Lemmings: Do not read
#71
I don't know if GW is real or not, and if it is, I don't know if it's because of Earth's natural cycle or because of humans. But what I DO know is that pollution comes from humans, and the main cause of pollution is energy and factories. Coal, and oil make up a large % of that. Even if you don't think we are killing the Earth, you should at least admit that polluted air is not healthy to breathe, and polluted water is not healthy to drink. Just for the sake of being a decent human being, why would you go out on Earth day and try to pollute as much as you can? Who cares about Gore or Global Warming, just try to pollute less. Why does that have to be so political?
#72
Your confessed lack of understanding is because you're looking at this as if it is black and white. There is no contradiction between being an environmentally responsible citizen and a pilot. It's about mitigation of our environmental impact, not dawning a grass skirt and living off the land.
Flying airplanes is my job. We live in a modern industrialized society with infrastructure and part of this infrastructure involves travel by air. If I did anything else for a living, my environmental footprint would be about the same as it would be for a non career pilot. When an environmental activist buys a plane ticket, that isn't a contradiction either. This is because the majority of us are consumers of goods and services and these goods and services rely on said industry and infrastructure. Part of this infrastructure is supported by air travel. (which, I might add, is very efficient and leaves less of a carbon footprint, than say, enough Ford Explorers to transport 300 people from coast to coast.)
Participating in Earth Hour was a symbolic gesture that was designed to send a message. A simple cursory read of their website would have revealed that.
So no, there is zero validity in this implication.
Since your actions affect your surroundings and you are affected by your surroundings, you're not left out of it whether you think so or not.
I absolutely justify my views with science and use the word every time. I'm not the one in disagreement with the National Science Foundation, its equivalents in other countries, numerous science associations, oodles of universities and heck even the major oil companies (I think except for Exxon but, I heard that they're even coming around) that are all signatories to the connection between greenhouse gases and global warming. yeah yeah, bias exists, I know. However, in the big picture, that bias is negated by the default checks and balances of peer review.
Flying airplanes is my job. We live in a modern industrialized society with infrastructure and part of this infrastructure involves travel by air. If I did anything else for a living, my environmental footprint would be about the same as it would be for a non career pilot. When an environmental activist buys a plane ticket, that isn't a contradiction either. This is because the majority of us are consumers of goods and services and these goods and services rely on said industry and infrastructure. Part of this infrastructure is supported by air travel. (which, I might add, is very efficient and leaves less of a carbon footprint, than say, enough Ford Explorers to transport 300 people from coast to coast.)
Participating in Earth Hour was a symbolic gesture that was designed to send a message. A simple cursory read of their website would have revealed that.
So no, there is zero validity in this implication.
Since your actions affect your surroundings and you are affected by your surroundings, you're not left out of it whether you think so or not.
I absolutely justify my views with science and use the word every time. I'm not the one in disagreement with the National Science Foundation, its equivalents in other countries, numerous science associations, oodles of universities and heck even the major oil companies (I think except for Exxon but, I heard that they're even coming around) that are all signatories to the connection between greenhouse gases and global warming. yeah yeah, bias exists, I know. However, in the big picture, that bias is negated by the default checks and balances of peer review.
When a politician preaches global destruction because of human involvement, and yet runs a house significantly larger than mine, and flies personal trips to proclaim his gospel and advocate spending money on his plan to "mitigate" damage - all while telling me I should turn off my lights more, and drive a Prius... I would say that a careful look discovers a contradiction.
As far as infrastructure goes... I'm not sure if you are implying that somehow electricity is excluded, while air travel is included in infrastructure and whatever that means for the price of tea in china?
I'm not sure what your comparison of air travel to SUVs is supposed to mean.
The "experts" also thought there would be another ice age in the 80s, and the millenium bug would have us all eating billy goats in the mountains. Pardon me if I am a little skeptical.. not all of us can be idealistic
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
From: Left seat
Well, no. Research on climate change is about science, not belief. Evolution is about science, not belief. Perhaps you're confusing it with creationism....NOT science and about belief. Climate change and evolution belongs in a science curriculum. Creationism (or the euphemism, "intelligent design"), belongs in religious studies.
Consider yourself corrected.
Consider yourself corrected.
#74
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,909
Likes: 7
From: B767
The preservation of individual freedom is just as important, if not, more important to me as/than it is to you. Do you lament laws prohibiting the dumping of used oil into the street drains? You don't have a monopoly on the term; "individual freedoms" as there are two sides to that coin. What about my individual freedom to breathe clean air or drink clean water? Or, my individual freedom contribute now to the mitigation of carbon emissions as opposed to later when it's too late?
All of the cars I've driven have had an emissions sticker and were legally allowed to drive on public and private property. Legally, I'm allowed to find my old '72 Nova 406 cid, buy it, and just for nostalgia sake burn the rear tires down to the cords in my driveway. Just as you're allowed to do a takeoff in your jet at DFW or wherever you fly out of. I assume you do operate an aircraft for a living? You know, one 'o them carbin' emitters?
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
From: 747 FO
eeeeeyeah. Show me where all of those organizations were signatories to these delusions. You should be more skeptical and not so idealistic.
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
From: 747 FO

Reference my response to ryan1234. Being environmentally conscience and a pilot are not necessarily at odds. Try again.
#77
Here's a good read on the topic of implementation on a large scale:
Amazon.com: Getting Green Done: Hard Truths from the Front Lines of the Sustainability Revolution: Auden Schendler: Books
Excerpt:
I think there is ample evidence of climate change, the cause of course is open for dispute. However, what if the country began projects to revamp the national power grid to make it automated and autonomous? At the same time funding work to solve electricity storage and distribution problems from solar and wind generation?
The worst case as I see it is putting hundreds of thousands to work (think TVA), setting the stage for a smart grid, and tapping into grassroots innovation to solve technical problems that we're pretty close on.
Amazon.com: Getting Green Done: Hard Truths from the Front Lines of the Sustainability Revolution: Auden Schendler: Books
Excerpt:
Prius drivers and recyclers take note: according to debut author Schendler, your efforts to be environmentally correct are admirable, but are hardly the kind of urgent, unified action we need to really make an impact on global climate change. In fact, he says, by focusing on small individual actions, you may be actually harming the environmental movement. A pioneer in the sustainability movement, Schendler points out that "there is a hangover from the 1970s that continues to hamper the environmental movement today." Using examples from his own consulting work as the executive director of Community and Environmental Responsibility at Aspen Skiing Company, he asserts that real change can only come from tough decisions by big businesses and through legislation. Rather than sacrificing ROI to integrate green practices, Schendler says that companies must make profit-driven decisions that complement their business models in order to carry out meaningful and lasting environmental change. By challenging status quo thinking about sustainability and taking the point of view of the business executive and the worker in the field, Schendler offers a perspective that is refreshingly realistic and pragmatic.
I think there is ample evidence of climate change, the cause of course is open for dispute. However, what if the country began projects to revamp the national power grid to make it automated and autonomous? At the same time funding work to solve electricity storage and distribution problems from solar and wind generation?
The worst case as I see it is putting hundreds of thousands to work (think TVA), setting the stage for a smart grid, and tapping into grassroots innovation to solve technical problems that we're pretty close on.
- Putting Americans to work
- Developing non-polluting renewable energy
- Shedding dependence of Foreign Energy sources
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
From: 747 FO
#80
I remember in the 70,s it was ice age warning , and oil would run out .
In the 80,s it was the Ozone layer .
Please explain why the ppl who cried wolf on all of this were not held responsible?
If one cries wolf long enough ppl will not listen and that is understandable.
Why did none of this happen and why do we not hear about ozone as we did in the past?
So why schould ppl be expected to beleive anything what is said by ppl who have ulterior motive's ?
ALLY
In the 80,s it was the Ozone layer .
Please explain why the ppl who cried wolf on all of this were not held responsible?
If one cries wolf long enough ppl will not listen and that is understandable.
Why did none of this happen and why do we not hear about ozone as we did in the past?
So why schould ppl be expected to beleive anything what is said by ppl who have ulterior motive's ?
ALLY
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lowtimer77
Hangar Talk
19
11-13-2008 02:54 PM


All of the food in my fridg is bad now
. Where's that cliff,.....
