's interesting to see the 180 on creditable threats. When we agree with it, like in terms of building up the military, making more weapons, spending more money on defense, we don't question it. When we don't agree with it, when scientists who have poured over the data are able to make the correlations between CO2 levels since the industrial revolution, we are in total denial, because we simply don't like the answer.

Turbosina
09-10-2017, 08:49 PM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.

Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?

Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.

Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?

The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.

But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.

Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.

ShyGuy
09-10-2017, 09:19 PM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.

Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?

Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.

Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?

The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.

But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.

Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.

So use terrorism as fear/proponent to enact gas/oil changes. :rolleyes:

deadseal
09-10-2017, 09:33 PM
So use terrorism as fear/proponent to enact gas/oil changes. :rolleyes:

I'm confused. Do you disagree with his theory on geopolitical economics? Or do you literally have no counterpoint and prove that you have fallen into the sheep mindset of regurgitating what your political masters say on what should be a wholly scientific issue? I can't imagine walking into a room of scientists and having the absolute inane narrow minded stupidity to tell them they are all wrong. Do you not realize what this makes you look like?

Be true to yourself and say you don't like the economic hit we will take trying to wean ourselves off fuel. But don't sit there and pretend you know better than a body of folks whose entire academic focus is this very subject. It's stupid

Mesabah
09-10-2017, 11:19 PM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.

Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?

Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.

Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?

The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.

But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.

Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.All of this is thrown out the window when you realize carbon can be a renewable resource, but it has a political barrier standing against it on both sides. China is leading the way in this technology, and we will likely be going into conflict with them to prevent them from achieving it.

ShyGuy
09-11-2017, 05:05 AM
I'm confused. Do you disagree with his theory on geopolitical economics? Or do you literally have no counterpoint and prove that you have fallen into the sheep mindset of regurgitating what your political masters say on what should be a wholly scientific issue? I can't imagine walking into a room of scientists and having the absolute inane narrow minded stupidity to tell them they are all wrong. Do you not realize what this makes you look like?

Be true to yourself and say you don't like the economic hit we will take trying to wean ourselves off fuel. But don't sit there and pretend you know better than a body of folks whose entire academic focus is this very subject. It's stupid

No, I'm just against fear grenades being tossed for various agendas. "You're supporting bin Laden every time you fill up your gas tank." Yeah ok.

hilltopflyer
09-11-2017, 05:09 AM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.

Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?

Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.

Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?

The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.

But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.

Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.

What about my F250? And my tractor, my boat, and my 4 wheelers?

Lemons
09-11-2017, 06:16 AM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.

Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?

Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.

Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?

The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.

But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.

Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.

The 97% claim isn't true and has been debunked time and time again.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/26/wsj-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-what-is-the-origin-of-the-false-belief-that-almost-all-scientists-agree-about-global-warming/

As for the rest of your scaremongering, the us is now oil independent and we produce enough of our own oil that we for the first time are exporting it to other countries.

I like BIG Bus
09-11-2017, 06:41 AM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.

Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?

Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.

Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?

The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.

But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.

Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.

Seems as if the words 'climate change' has thrown someone into a, what was it again, "religious, mouth-frothing sort of hysteria" and made them come across in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way.

Turbosina
09-11-2017, 07:05 AM
What about my F250? And my tractor, my boat, and my 4 wheelers?

Ever driven a Tesla? Vastly superior to most sedans in its price range. Insane acceleration, whisper-quiet, and zero emissions.

What is it with this obsession with petrochemical-powered vehicles?

hilltopflyer
09-11-2017, 07:09 AM
Ever driven a Tesla? Vastly superior to most sedans in its price range. Insane acceleration, whisper-quiet, and zero emissions.

What is it with this obsession with petrochemical-powered vehicles?

Can a tesla pull my tractor or boat? And ya teslas are great I actually am thinking about getting the cheap model as my commuter car since the airport has free electricity to me. I mean why aren't we flying electric planes everywhere? What's the obsession with jet fueled powered planes? Only problem where I live is I need my big truck to navigate snowy county roads. So until teslas makes a truck for my needs I'll stick with my diesel F250.

