Kite flyer,

I don't necessarily disagree with the proposition that climate is warming, it has warmed, in the past, to considerably higher temperatures than recently experienced and has done so in the absence of human intervention. I do disagree that man must be to blame and man must act to stop warming by paying governments taxes based on some suspect assumptions.

GF

I always find it interesting when individuals that fly gas-guzzling airplanes for a living (or pleasure) are global warming/emissions must be capped proponents. There was one over on that other not-to-be-named aviation forum some years ago. He had a real problem with people that drove around in F-150's, but the fuel he burned running around in a B-17 all spring, summer, and fall was just fine and dandy. (and I have zero problem with the flying around of B-17's or anything else :D)

The word hypocrite comes to mind....'Kinda like al gore and his 5000+ square foot homes and flying himself around in an old Gulfstream years ago.

It was great to see gore and his ilk lose the money they did on the failed carbon credit exchange.

As has already been mentioned: it's all about money (taxes/carbon credit "exchanges") and control. They could care less about global warming.

Deleted with filler

The climate change issue is important to pilots because the proposed remedies would greatly affect our industry.

The problem with the debate is the potential for confirmation bias. Bias based in ideology.

Here's an article that explains it better than I can.

Climate Change and Confirmation Bias - Reason.com

The gist is that whether you're inclined to believe climate change is a problem or not is largely based on whether you lean left or right socially. Whether you believe more in government or individualism.

As I implied before, simply stating that most scientists believe climate change is a problem, is not necessarily conclusive. They are primarily Democrats and their views on climate change could be influenced by confirmation bias.

OK that post just proved you don't really get it.

One can debate both sides of the climate change issue using data to support each side. What one cannot debate is that it is a political issue. You have to be a complete idiot to not see that climate change and the entire "green" movement is more about politics than polar bears. If it wasn't, then those groups would be in third world countries actually making a difference in carbon emissions rather than supporting cap and trade schemes in the U.S. and E.U.

This is getting too close to politics. I would ask the mods to pinch this off before it ruins the whole thread.

Nu

The issue is important, but you're right, it is political.

I disagree. This discussion directly affects our industry and career. A discussion of the relative merits of carbon footprints, fuel burn and whether or not there is any legitimacy to man's affect or lack thereof on "global warming" is entirely appropriate. We can't talk about SWA f'ing up a visual approach or icy roads in ATL forever.

Global Warming is the best we've got on the L&G thread right now? We can do better than that.

I do love watching how language morphs over time, depending upon your persuasion, i.e.,

Liberal -> Progressive
Global Warming -> Climate Change
Illegal Alien -> Undocumented Immigrant
Terrorism -> Man-Caused Disaster
War On Terror -> Overseas Contingency Operations
Capitalism -> Economic Inequality

Reminds me of Orwell's 1984 and "Newspeak".