|
Originally Posted by Coopcoop
(Post 2936464)
Oh dear. Pointing out the reliability of your source is not a logical fallacy. It is called evaluating source material. In the future you should really use the CRAAP method to evaluate the quality of the information you are sharing. I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this but maybe it will help some other wayward soul.
Currency - the website Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. shows that it was updated in March of 2018. Well that is a pretty good start. Until we look into his sources which include 2 books from the 1970s and some mythical science foundation papers I could not find. Reliability - Most of the information on Cliff's website is opinion without stating sources. He makes claims without any evidence or sources listed. He has a complete section dedicated to climate change and how it is not real showing a definite bias towards this thinking. Authority - So we know this was composed by Cliff Harris and Randy Mann. What we don't know is anything about their credentials. His biggest achievement seems to be "Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades." Often rated by whom? His aunt? He does not show that he has any college degree, only stating that he has "over 300 credits from several different universities”. There is also no sponsor or publisher of the website besides Mr. Harris's own company. He has never been published in any sort of scientific paper let alone a peer reviewed journal but he did author "Weather and Bible Prophecy" with Randy Mann. https://www.amazon.com/Weather-Bible.../dp/B00VGS3LN8. Apparently this includes topics such as: - How God is using the weather to get our attention. - When are the major climate and cultural cycles colliding? - What are the futures prophecies based on the Bible? - How did the weather influence major events in the Bible? - How the weather could play a role in the "End Times." - What will the "New Jerusalem" be like? Accuracy - The information is clearly biased and is not supported by any concrete evidence. He did provide sources for his chart which were: "Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing. "Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois. Two of those sources are books and I could not find any evidence of Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois. His "evidence" is based on books, not scientific research. The first author "Iben Browning (January 9, 1918 – July 18, 1991) was an American business consultant, author, and "self-proclaimed climatologist."[1]: p. 2 He is most notable for having made various failed predictions of disasters involving climate, volcanoes, earthquakes, and government collapse.[2]: p. 11" [1]Farley, John E. Earthquake Fears, Predictions, and Preparations in Mid-America. Southern Illinois University Press. [2]Spence, William; Herrmann, Robert B.; Johnston, Arch C. & Reagor, Glen (1993), "Responses to Iben Browning's Prediction of a 1990 New Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake" (PDF), U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1083. The second author wrote books on business and investing. I couldn't find anything more about this author. Needless to say not great sources. The information was not peer reviewed, He incorrectly calls the IPCC the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control. The chart does not even have a scale on the Y-axis and the few temperatures listed are in Fahrenheit not the scientific standard of Celsius. Purpose - The website is set up to try and sell not only advertising (advertisers click here) but also "Daily commodity and long range weather service for only $11.95/month!" Additionally you can contact them if you are an attorney and have them present "forensic meteorology" by using his 100 scrapbooks. All that goes to show his information is not for scientific purposes but rather to make money. All in all if you just took two minutes to look into the quality of the information you are trying to spread you would save us all a lot of time and even prevent the spread of horrible misinformation. Unfortunately I know that is not what your intentions are. I know this will fall on deaf ears with you but I hope that if anyone else on this forum was going to believe the drivel you have presented this will make them think twice and maybe just maybe they will look into the glut of real scientific papers themselves. Or you know, they could just take the easy way out and believe the 97% of scientist and over 200 international scientific organizations that believe that humans are causing a severe impact on our climate. Unfortunately I have resigned myself to the likelihood that mankind will do nothing to reduce its addition of gigatons of green house gasses to the atmosphere until Nature steps in and makes us... in Her harsh way of doing so. Most likely Her methods will dwarf, by many factors, the hardships involved in us reducing our output voluntarily. I will just add 2 quotes from Dr. Richard Feynman that are relevant to most of life's activities, but this area in particular. "..for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled" "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool" |
Originally Posted by Longhornmaniac8
(Post 2937963)
I bet you feel really big spouting off ad hominems about a teenage girl.
|
Originally Posted by Slaphappy
(Post 2938191)
Just stating facts. She is autistic and does suffer from Fetal alcohol syndrome. Real great spokesperson you have there.
absolutely shameful. |
Originally Posted by spacecadet
(Post 2938315)
it's pretty disgraceful that you're slinging mud and making up bull**** about a child for speaking her mind. if you disagree with her, that's fine, but it's a small and pathetic thing to say what youve said about her.
absolutely shameful. |
Originally Posted by Slaphappy
(Post 2938383)
Please, get over yourself. Nothing that comes out of her mouth is anything from her. She spouts off whatever her handlers put in front of her and write for her. That sailing stunt she did should have been enough proof that this is all just theatrics. But then there are useful idiots that keep enabling so I’m not surprised. You’re the one taking advantage of a mentally deficient child.
|
Originally Posted by Slaphappy
(Post 2938383)
You’re the one taking advantage of a mentally deficient child.