Turbosina
09-11-2017, 07:26 AM
Can a tesla pull my tractor or boat? And ya teslas are great I actually am thinking about getting the cheap model as my commuter car since the airport has free electricity to me. I mean why aren't we flying electric planes everywhere? What's the obsession with jet fueled powered planes? Only problem where I live is I need my big truck to navigate snowy county roads. So until teslas makes a truck for my needs I'll stick with my diesel F250.

Nobody's saying you need to get rid of your F250. Heck, I own a turbocharged piston aircraft, and they're going to pry that out of my cold dead hands. And electric airplanes are still a long way off, although there are some very light, all-electric GA aircraft that are showing promise.

What I am saying is that the sooner we replace oil as a primary fuel, the better. 10 years from now we'll have electric F350s, boats, and whatever other toys you want (aside from commercial aircraft). As a nation, we should be investing heavily in bringing replacement technologies to market. It's a win-win: we create jobs with the development of the new tech (admittedly, it'd probably be a transfer of jobs from petrochemical extraction and refinement, rather than a net creation of jobs), and we quit pouring so much carbon into the atmosphere. We also deprive nations like Iran and Saudi of their leverage over us.

Show me the one negative result of such a scenario.

qball
09-11-2017, 07:30 AM
Can a tesla pull my tractor or boat? And ya teslas are great I actually am thinking about getting the cheap model as my commuter car since the airport has free electricity to me. I mean why aren't we flying electric planes everywhere? What's the obsession with jet fueled powered planes? Only problem where I live is I need my big truck to navigate snowy county roads. So until teslas makes a truck for my needs I'll stick with my diesel F250.

Teslas are great cars. Rode in one on a YWG layover. The acceleration was mind blowing.
But if you plug it in to a coal fired electrical plant you really aren't saving the planet from carbon.

Turbosina
09-11-2017, 07:41 AM
Teslas are great cars. Rode in one on a YWG layover. The acceleration was mind blowing.
But if you plug it in to a coal fired electrical plant you really aren't saving the planet from carbon.
Sure, but if that electricity is generated from hydro, solar, geothermal, or wind... Whole different story.

galaxy flyer
09-11-2017, 08:31 AM
How much electricity is actually produced in those ways? Also, you have to count all the energy ( dirty energy) that goes into building Teslas and the nasty bit of producing the batteries. Then, there's taxpayers earning median wages paying for the tax break.


GF

hilltopflyer
09-11-2017, 08:32 AM
Teslas are great cars. Rode in one on a YWG layover. The acceleration was mind blowing.
But if you plug it in to a coal fired electrical plant you really aren't saving the planet from carbon.

I was going to say this but my area gets almost all it's power from the TVA so couldn't say that with a straight face

Lemons
09-11-2017, 08:33 AM
Sure, but if that electricity is generated from hydro, solar, geothermal, or wind... Whole different story.

Those sources are not viable today.

ShyGuy
09-11-2017, 08:53 AM
Nobody's saying you need to get rid of your F250. Heck, I own a turbocharged piston aircraft, and they're going to pry that out of my cold dead hands. And electric airplanes are still a long way off, although there are some very light, all-electric GA aircraft that are showing promise.

What I am saying is that the sooner we replace oil as a primary fuel, the better. 10 years from now we'll have electric F350s, boats, and whatever other toys you want (aside from commercial aircraft). As a nation, we should be investing heavily in bringing replacement technologies to market. It's a win-win: we create jobs with the development of the new tech (admittedly, it'd probably be a transfer of jobs from petrochemical extraction and refinement, rather than a net creation of jobs), and we quit pouring so much carbon into the atmosphere. We also deprive nations like Iran and Saudi of their leverage over us.

Show me the one negative result of such a scenario.

Cool. Then some Democratic presidential candidate can claim, "We're gonna put those gas and oil rig workers out of work!" :rolleyes: and then lose the election to Eric Trump.

Mesabah
09-11-2017, 09:41 AM
How much electricity is actually produced in those ways? Also, you have to count all the energy ( dirty energy) that goes into building Teslas and the nasty bit of producing the batteries. Then, there's taxpayers earning median wages paying for the tax break.


