That’s funny because I had the exact same thoughts. And the truth is I really don’t know for sure if my power is now all renewable or not. And I’ll concede there’s other things I’ve done too which I don’t know for certain really make any difference.

But let’s say we can go forward 100 years and see how it all turns out…lets say it turns out you’re right and everything I’m doing is insignificant and climate change was just part of the natural ebb and flow. Personally I’m fine with that because basically that means at most I wasted some money and time (I've also been known to waste some money in Vegas on occasion).

Bottomline is I can be wrong and no harm done. Your approach...you basically can't be wrong.

I agree a 16 year old isn't going to change anyone's mind...if anything it might have the opposite effect. They should highlight more people like Mattis...here are some of his words I googled up from this fall...


“Let me talk for a moment to those who are skeptical about climate change,” Mattis, who left the Defense Department in December, told an audience during a memoir tour talk at George Washington University. “Even if it might not be the case, if there is a chance that it’s climate change and it can be as potentially catastrophic as some think it could be, wouldn’t it be good to have an insurance policy?”

Mattis said a plan introduced by the Climate Leadership Council—which would levy a fee on entities whose mines, wells, or ports emit carbon dioxide and return those proceeds to individual Americans—makes sense. He laid out examples of climate effects the military needs to consider. For one, melting sea ice has created “a new open body of water that, from a military point of view, we have to deal with,” he said.

“To me, this is just science,” he said. “I’m not going to get into the politics of it.”

Sure it will; no mention on how to run tractors, construction equipment, over the road trucks on batteries. You know the things that grown the food and transport it to keep us fed and the heavy equipment to build infrastructure.

That the point there is harm to the renewable energy push. There is harm to the economy in slowed down development. It is reasonably argued that the California wildfires are due in large part to the cost of renewables taking money away from infrastructure improvements that could have prevented much of it.

I hope everyone realizes, if we shackle our economy, Russia, China, & the rest will laugh all the way to the BANK$$.

Look at it like an island overrun with rabbits, no predators. I seriously doubt we could stop any man made climate change anyway. That is, IF it was actually happening and we were the cause.

May as well chill a few IPA’s & carry on. People almost always need something to fret about, it’s part of the ‘human condition’.

The world will still be here in 30 years, in case you’re worried.

I try to be cynical, but it hard to keep up. Bloomberg spouts the party line on climate change, then boards his Falcon to fly to his house on Bermuda, the highest point is 249’ and the runway is a reclaimed reef. President Obama goes on about climate change and buys a $12 million house on Martha’s Vineyard, waterfront no less. DiCaprio jets around the world producing tons on worthless carbon emissions from his private jet. They are celebrated as being “woke” to the climate, but watch what they do, their revealed preferences. Average Joe Sixpack tows his bass boat behind his F-350 and is blamed for climate change.

When the loudest politicians actually act in concert with their words, I’ll take them seriously. I’m not arguing the science, I’m arguing the optics and the politics.

Exactly. The argument is not whether climate change is real or not. Common sense tells us that reducing green house emissions isn’t a bad thing. The question is, how much do we want to strangle our economy and the quality of life for our citizens for what? 1-2 degrees of change in 10 years? In what alternate universe does that make sense? These economic and synergistic effects are things that Greta and AOC simply don’t have the experience nor mental fortitude to understand.

We found out the answer to that in France, the people started rioting. When history looks back on these events, the people who stopped the progress of nuclear power, will be the ones blamed for destroying the climate. In other words, it was the environmentalists who killed the planet, by trying to save it.

Perfected, not Invented...

Lol
Oh wait you're the same guy crying that illegals are detained at the border.
Not surprising your entire political compass is based on emotion rather than logic and reason.

Even this guy gets it:

5 Myths about Climate Change:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...206-story.html

250,000 deaths a year from climate change is a 'conservative estimate'
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/healt...udy/index.html

And I thought too many people were the problem, so why isn’t reducing population the fix?

GF

O please climate change is all about redistribution of wealth and control, even those in charge have admitted it.

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC's fourth summary report released in 2007, speaking in 2010 advised:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth."