You should try and take off the tinfoil hat sometime and come back to reality. The fact that a person as deluded as you is an airline pilot with the lives of people in your hands is concerning to say the least. |
Originally Posted by Longhornmaniac8
(Post 2937963)
I bet you feel really big spouting off ad hominems about a teenage girl.
|
Originally Posted by Coopcoop
(Post 2936026)
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ My question for all you deniers is, if this was a different topic would you disagree with a 97% consensus of educated specialists? If 97 out of 100 doctor's agreed on medical treatment would you argue that 3 of them said that oatmeal would cure your cancer? |
Originally Posted by ItnStln
(Post 2939581)
It was 97% of scientists who responded able climate change, not 97% of scientists. The problem is that it was never disclosed how many scientists were questioned and how many responded.
Go read any number of the papers. Oreskes 2004, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al. 2010, Cook 2014. They all reached the same conclusion using slightly different methodologies. It's all peer-reviewed, transparent and falsifiable, the way science should be. And in stark contrast to the skeptic blogosphere. And you want climate scientists talking about climate change, not just any scientist. That's how you wind up with the Oregon petition that was a laughing stock. |
Originally Posted by ItnStln
(Post 2939581)
It was 97% of scientists who responded able climate change, not 97% of scientists. The problem is that it was never disclosed how many scientists were questioned and how many responded.
That being said you guys really need to learn to do basic research. The source I provided listed every scientific paper they used as a source (like good science does) and you could have read those source papers to answer the accusation you are making. Every paper will have an explanation of their process including how many were questioned and what they responded. In this case it's not how many were questioned as it wasn't a poll. It was a review of peer reviewed papers on climate and the positions that were presented in those papers. "...examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 "Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers." W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. That's just excerpts from two of the 5 sources listed. The papers themselves go into much more detail of their process. Please please please, every skeptic of climate change in here, learn how to do basic research and read a standard scientific study. It will serve you for the rest of your life. |
100% of Mark Levin and Sean Hannity tell me climate change is a conspiracy, that's all the evidence I need.
Also, those folks at NOAA are part of the deep state, you can't trust them. They don't tell the truth!!!!!* * said while reading TAF's and METAR's to determine what the weather will be along route of flight. |
Originally Posted by 05Duramax
(Post 2939900)
100% of Mark Levin and Sean Hannity tell me climate change is a conspiracy, that's all the evidence I need.
Also, those folks at NOAA are part of the deep state, you can't trust them. They don't tell the truth!!!!!* * said while reading TAF's and METAR's to determine what the weather will be along route of flight. |
Thought this would be appropriate here:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-next...lte-and-safer/ Basically, we'd get our power from small nuclear reactors like in Fallout. I'm fine with that. I think people are so afraid of radiation because they don't understand it. Radiation is just molecules decaying and firing off random sub-atomic particles and EMF that cause chain-reaction damage in adjacent atoms. There's really only three ways that unstable atoms decay; they either break into two atoms, one of which is always Helium because of it's atomic properties (alpha particles), the other is the atoms fire off random electrons(beta particles), and the last is a rogue neutron fires into space, bumping into adjacent atoms, causing a chain reaction. Neutron activation is the only radiation that also makes other particles radioactive. The photons (light energy) released by the reactions, called gamma particles, are very high energy/high freq and very damaging. In general, you can stop alpha particles with paper, beta will get beneath your skin, gamma will go through you, and you need a leaded, concrete wall behind a few feet of water to stop neutrons. You can see where radioactive atoms could damage your cells or rearrange your DNA enough to cause cancer and why, as a closed system, it's perfectly safe, but if a large core ever exploded, like with Chernobyl, you can see why that's really dangerous. However, smaller cores would be much easier and safer to manage, easier to power down, and safeguard from natural disasters, war, etc. And if they ever did melt down, you're probably not dealing with an explosion that'll send radioactive core debris into the stratosphere. Also, off-topic, but as someone who sides with the 97% of scientists at NASA and NOAA, I think Greta and AOC are counter-productive. I think they rally people within the echo chamber, but they represent a 100% appeal to emotion on a topic that should be a 100% appeal to reason and they aren't who we should be looking for to either confirm man-made climate change or find solutions. The changes are measurable and my common sense tells me the it's much too drastic in a geologic sense to be easily attributed to Earth tilt, orbit, or other cyclical celestial phenomena. I remember reading somewhere that through rock core samples they were able to ascertain CO2 levels millions of years ago, and basically, this isn't the first time there's been this much CO2 in the atmosphere. I found this article and breezed through it, but it basically says the same thing:https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...the-dinosaurs/ Although, theoretically, CO2 will linger in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, I think the goal should be to reduce our CO2, not completely eliminate it, and accept certain changes are coming. This all or nothing approach is stupid and just causes people to dig in, resulting in no useful action. Our biggest emitters are electricity, industry, and commuter cars, in that order, and we currently have tech that can eliminate most of that carbon footprint (solar, nuclear, electric cars). So if we can cut roughly 80% of our carbon footprint with existing technology, why cut into bone and get rid of personal cars, air travel, transcon trucking, ocean shipping, meat, etc? All that does is **** people off and cause them to deny it's even an issue. I think the scientists are impartial and sounding alarm bells, I think the right is just ignoring it, and the left is just using it to push their personal, socialist beliefs. However, here's an article about what happens to CO2 after it's absorbed by the ocean:https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon |
Originally Posted by Longhornmaniac8
(Post 2939615)
That's false.
Go read any number of the papers. Oreskes 2004, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al. 2010, Cook 2014. They all reached the same conclusion using slightly different methodologies. It's all peer-reviewed, transparent and falsifiable, the way science should be. And in stark contrast to the skeptic blogosphere. And you want climate scientists talking about climate change, not just any scientist. That's how you wind up with the Oregon petition that was a laughing stock. |
The crazies said Chernobyl would be uninhabitable for millions of years. However, decommissioning will likely be done by 2050, and resettlement in 2100. The area around there is thriving with wildlife. Funny that the people always claiming to listen to the science, know nothing about actual science.
|
Originally Posted by spacecadet
(Post 2938395)
All I said is that spewing conspiracy theories about a teenage girl while throwing senseless pejoratives at her, simply because of a difference in perspective, is a shameful and disgusting thing to do. How am I taking advantage of her?
You should try and take off the tinfoil hat sometime and come back to reality. The fact that a person as deluded as you is an airline pilot with the lives of people in your hands is concerning to say the least. |
Originally Posted by Slaphappy
(Post 2940972)
They are not conspiracy theories. She has severe autism.
|
Originally Posted by Slaphappy
(Post 2940972)
They are not conspiracy theories. She has severe autism.
In any case, this is a complete red herring and has nothing to do with the issue. So what if she has aspergers? You can't refute anything she's said, so you make up half truths and lies to try and undermine her credibility because you can't offer any factual reason to disagree. What a sad and pathetic person you are. That teenage girl with "severe autism" has more intelligence and poise than all these grown ass adults foaming at the mouth because she's pointing out uncomfortable truths. |
The Aspergers canard is the very definition of "ad hominem."
|
Originally Posted by spacecadet
(Post 2941032)
As others have said, you're wrong.
In any case, this is a complete red herring and has nothing to do with the issue. So what if she has aspergers? As a carefully selected prop and someone who has has been alive for fewer years the years of education normally required to be a credible scientist, economist, businessman, or government leader I tune her out. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 2941071)
I think the point folks are trying to make is that she's a very carefully selected prop, who is difficult to contradict because of her disability and general cuteness (unless you're Trump and just don't care).