GF
The premise of the electric vehicle is that someday we will invent a battery technology that doesn't pollute more than gas. Right now, a Tesla has to be driven for more than 8 years to have a break even carbon footprint over a gasser, then it starts saving the environment:rolleyes:. Green tech isn't green, it's setting up an infrastructure that could be green some day, if we can go around the laws of thermodynamics.

BlueMoon
09-11-2017, 10:15 AM
The premise of the electric vehicle is that someday we will invent a battery technology that doesn't pollute more than gas. Right now, a Tesla has to be driven for more than 8 years to have a break even carbon footprint over a gasser, then it starts saving the environment:rolleyes:. Green tech isn't green, it's setting up an infrastructure that could be green some day, if we can go around the laws of thermodynamics.

Yea, electric vehicles have a higher carbon foot print to manufacturer, but produce less carbon over its life span, but is recouped rather quickly.

I'd be curious to see the source of your 8 year break even.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

Page 22
For a full-size 265-mile-range BEV, on average, the extra manufacturing emissions are o set within 19,000 miles, or in about 16 months of driving, based on the sales-weighted elec- tricity emissions of where EVs are sold today (assuming a 265-mile-range BEV travels the same rst-year mileage as the typical new gasoline car). When driving a BEV recharged from the cleanest regional grids in the United States, these extra manufacturing emissions are o set within the rst 15,000 miles of driving, or in just under one year for the aver- age driver. On the dirtiest grid they are o set within 39,000 miles, or in less than three years for the typical vehicle owner.

Page 21
For a full-size 265-mile-range BEV, manufacturing emis- sions are approximately 68 percent, or 6 tons of CO2e higher than a comparable conventional gasoline vehicle. Total global warming emissions of the full-size BEV, when powered by the electricity grid mix representative of where BEVs are sold today, are 53 percent lower than the comparable full-size gasoline car, thereby saving 54 tons of CO2e. The global warming emissions from manufacturing a full-size BEV are about 33 percent of its lifetime global warming emissions; the remaining 67 percent come from driving it.

bay982
09-11-2017, 11:05 AM
Seems as if the words 'climate change' has thrown someone into a, what was it again, "religious, mouth-frothing sort of hysteria" and made them come across in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way.

So the potential catastrophic consequences to 10's of millions of people isn't worth hysteria to you? You don't think that perhaps that is his concern?

And if you don't believe it, I suppose you would support doing more research to determine the exact effects, since many scientists are concerned climate change could be the end of a significant portion of species on the planet?

Mesabah
09-11-2017, 12:13 PM
Yea, electric vehicles have a higher carbon foot print to manufacturer, but produce less carbon over its life span, but is recouped rather quickly.

I'd be curious to see the source of your 8 year break even.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

Page 22


Page 21The source is the actual manufacturing process, vs the assumed model manufacturing process, that is where Green technology is a scam. Read the modeling assumptions in that article you posted, they assume the battery is the GREET model applied to the Nissan Leaf. However, the Nissan Leaf is a USA made battery, which is specially manufactured to have the lowest carbon footprint model for comparison. Tesla on the other hand, sources 18650 commodity batteries from Panasonic that are similar to common rechargeable batteries. I'm not even considering the low volume production inefficiencies of Tesla.


Tesla's are a fun, good looking car, but not some environmental friendly alternative.

Turbosina
09-11-2017, 04:12 PM
Those sources are not viable today.

History is full of people who think like you.

From Columbus's expedition of 1492 (which was derided and rejected by his native Portugal as an impossible dream), to man's conquest of space (which was also derided as pure fantasy by those who warned that the vacuum of space would be instantly fatal and the technology would never be invented to conquer it), to the personal computing revolution, history has been full of naysayers who are always ready to tell you why it can't be done.

Fortunately, history tends to relegate people like that to the sidelines.

Turbosina
09-11-2017, 04:18 PM
Cool. Then some Democratic presidential candidate can claim, "We're gonna put those gas and oil rig workers out of work!" :rolleyes: and then lose the election to Eric Trump.

Like I said, the entire climate change phenomenon was presented in entirely the wrong way to the American public. Guilt never works as a tool to change people's behavior.

The question isn't whether oil will be replaced as the planet's primary source of transportation-related fuel (cars, boats, planes, etc) in our lifetime. It will. The question is, what's going to replace it, and who's going to hold the patents on that technology?

Listening to the Trumpniks on this forum, I guess they're happy to let, say, China take that lead. All because they want to spite them durn liberals. It's utterly perplexing to me.

Climate change shouldn't be a question of belief or even politics. Even if you insist on denying it's happening, it's blindingly obvious that our future economic and political security depend on identifying a viable replacement and bringing that technology to the mass market.

Some would say that's not the job of government, that we should leave it to market forces to sort out. To that I would say, if it had not been for the United States government, if we'd relied on private industry to take us into space, we still would be looking up at the moon and wondering when, if ever, we'd visit it.

Mesabah
09-11-2017, 04:44 PM
Listening to the Trumpniks on this forum, I guess they're happy to let, say, China take that lead. All because they want to spite them durn liberals. It's utterly perplexing to me.
That's absolutely not what's happening, the liberals are the ones blocking next generation nuclear power that the Chinese are working on. Jimmy Carter specifically is the one who ordered it shut down.

galaxy flyer
09-11-2017, 06:37 PM
Turbosina,

I'll make a not very brave prediction here--petroleum won't be replaced in transportation in this century. Oil has too much of a lead in energy density over any foreseeable electrical source. It's something like 20 times more energy-dense than any electrical power source.

The energy density of jet fuel is 12,000 Wh/kg versus the best current rechargeable battery is about 250 Wh/kg. It will take a major breakthrough or nuclear power to replace oil.

GF

Lemons
09-11-2017, 09:04 PM
Cool. Then some Democratic presidential candidate can claim, "We're gonna put those gas and oil rig workers out of work!" :rolleyes: and then lose the election to Eric Trump.

Bernie actually suggested a special tax for "gas guzzlers" and meat.

450knotOffice
09-11-2017, 09:52 PM
There is probably a reason no one wants to have kids with him.

Lol! Oh brother. Did you not notice the 30 years of marriage comment I made? You have no idea since you don't know me, but go ahead and make ridiculous comments like that about someone you know nothing of. Sheesh. 😏

450knotOffice
09-11-2017, 10:12 PM
My kids are adults. Were they ever selfish bleeps, sure, still are sometimes. So are you, I'm sure!

Either way, a human wins over an animal every damn time.

Btw, would you want your wife, parents, siblings or friends killed to spare an animal? If not, you're a hypocrite of the highest order.

A human does not win over an animal every time. There are plenty of soulless murderous human beings I wouldn't rescue over any dog. Would you rescue a person who murdered or raped your child? Would you rescue a person who callously killed your dog because it was fun? Probably not.

To the second question, I love my family, friends, and my own animals over those who are not part of my family. Therefore, of course I would prefer my loved ones rescued over those I do not know - to include animals I don't know. To ask you a similar question, would you not prefer YOUR loved ones to be rescued over unknown strangers? Of course you would. Hypocritical much yourself?

So where were you guys. Oh yea...
Climate change, Tesslas, F-250's, Republicans, Democrats, and a hurricane. Carry on. ;)

CBreezy
09-12-2017, 04:43 AM
The 97% claim isn't true and has been debunked time and time again.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/26/wsj-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-what-is-the-origin-of-the-false-belief-that-almost-all-scientists-agree-about-global-warming/

As for the rest of your scaremongering, the us is now oil independent and we produce enough of our own oil that we for the first time are exporting it to other countries.

You could be right. It could be misleading. It doesn't mean, however, that means climate change is a hoax. This article, written by a scientist and former oil man, addresses the possible error in the 97% claim. Still, according to him, it's above 80% and a strong consensus.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?c=0&s=trending#8da560713657

tomgoodman
09-12-2017, 06:30 AM
Some would say that's not the job of government, that we should leave it to market forces to sort out. To that I would say, if it had not been for the United States government, if we'd relied on private industry to take us into space, we still would be looking up at the moon and wondering when, if ever, we'd visit it.

The space program, like the Interstate Highway system and the Manhattan project, was driven by national defense concerns. There is no such support for energy r&d among today's voters, who have other spending priorities. Politicians are afraid to get too far ahead of the public in raising taxes or cutting entitlements. :(

NEDude
09-12-2017, 08:07 AM
Those sources are not viable today.

Denmark gets over 40% of its power from wind, and has on multiple occasions been able to meet or exceed its daily power needs purely from wind. Not bad for a power source that is "not viable".

And if little old Denmark, with only 5.5 million people, can find the resources to make it a viable source of energy don't try and convince me that the richest country in the world does not have the ability to make it viable.

qball
09-12-2017, 08:36 AM
Denmark gets over 40% of its power from wind, and has on multiple occasions been able to meet or exceed its daily power needs purely from wind. Not bad for a power source that is "not viable".

And if little old Denmark, with only 5.5 million people, can find the resources to make it a viable source of energy don't try and convince me that the richest country in the world does not have the ability to make it viable.

Wind energy might be viable but it has an enormous footprint for the amount of energy it generates. They have been spreading like a cancer across this country and of course are often put in places where the land is not tillable. They kill untold numbers of birds and bats and are just plain eyesores in some of the last wild places left.

dustrpilot
09-12-2017, 08:53 AM
Wind energy might be viable but it has an enormous footprint for the amount of energy it generates. They have been spreading like a cancer across this country and of course are often put in places where the land is not tillable. They kill untold numbers of birds and bats and are just plain eyesores in some of the last wild places left.
They're a pain in the butt on tillable ground too!

Turbosina
09-12-2017, 09:26 AM
They kill untold numbers of birds and bats and are just plain eyesores in some of the last wild places left.

And oil refineries, plus the plan to turn the AWNR into a driller's paradise.... Are better how??

UAL T38 Phlyer
09-12-2017, 09:50 AM
....From Columbus's expedition of 1492 (which was derided and rejected by his native Portugal as an impossible dream)......

Pssst!! Pssst!! (He was Italian; born in Genoa. His expedition was financed by Spain, but he sailed from Portugal.....) ;)

This.



I'll make a not very brave prediction here--petroleum won't be replaced in transportation in this century. Oil has too much of a lead in energy density over any foreseeable electrical source. It's something like 20 times more energy-dense than any electrical power source.

The energy density of jet fuel is 12,000 Wh/kg versus the best current rechargeable battery is about 250 Wh/kg. It will take a major breakthrough or nuclear power to replace oil.

GF

Electric may become a viable form for intra-city transit, and for rail, inter-city.

But air travel? You need energy density, and that seems unlikely to jump 400 orders of magnitude.

Here's an interesting article on the false eco-economy of windmills. It cites a lot of numbers that I have not personally researched to verify, but a quick perusal (with an engineering background) says "plausible and in the ballpark."

I believe the UK "Spectator" is a reputable magazine similar to Esquire.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/

70 years ago, almost no homes had air conditioners, yet almost every home had a solar-powered clothes dryer, and a carbon-free washing machine.

It was a hand-cranked wash tub, and a clothes line.

I wonder how many climate-warrior homemakers would give up their front-loaders and "spring-fresh" fabric softeners to do things the old-fashioned way.

qball
09-12-2017, 09:58 AM
And oil refineries, plus the plan to turn the AWNR into a driller's paradise.... Are better how??

Never said t was better. Wind ain't the answer.

Lemons
09-12-2017, 10:51 AM
Denmark gets over 40% of its power from wind, and has on multiple occasions been able to meet or exceed its daily power needs purely from wind. Not bad for a power source that is "not viable".

And if little old Denmark, with only 5.5 million people, can find the resources to make it a viable source of energy don't try and convince me that the richest country in the world does not have the ability to make it viable.

Denmark is a tiny nation.

badflaps
09-12-2017, 01:34 PM
Denmark is a tiny nation.

Buy a car in Denmark.

Mesabah
09-12-2017, 01:49 PM
Bernie actually suggested a special tax for "gas guzzlers" and meat.
I have to give Bernie credit for flying around in coach on regular airlines, usually liberals fly around in private jets to expel their climate drivel.

Xtreme87
09-12-2017, 03:42 PM
I have to give Bernie credit for flying around in coach on regular airlines, usually liberals fly around in private jets to expel their climate drivel.

My favorite is Leonardo Dicaprio preaching about climate change while chilling on his 450 foot mega yacht.

Lemons
09-12-2017, 04:15 PM
My favorite is Leonardo Dicaprio preaching about climate change while chilling on his 450 foot mega yacht.

It's one to examples of why the entire climate change alarmism is nonsense.

galaxy flyer
09-12-2017, 04:50 PM
The problem of both wind and solar is how to store all that energy for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine--we're back to energy density and batteries. Baseload power must come from a reliable source. When climate change warriors embrace nuclear power, I'll believe 'em.


GF

dogpilot
09-12-2017, 07:22 PM
The problem of both wind and solar is how to store all that energy for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine--we're back to energy density and batteries. Baseload power must come from a reliable source. When climate change warriors embrace nuclear power, I'll believe 'em.


GF
That's why most wind farms are in places that blow constantly, i.e Kansas, continental divide, and solar in vegas, cali, Phoenix, etc. it works, stop being ignorant. It is viable, perhaps not ready for a complete replacement, but nevertheless viable. I'm no tree hugger, but this energy is better in the long run.

deadseal
09-12-2017, 07:29 PM
It's one to examples of why the entire climate change alarmism is nonsense.
Please explain specifically how this is the case?

NEDude
09-12-2017, 09:58 PM
Buy a car in Denmark.

I bought two. What is your point?

NEDude
09-12-2017, 10:00 PM
Denmark is a tiny nation.

With significantly less wealth and resources than the United States.

Mesabah
09-12-2017, 11:44 PM
With significantly less wealth and resources than the United States.
The climate there allows that type of energy use.

NEDude
09-13-2017, 12:14 AM
The climate there allows that type of energy use.

True. And of course the U.S. does not have any areas with a similar type of climate and/or winds...

Of course the other thing your post points out, although most likely not intentionally, is the sad attitude of many Americans. You make up all sorts of excuses as to why progress cannot be made, or why things cannot get done. The United States has had the largest economy in the world for over a century, it has an abundance of natural resources, and over the past two centuries been a world leader in innovation. So you are sitting here telling me that the richest, most innovative nation on earth cannot develop viable clean energy sources when nations with just a sliver of resources have been doing so for decades?! What a sad commentary about the so-called "greatest nation on earth".

qball
09-13-2017, 06:30 AM
True. And of course the U.S. does not have any areas with a similar type of climate and/or winds...

Of course the other thing your post points out, although most likely not intentionally, is the sad attitude of many Americans. You make up all sorts of excuses as to why progress cannot be made, or why things cannot get done. The United States has had the largest economy in the world for over a century, it has an abundance of natural resources, and over the past two centuries been a world leader in innovation. So you are sitting here telling me that the richest, most innovative nation on earth cannot develop viable clean energy sources when nations with just a sliver of resources have been doing so for decades?! What a sad commentary about the so-called "greatest nation on earth".

You need to look in some science journals. Photo volteaic solar roof panels for instance. As soon as it becomes profitable and cost effective for these types of things, they will become common place. But every new technology can have deleterious side effects (wind turbines are the perfect example and it is old technology). All these things will have minimal effect if the world population continues to grow at the current pace.
You can not walk across this planet without leaving a footprint no matter how lightly you try to tread.

NEDude
09-13-2017, 06:47 AM
You need to look in some science journals. Photo volteaic solar roof panels for instance. As soon as it becomes profitable and cost effective for these types of things, they will become common place. But every new technology can have deleterious side effects (wind turbines are the perfect example and it is old technology). All these things will have minimal effect if the world population continues to grow at the current pace.
You can not walk across this planet without leaving a footprint no matter how lightly you try to tread.


In other words: let's just give up and keep using the old stuff we know is both finite and highly pollutive because the right people cannot get rich from new technologies.

You also need to ask yourself why major utility companies are lobbying hard against the solar panel industry.

RhinoPherret
09-13-2017, 07:21 AM
I see Folks have once again hijacked this thread to carry on their incessant arguing and banter regarding climate change and global warming (because we all know we are right). :rolleyes:

Every bit as useful as arguing about politics and religion. Outcome, always the same: Zero on the “I Am Right and You Are Wrong” Scale. ;)

Mesabah
09-13-2017, 10:22 AM
True. And of course the U.S. does not have any areas with a similar type of climate and/or winds...

Of course the other thing your post points out, although most likely not intentionally, is the sad attitude of many Americans. You make up all sorts of excuses as to why progress cannot be made, or why things cannot get done. The United States has had the largest economy in the world for over a century, it has an abundance of natural resources, and over the past two centuries been a world leader in innovation. So you are sitting here telling me that the richest, most innovative nation on earth cannot develop viable clean energy sources when nations with just a sliver of resources have been doing so for decades?! What a sad commentary about the so-called "greatest nation on earth".It's not that at all, I'm an advocate for 4th gen+ nuclear power, e.g. http://www.terrestrialenergy.com/

It's physically impossible for this reactor to meltdown. It's only subject to terrorist attack, which is a very low threat.

The waste heat from using gas turbines instead of steam(Brayton cycle vs Rankine), can be used to pull carbon out of the air, and convert it back to Jet A.

detpilot
09-13-2017, 04:06 PM
It's not that at all, I'm an advocate for 4th gen+ nuclear power, e.g. http://www.terrestrialenergy.com/

It's physically impossible for this reactor to meltdown. It's only subject to terrorist attack, which is a very low threat.

The waste heat from using gas turbines instead of steam(Brayton cycle vs Rankine), can be used to pull carbon out of the air, and convert it back to Jet A.Had never heard of this, but what a great idea! Don't know how you're getting jet A out of airborne carbon, though.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Rahlifer
09-13-2017, 05:09 PM
Had never heard of this, but what a great idea! Don't know how you're getting jet A out of airborne carbon, though.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

https://phys.org/news/2016-02-proven-one-step-co2-liquid-hydrocarbon.amp

galaxy flyer
09-13-2017, 05:27 PM
That's why most wind farms are in places that blow constantly, i.e Kansas, continental divide, and solar in vegas, cali, Phoenix, etc. it works, stop being ignorant. It is viable, perhaps not ready for a complete replacement, but nevertheless viable. I'm no tree hugger, but this energy is better in the long run.

Why the hate? Did I insult you? What i saud is true. Of course, the wind mills are in windy locations and solar in sunny places, but they still haven't figured how to store it when the demand is for times when the wind doesn't blow or solar energy is weak (think clouds). The alternate sources are very peaky and their peaks don't always match peak demands, hence the baseload problem.

GF

dogpilot
09-13-2017, 07:09 PM
Why the hate? Did I insult you? What i saud is true. Of course, the wind mills are in windy locations and solar in sunny places, but they still haven't figured how to store it when the demand is for times when the wind doesn't blow or solar energy is weak (think clouds). The alternate sources are very peaky and their peaks don't always match peak demands, hence the baseload problem.

GF
Ignorance isn't an insult, or shouldn't be because we are all guilty. It was directed at you however given your post. The viability of solar is unquestionable as the efficiency is leaping forward and I pay zero to offset all energy costs as a result on a small scale and large scale farms are equally successful. Windy areas blow at peak times of energy use, sun up ac blowin'. Storage is at the forefront of the scientific push and will improve, but the sources are viable and working everyday, recently, more than 50% of energy is coming from these sources and is cost plus now for the first time and will only improve. Non deplete-able sources is an attractive sell for me.

Turbosina
09-13-2017, 07:31 PM
Denmark is a tiny nation.

What's that got to do with anything? At all?

tomgoodman
09-13-2017, 08:14 PM
So just because a bunch of self-entitled rich idiots are communicating this message, it invalidates the message?

Even a few celebrity buffoons will damage any cause they support, far out of proportion to their numbers.
It could be worse, however: a Kardashian might weigh in. :D

galaxy flyer
09-14-2017, 04:31 AM
dogpilot,

To power a house, sure, I have several friends and neighbors who have roof panels. They haven't paid an electric bill in years, but highly dependent on tax subsidies which means some other taxpayer is helping to foot the bill. Is all this alternate energy enough to power the country, no.


GF

at6d
09-14-2017, 10:37 AM
Put me down for an MRAP.