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said that:

the true aim of the U.N.'s 2014 Paris climate conference was "to change the (capitalist) economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution."

Christine Stewart, Canada's former Minister of the Environment said:

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. ... Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Tim Wirth, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs and the person most responsible for setting up the Kyoto Protocol said:

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

The second article is full of could be, might be etc. and it lists starvation, malaria, diarrhea, heat stress and malnutrition which have been killing people in developing countries for decades.

^ This ^

The problem, apparently, is not too many people; it is too many RICH people.

Instead of you and your family dying in a climate change-induced storm, most people would prefer that we voluntarily reduce our population down to a level that we can support with current resources and technology. We all think that we are safe and secure in our US locations, and the the Climate Crisis will affect only "others". We are wrong.

The economic downturn from having to move all the people out of S. Florida, and to somewhere else that is safer, will be MUCH WORSE than the 2008 downturn. It will really suck to have an $850K S FL property suddenly valued at $0, and find you have to move out of it, especially if you still have a large mortgage.

First, how can the WHO can with any accuracy predict that 20 years from now that there will be 250,000 additional deaths directly attributable to climate change defies belief? That’s simply not possible.

Second, millions of buyers in areas that are predicted to be effected by climate change are putting “skin in the game”. They have long time horizons, are generally smart (unless you think Obama is a dummy) and knowledgeable. Their decisions tell us more than a teenagers scripted speeches.

You and others seem to believe million dollar home owners in SoBe are going to wake up one day flooded out.

GF

Trump’s America reduced our CO2 output, I’ll wait while you list the other countries.

I will bet you the gentlemanly wager of 1.00 usd just like in the movie Trading Places that 50yrs from now South Florida and the Florida Keys will still be pretty much the way they are now. I can only go 50 years as I am 57 now and this is if we just hold the current environmental improvements in place.

This thread is on par with flat earther discussions. It reminds me of this one time in Montreal where a U.S. Captain with a southern accent was loudly trying to convince a Canadian passenger that winter and snow tire requirements were a government hoax.

Pilots... we know, just ask us:rolleyes:

I'd gladly join you in that bet and comfortably bump my wager to every cent I have.

I wonder how many of the folks wringing their hands over the "existential threat" to our planet :rolleyes: would be willing to make the same bet with their own money instead someone else's as is their normal M.O.

I put my faith in 16 year old Swedish girls and 30 year old Bronx bartenders who tell me the world will end in 10 years 11 months and 12 days. Repent, the end is near.

Or scientists like Paul Ehrlich who confidently predicted in 1968 we’d all be the starving humans in a Mad Max environment by now. There’s always doomsters about.

Fiction....

I think the flat earthers are the people who believed that fantasy that south Florida would be under way by 2010. The reality is sea levels haven't even risen an inch.

Ok. I put my faith in the scientific community. I realize that predictive science on a global scale may be imperfect. However, just like a regular weather forecast I heed their advice while preparing for unforeseen circumstances.

Many of you choose to believe in seemingly more convenient conspiracy theories. Convenient for captains of industry that is. Instead of looking at the sources themselves it seems that you concern yourself with positions of various mouth pieces in the political extremes.

...and no the scientific consensus was not that Florida would be under water in 2010.

Here’s an article from the same organization you use on a daily basis to keep you and your passengers safe.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

And you believe in watermelon conspiracy theories. Consensus isn’t science. Science does not hide nor manipulate data.

Consensus isn't science. However, a majority consensus within the scientific community points towards a truth leveraged by a collective effort. This collective effort was done by hundreds of scientists each dedicated to their research and better educated in the field than you, me, and pilots in general. When searching for the truth do you look for general concord or do you latch on to the outliers? If your answer is that you dont believe in our intellectual community and that you know better then I dont know what to tell you. This type of arrogance have downed many an airplane. The water level IS indeed rising despite whatever you've read on some website or heard from a political figure.

Keep the $1.
Key West is already changing. Flooding is more of a problem, not catastrophic, but an increasing problem.

The Florida Keys and Everglades, coastal communities and similar areas are vulnerable due to poor building choices and standards and are Canaries in a Coal Mine.

You're not going to see a sudden tsunami and *BOOM* flooding and global warming. The changes will be subtle and non-obvious ways. The first will be home value and insurance prices. This will ripple to local and state level short comings and tax increases for everyone. A simple 1% drain on an local/state/federal government for infrastructure mitigation will have wide reaching consequences to the ability to counteract other emergencies in the future.

Now, don't bother believing all those pesky "scientists" who get all of that fancy book learnin'. Follow the money. The insurance companies believe in the sea level rise. Ask some who lives on the coast. The military believes in the sea level rise. Many ocean facing bases are having sea walls and drainage upgraded.

But you all know better than the specialists because "I'm a Pilot" :rolleyes:

So let's look at the key points of the thread:
Wealth Distribution (Meaning SOCIALISM [so scary])
16 year old hurt my feelings/made me clutch my pearls
Russia/China Conspiracy
Something Something… Al Gore
Science isn't real
Trust the Russian government propaganda more than science
Unproven Nuclear theories
Dey Gunna Take our Planez!!1!1 (gunz)
Active Cognitive Dissonance
LIBURALZ!!
Too much consensus is bad because, reasons
Cow farts
No, YOU'RE a Flat Earther!!
But it's cold outside...
But the dinosaurs....

I need someone to say something about Tesla, polar bears and gay frogs so I can finish my BINGO card.

Source:

The Daily Caller a right-wing news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by now Fox News host Tucker Carlson and political pundit Neil Patel in 2010. Launched as a "conservative answer to The Huffington Post". Their Slogan "The Daily Caller is a 24-hour news publication providing its audience with original reporting, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news."

Claim

300 Scientists Want NOAA To Stop Hiding Its Global Warming Data.

Source

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith.

"Smith launched an investigation into NOAA’s study last summer over concerns it was pushed out to bolster President Barack Obama’s political agenda."



As the word implies global warming is a global issue. Smith is making this an American political issue which of course is a fallacy. You are forming your opinion based on unvetted and politically biased "news outlets" and using the internet to become misinformed.

If you want information on climate change you should take off your global conspiracy hat for a minute and visit various EPA's of the world. If you want to dig deeper there are several published whitepapers on the subject.

...The right-wing-Huffington post vs. the GLOBAL scientific community. How can this even be a thing!?! ...and amongst supposedly educated people!

Self awareness is not your strongpoint. The Daily Caller is certainly no more biased than the New York Times or CNN. I noticed you didn’t refute anything just attacked the messengers.

That’s right. I didn’t counter your “news outlet” source with other news outlets. I countered with statements from actual environmental agencies who do not have anything to do with the American media machine.

Ok, Aerium and Generic Pilot,

Have you stopped flying, driving, heating your house, eating meat, having a family? Or, not, because it would inconvenient to stop releasing your carbon.

IOW, what you doing to put “your skin in the game”?

You remind me of this:

https://i.imgur.com/BDGbxTy.jpg

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=8724580

At 2.42mm/year I'm not too concerned about the Keys housing market crashing anytime soon. Add 2 blocks to your stilts and you'll be fine for the next century.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=8723170

Miami is 2.39mm/year but they're on top of dirt, not coral rock so their situation may be more complicated. Yet, investors still invest and build there. Crazy.

No I haven’t stopped doing the above. But I’ve accepted the fact that there’s a problem. That’s step one. Currently we drive 30mpg vehicles and live in a modest home. We use all LED bulbs and are conscious about our usage. These were decisions made in the past ten years. We have started eating less red meat after we learned that it had the greatest impact on our environment, health, and wallet. The good news is that an occasional tomahawk steak tastes better when you eat them less frequently.

For me it will be relatively easy to greatly reduce my family’s footprint by going solar with net metering. Add an electric car to the mix and I will have sustained my life style while reducing my emissions AND I’ll save money in the long run. Due to an expanding family I’m currently in the process of buying a long term home in which I can expect to reach the break even point of 9 years.

"People making bad investments makes me right."

No, it shows one dimensional thinking.

There is infrastructure to consider, ya know, one road in and one road out for the Keys. Someone loses. Either the home owners in the low lying areas or the tax payers for the entire state.