As a carefully selected prop and someone who has has been alive for fewer years the years of education normally required to be a credible scientist, economist, businessman, or government leader I tune her out. I also disagree that her "disability" and general cuteness affords her some kind of immunity from criticism. That doesn't really make sense considering how controversial she has become and the level of ire she's drawn from some segments of the political spectrum. And, in any case, tuning someone out simply because they happen to be young isn't all that fair either. They are the generation that has the most to lose from inaction, but their voice shouldn't matter? I think you underestimate young people here. |
Originally Posted by spacecadet
(Post 2941080)
And, in any case, tuning someone out simply because they happen to be young isn't all that fair either. They are the generation that has the most to lose from inaction, but their voice shouldn't matter? I think you underestimate young people here. It's not that their voice doesn't matter, it's that they don't understand the big picture which is that a significant (or catastrophic, as proposed by some folks) disruption in the global economy will have far reaching consequences, to the tune of poverty, famine, and wars costing likely hundreds of millions of lives. That's obvious fact, and you can easily extrapolate from global conflicts in recent history. I'm opposed to going down the road to KNOWN catastrophe in order to *hopefully* avoid a hypothetical ill-defined possible catastrophe. If anyone has a plan to TRANSITION the global economy to low-carbon, I'm all ears. But frankly as an experienced engineer and power guy, I don't see any non-disruptive way to do that on the desired timeline without large-scale use of nuclear power (which could provide zero carbon emissions, or even net carbon removal with clean energy to power carbon capture if needed). But the "greenies" have to much superstitious vodoo fear of that. I'll get behind it when they get serious about it. |
Also...
It's not about saving "the planet", I don't give a rats arse about "the planet", I only care about "the people" and what's best for them. The planet doesn't care either way, and it has experienced numerous environmental catastrophes over the eons. Same with animals, extinction is a natural part of evolution. Obviously a nice environment to live in is generally good for people, and we need some animals to eat and perform other ecological functions. But neither the planet or the animals are a goal in and of themselves, all has to be viewed in the context of people... cuz if you think people in general are going to voluntarily suffer great deprivations to provide some nebulous benefits to nebulous entities, you're smoking crack. |
Not all doom and gloom
Emotions are high on both sides of this argument. Has carbon gone from 280-400ppm? absolutely. Does that mean we’re doomed? I don’t think so. It’s interesting how science is effected by funding. We really don’t know the implications of +co2. We have an enormous durable atmosphere. We can act without panic. Activist pitted against deniers make interesting fodder for debate but won’t move the needle.
Economics will solve this problem long before we wreck the climate beyond repair. China, India, etc. are going to pollute as long as it’s in their economic interest to do so. It makes no difference what we do. Economic viable solutions will be developed either by MIT smart people or some uneducated redneck. The holy grail is storing hydrogen at room temperature at near atmospheric pressure <500psi. Sounds crazy but it’s possible, still experimental but it’s being done. Roof top solar is cheap and will be viable once storage solutions other than rare earth batteries are developed. The rich show off guy will be the first to buy it, the technology will mature making it viable for the masses. Coal plants will shut down because of economics. (We’ll continue flying on kerosene by the way). When the average person can put up solar panels, generate and store hydrogen in his garage we’ll forget all this was ever an issue. It may be some different variation of what I described who knows? Someone smarter than me will figure it out. Probably some greedy capitalist. Everything good seems to come from greedy capitalist in a free society. God love them. (If we could only figure out what happened to Epstein) |
Originally Posted by spacecadet
(Post 2941080)
Source? Why are you so convinced she is a prop? Is it really impossible that someone can be a well-informed, well-spoken person as a teen?
I also disagree that her "disability" and general cuteness affords her some kind of immunity from criticism. That doesn't really make sense considering how controversial she has become and the level of ire she's drawn from some segments of the political spectrum. And, in any case, tuning someone out simply because they happen to be young isn't all that fair either. They are the generation that has the most to lose from inaction, but their voice shouldn't matter? I think you underestimate young people here. |
Originally Posted by Duffman
(Post 2940004)
Also, off-topic, but as someone who sides with the 97% of scientists at NASA and NOAA, I think Greta and AOC are counter-productive. I think they rally people within the echo chamber, but they represent a 100% appeal to emotion on a topic that should be a 100% appeal to reason and they aren't who we should be looking for to either confirm man-made climate change or find solutions.
|
Call me when China and India are forced to reduce their emissions. Then I'll take this issue seriously.
|
Originally Posted by Stryker172
(Post 2941495)
Call me when China and India are forced to reduce their emissions. Then I'll take this issue seriously.
Alarmist roll out whacky predictions designed to guilt and scare us into action while China continues expanding use of coal. We will move beyond coal, it will happen when it’s cheap to store energy renewable sources will be useful. Until renewable are on demand (storage) and cheap, coal will be used. Economics always prevail. We still have 12 years. They’ll give us another extension if that runs out. |
Originally Posted by Mx241
(Post 2941189)
Emotions are high on both sides of this argument. Has carbon gone from 280-400ppm? absolutely. Does that mean we’re doomed? I don’t think so. It’s interesting how science is effected by funding. We really don’t know the implications of +co2. We have an enormous durable atmosphere. We can act without panic. Activist pitted against deniers make interesting fodder for debate but won’t move the needle.
Economics will solve this problem long before we wreck the climate beyond repair. China, India, etc. are going to pollute as long as it’s in their economic interest to do so. It makes no difference what we do.
Originally Posted by Mx241
(Post 2941189)
Economic viable solutions will be developed either by MIT smart people or some uneducated redneck. The holy grail is storing hydrogen at room temperature at near atmospheric pressure <500psi. Sounds crazy but it’s possible, still experimental but it’s being done.
H2 is also good in that it may not need as much infrastructure as fossil fuels... a small device could produce gaseous, low-pressure H2 at home using grid power and a little water. So you could refuel your H2 car at home, office, job site, etc. Batteries might still be more ecomical for smaller pax cars used on short trips. Unfortunately there's a little problem with H2 use for airliners. Remember the tropopause? Where the temp lapse rate changes? It does that because that's where the humidity changes.... there's almost no water in the stratosphere. Burning H2 fuel produces only one by-product: H2O. Turns out that dumping water vapor into the stratosphere where it doesn't belong would likely have a bad greenhouse effect of it's own. May just need biofuel (or artificial fuel created from atmospheric carbon) for jets.
Originally Posted by Mx241
(Post 2941189)
Roof top solar is cheap and will be viable once storage solutions other than rare earth batteries are developed. The rich show off guy will be the first to buy it, the technology will mature making it viable for the masses.
Originally Posted by Mx241
(Post 2941189)
Coal plants will shut down because of economics.
Originally Posted by Mx241
(Post 2941189)
We’ll continue flying on kerosene by the way.
|
Coal is undeniably dirty to mine, process, and burn. It will be the first to go and rightly so. Rare earth batteries aren’t much better. If EV people only knew the environmental catastrophe they’re contributing to. A corolla is better for the environment than a Prius.
Coal will phase out first followed by other petros as the next technology matures. These things happen over time. As for aircraft , the reason for the discussion, I don’t think hydrogen will ever be stored dense enough to be viable. These storage devices will be large. Aircraft will be among the last to ween off petroleum. As for the political pressure, I’ll believe it when the activists quit flying around wagging fingers. That girl did float around in a port-a-john though. I was impressed. |
A corolla is better for the environment than a Prius. https://www.theguardian.com/football...-electric-cars TL,DR version below : But what about the environmental effects of building the car? A report by the Ricardo consultancy estimated that production of an average petrol car will involve emissions amounting to the equivalent of 5.6 tonnes of CO2, while for an average electric car, the figure is 8.8tonnes. Of that, nearly half is incurred in producing the battery. Despite this, the same report estimated that over its whole lifecycle, the electric car would still be responsible for 80% of the emissions of the petrol car. More recently, an FT analysis used lifecycle estimates to question the green credentials of electric cars, especially heavy ones. |
Originally Posted by Mx241
(Post 2941669)
As for aircraft , the reason for the discussion, I don’t think hydrogen will ever be stored dense enough to be viable. These storage devices will be large.
There are just several practical/economic problems with liquid H2... It's corrosive as heck, if you understand chemistry well it will happily function as a reducing OR an oxidizing agent. It's explosive as heck (google "challenger"). It needs to be kept cryogenic as heck. Also it's not very dense, so would take up a lot of volume compared to kerosene. Would need a custom-designed plane for the volume and cryogenic fuel storage, and might have to give up belly cargo for fuel volume. Just a SWAG but I think the fantastic specific energy would offset the weight of additional structure for fuel volume. |
Originally Posted by Arturito
(Post 2941918)
Maybe they’ll develop cleaner batteries but each leap in technology features increasingly dirtier elements. China has admitted real environmental catastrophe associated with these activities. Kind of like quitting smoking then shooting yourself in the foot. Are you really better off? Maybe...I don’t know. |
Originally Posted by spacecadet
(Post 2941080)
Source? Why are you so convinced she is a prop? Is it really impossible that someone can be a well-informed, well-spoken person as a teen?
I also disagree that her "disability" and general cuteness affords her some kind of immunity from criticism. That doesn't really make sense considering how controversial she has become and the level of ire she's drawn from some segments of the political spectrum. And, in any case, tuning someone out simply because they happen to be young isn't all that fair either. They are the generation that has the most to lose from inaction, but their voice shouldn't matter? I think you underestimate young people here. Her trans Atlantic crossing and the facts behind it turned off the now rational people. |
Originally Posted by spacecadet
(Post 2941032)
As others have said, you're wrong.
In any case, this is a complete red herring and has nothing to do with the issue. So what if she has aspergers? You can't refute anything she's said, so you make up half truths and lies to try and undermine her credibility because you can't offer any factual reason to disagree. What a sad and pathetic person you are. That teenage girl with "severe autism" has more intelligence and poise than all these grown ass adults foaming at the mouth because she's pointing out uncomfortable truths. |
Originally Posted by Slaphappy
(Post 2945232)
She hasn't said anything factual. She just reads what's put in front of her and it's usually just an emotional speech of fear mongering. It's not surprising People like yourself eat it up.
Yeah seriously what “facts” has she actually brought up. When someone can explain to me why the ice glaciers melted to become the Great Lakes and how Holland has water rising thousands of years ago just as Miami continues today, before there were humans sala long the earth, than I’ll listen. Until then, I’m chalking it up to the earth changes when it wants to and our CO2 emisiones have very little effect. If anything, more CO2 is helping the trees anyways Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
And CO2 is good for sodas too !
I find it so ironic that pilots make fun of those chemtrail/flat earth idiots (and rightfully so!) and yet a good portion of said pilots, usually well educated and emotionnally balanced people, brush off 99% of the scientific community with the same thought process than conspiracy people mentionned above... Actually, I dont know if it's ironic or really depressing. Also, there is no so-called "Lift" on a wing, it's only invisible elves that push on the bottom of the wing with a broomstick. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Arturito
(Post 2946592)
And CO2 is good for sodas too !
I find it so ironic that pilots make fun of those chemtrail/flat earth idiots (and rightfully so!) and yet a good portion of said pilots, usually well educated and emotionnally balanced people, brush off 99% of the scientific community with the same thought process than conspiracy people mentionned above... Actually, I dont know if it's ironic or really depressing. Also, there is no so-called "Lift" on a wing, it's only invisible elves that push on the bottom of the wing with a broomstick. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by nate5ks
(Post 2946783)
I don't think most people here brush off the scientific community but people with a political stake in climate change have been fear mongering and crying wolf for decades and it grows tiresome. It's especially transparent when sensible people who propose nuclear energy as a way of reducing carbon emissions are shunned by the same group of people who claim to support science. It's a political issue, that's why you have differing opinions and not consensus.
Nuclear fission can be considered a stop-gap measure, within 20-200 years it's essentially inevitable that fusion and/or large scale space-based solar will be viable. The former sooner, the later not-so-soon. If carbon is really THAT big of an issue, it should be worth dealing with some fission waste for a few decades. We've been doing it for about 70 years anyway, in many nations. Greta and OAC can get back to me when they get onboard with that, and stop talking about shutting down airlines (and the entire economy) by 2030. We do have to be fair, hard-core lefties are not the only impediment to paradigm shifts in the energy sector, I'm sure the petroleum lobby is paddling furiously to protect their interests. Hopefully they're smart enough to start working on synth/bio fuel soon, they are best suited infrastructure-wise to doing the heavy lifting on alternative liquid fuels. Also have to recognize that ending the petroleum production industry will have far-reaching economic consequences as well, but probably not as bad as grounding all the jets. A lot of folks are employed in oil production, and some regionas (including Alaska, Canada, and several US states) would be destitute. Some of that will be mitigated by alt liquid fuels but most pax cars will end up on batteries, or with part-time hybrid and a fuel tank that only gets used on long road trips. Liquid fuel would probably be reserved for applications where the energy density of batteries won't cut: Jets, large trucks, ships, some heavy equipment, and weapons systems. |
Originally Posted by Arturito
(Post 2946592)
And CO2 is good for sodas too !
I find it so ironic that pilots make fun of those chemtrail/flat earth idiots (and rightfully so!) and yet a good portion of said pilots, usually well educated and emotionnally balanced people, brush off 99% of the scientific community with the same thought process than conspiracy people mentionned above... Actually, I dont know if it's ironic or really depressing. Also, there is no so-called "Lift" on a wing, it's only invisible elves that push on the bottom of the wing with a broomstick. :rolleyes: |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:25 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands