|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1570040)
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.
|
Originally Posted by Doug Masters
(Post 1570012)
In outer space, his hair would be floating around more. |
Originally Posted by Cohiba
(Post 1570107)
They were farming Greenland in the 1500's.
|
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1570040)
We can't talk about SWA f'ing up a visual approach forever.
|
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1570040)
...We can't talk about... icy roads in ATL forever.
|
Originally Posted by Boomer
(Post 1570173)
I want Greenland to melt again. Then I'll go get me an authentic P-38.
The old locals tell me the lake I live on has shark's teeth buried in the sand on the bottom, because before the last ice age all of FL was under water! |
|
The problem with climate change debate, it usually devolves into Republicans and Democrats mocking each other with conflicting information.
I personally believe there is enough conflicting information to defer a judgement. I don't think either proponents or skeptics are wrong for what they believe. For me, in lieu of more convincing evidence, the rational and practical position is to push back against those that claim climate change is incontrovertible and those who want to impose regulation on our industry. If or when it becomes more obvious and less political, I am prepared to change my mind. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:47 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands