Article on Flight Shaming and Carbon Emission
 

http://news.trust.org/item/20191105110922-soqa0

I hope the link works. I have always been a fan of sailing, but know in reality most people don't have a month or two to get somewhere.

Yep, as opposed to 200 people riding on one airplane I guess they should just all drive separately.

Carbon wise that's almost exactly a wash... with older traditional cars.

But that doesn't account for the economic and personal cost of the lost time and the required travel infrastructure. Or going around mountains, or over water.

I'm at the point where I tell people that when I start seeing the transcontinental shipping and cruise ship industry also start aggressively tackling their emissions, they can come back to aviation.

Modern aircraft are so much more efficient that there are much better low hanging fruit to go after now...

Start with Amazon and the shop-in-your-underwear business model. Way more carbon there.

I make it a point to show everybody I am using a plastic straw.

Nice thing about the US is we don't care about this kind of "shaming".

Socialists aren't known for their rational thought.

The nice thing is they are hurting their own cause. They are making this political and it's one of the reason you see more and more people rolling their eyes are the hysteria surrounding this climate alarmism.

That and the fact that there are a few doctorate level Climatologists, very respected by their peers, that have written papers that contradict the climate alarmist claims. Those however are not publicized by the media 24/7.

Not so sure.
Everyone in the neighborhood driving to multiple stores versus one truck delivering all the goods.

Yeah I think it saves fuel and emissions, as well as traffic congestion.

Doesn't save any cardboard though.

That is patently false. They're respected by people within skeptic circles, but people like Spencer, Christy, Soon, Nova, Lindzen, Michaels, et al. are rightfully shunned in academic circles. Their work is dubious at best and psuedoscientific hackery at worst.

It's also noteworthy that it's the same small subset of names that are continuing to cash in on non-scientists' inability to determine good science from bad science.

There are valid scientific inquiries in the climatology realm. Be very careful of how arguments are framed. Real science acknowledges what it doesn't know. Go read the Executive Summary of First Working Group of the Fifth Assessment Report. You won't see any hedging or acknowledgement of data gaps in the skeptic papers, even if they can find an outlet to get them peer-reviewed.

Occam's Razor. Is it more likely there is a vast conspiracy within scientific realms across multiple disciplines to shun the truth or is it more likely that the "few doctorate level Climatologists" are actually full of s#!t?

But cardboard is biodegradable and breaks down into soil that can be used to grow trees that scrub CO2 and can be used to make cardboard and paper which is biodegradable and breaks down into soil...
Good thing we switched to plastic bags.

Standing ovation

There is a vast scam going on, you have to at least admit that, the proof is windmills are everywhere.

I don't follow.

I think that he’s commenting on the political correctness bias of what is considered accepted science. The bulk of the funding goes to studies attempting to find the desired outcome, while studies showing that the desired narrative may not be entirely correct are shot down as weak science. Less than 5% of our energy is produced from wind and solar. Both methods are too costly and inefficient to provide enough power to meet our massive energy needs. Electric cars are great, but the manufacturing and disposal of the batteries, and burning tons of coal to produce the vast majority of our electricity isn’t. The windmills sound like a good idea, but the amount of power that they produce over time compared to their cost make them inefficient as well. The huge carbon fiber blades are also time limited parts that are difficult to recycle or dispose of. The one truly green option, nuclear, is safe and the most efficient option given our current level of technology. The problem is that it isn’t politically correct. It has an extremely low carbon and environmental footprint, it is more efficient than coal, and unlike wind or solar, it can run 24/7 and provide plentiful power without depending on adequate wind or sunshine. France is almost completely nuclear and has an ample supply of clean energy. Germany is highly dependent on nuclear as well, but they have decided to move away due to political reasons and public perceptions lacking any hard evidence. We won’t even admit that it is an option, or that wind and solar energy can’t even come close to meeting our needs. Instead we put up a few wind and solar farms to feel good about ourselves and fire up that fossil fuel generator.

Follow the money.
It is ALWAYS about the money.





and Control.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf...ACMAj397y0bMCE

Here is an actual published paper backing up what I said.



I'm not a denier, I'm vested in weather science since its my second job and all... I stick to facts.

Thanks for providing a perfect example of the point I made.

Real science doesn't have titles like "No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change." This looks and reads like a Watts Up With That blog post. Wouldn't surprise me if you got it from there, actually.

This is a terrific example of pseudoscience. And it has not been published, therefore it hasn't been peer-reviewed. It's going to get laughed away from any reputable journal.

It's also comical in its assumptions. CO2 climate forcing of 0.24C? Give me a break.

You may work in weather, but that doesn't qualify you to speak on climatology. And if you think this is what real science looks like, you should stick to your flying job.

It's also telling that the first thing you can find to post as "evidence" is pseudoscientific BS. If you want to have a scientific debate, I'm fine with that. But we should stick to actual science.

Love this post right here. I’ve been saying for years that nuclear is the answer. There are some bad connotations associated with nuclear energy, some right fully deserved (like Futchuma). However technology of containing and disposing of nuclear waste has dramatically improved over the last couple decades (Futchuma was an old outdated plant that needed to be updated, current technologies would have prevented that disaster)

investing in Upgrading current nuclear facilities and building new ones is the key right now to reduce our carbon footprint. Maybe in another 100 years more clean energies will be more practical. But in the meantime if we are serious in reducing our carbon footprint, the only realistic answer is nuclear.

Fukushima was an example of nuclear safety following an incident. It was an old outdated plant that had a major failure. The plant was successfully shut down. The loss of life associated with that event was due to public panic, not released radiation. Not a single person was harmed from the plant itself. The stampede of people trying to get away was another story. It should have never got to that stage, but the ability to shut down an outdated plant safely is an example of why we should be using it. Modern plants are far more efficient, produce less waste, and have more safeguards in place.

Yup, but it's probably too easy, doesn't involving tearing down and "rebuilding" our society and economy from scratch. Where's the fun in that?

Yes. Most operational plants today are 727-era equipment. They can operated safely with care but new designs would be far, far safer (and far less subject to human error).

Current anti-nukes are like people claiming airlines should be shut down because they're not safe... while citing statistics from the 1960's.

The biggest issue with Fukishima was having their backup generators on the ground and not on the roof...despite multiple warnings about it being a vulnerability.

Earthquake knocked out grid power and backuo generators worked as designed, then the tsunami from the earthquake swamped the backup generators.

It was a human leadership and management failure, not a technology failure.

From windmills, you get a single digit percent of the rated power of the thing. Their rated lifespan is also a lie, the blades degrade in 1/3 of the time, and then to add the icing on the cake, they can't be recycled.

The evidence is pretty clear that climate scientists don't believe themselves, otherwise they would suggest real solutions, like nuclear. Instead they care only about politics, and selling the green fraud products from the companies they get their funding from.

No one should listen to anyone in the climate science community until they expel the serious corruption.

It's not only that, the Japanese government totally abandoned them in their time of need. The US would never do such a thing.

Yes, because the majority can never be wrong :rolleyes:


How many centuries did the majority proclaim that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth?


Also, most climatologists get their funding from the government. Money from the government has an agenda, always. And human beings, even scientists, don't like being on the outs of popular opinion.

Yes, the backup gens were not only on the ground, they were in the basement, so susceptible to tsunami induced flooding.

Engineers had told managers that was a bad idea.

Modern nuclear plant designs should ideally include convective (natural circulation) emergency cooling so that the core residual heat is removed by convective flow without any need for powered pumps... one less thing to go wrong.

I figured a way to get rid of the cardboard and refuse. I put all my garbage in the Amazon labeled boxes and leave them on the porch.

That is also a good way to dispose of pet litter.

You are confusing scientists with politicians. Published and peer reviewed science doesn't suggest solutions outside of the need to reduce carbon emissions. There is no opinion published in climate studies. Science isn't an opinion.

You're the one thinking of regular science, where that is true. However, Climate science is the only science that I know of, where the scientists also give political guidance in their findings. This is one of many examples: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...3_ar5_full.pdf

Furthermore, look at how many climate scientists were thrown out of the Sierra Club for being pro-nuclear.

I'm not denying Climate Change, I'm simply stating that Nuclear power is the solution, yet instead of a simple solution, people with agendas, hijack that science to push their own goals.

I tune them all all out until they start advocating nuclear power, fastest and easiest way to get to a very low carbon footprint without destroying economies, nations, global security, and stability.

That said, aviation has to something fast to avoid getting caught up in a witch hunt. That's the reality, regardless of the merit or lack thereof in global warming theories.

This is important!

It's also not true.

Sources?
filler

It is totally true. There are almost no, none, zip, zero climate scientists working in the private sector, or with independent funding. They're either government employees or in academia with a very high reliance on government funding. Or funding from a source with a political agenda (of either stripe).

That's true of many other disciplines as well, so in and of itself does not automatically invalidate anything, but it is something to consider before we take measures which will have drastic economic and societal consequences.

Exxon has climate scientists and internal documents acknowledged as early as 1977 the role of CO2 and humans in climate change.

Were they predicting global warming then, or global cooling? :rolleyes: :cool:

What interest does a government funded scientist have in pushing the facts on climate change? Do you think they have a stake in green energy technologies?

The only privately funded studies of climate change have been funded by coal and gas companies, and perhaps to a much lesser extent by political organizations. Do you think a PRIVATE, CORPORATE funded "scientific" study is more reputable than impartial scientists on the government payroll?

If anything, the government would prefer its scientists to greenlight fracking, the continued use of carbon based power, and the status quo. What incentive is there for nefarious motives that you and others seem to imply on the part of "government employees," given the enormous economic costs involved? If anything, privately funded science would be far more nefarious given that those paying for the studies will always have an explicit and self-serving agenda. What interest does the US government have in putting out the alarm on climate change when it would economically benefit the US to perpetuate the status quo?

Frankly, this kind of suspicion is kind of ridiculous. Coal and gas companies have spent many millions of dollars lobbying politicians to protect their industries. Their own studies conducted in the late 80's and 90's predicted the current complications of greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, you think we should be suspicious of scientists who might be in bed with BIG SOLAR or paid for by Uncle Sam to push a green agenda which this administration is so antagonistic to?? What is the basis for your suspicions?

You seem to be skeptical of the fact that there is consensus on the issue. Consensus should not be seen as a reason for skepticisim, but rather a testament to the veracity of their findings. If a scientist can legitimately cut another scientist down for problematic findings, they will. That would literally make any individual scientist's career to disprove the belief of 99% of the scientific community. In this case, literally 99% of climate scientists agree, despite the fact they have every incentive to poke holes in the prevailing theories.

I don't understand the mindset which views experts who have impartially studied the facts with no financial stake in the issue with suspicion, while advocating that more corporate funded study needs to be undertaken. I agree that aviation is an easy scapegoat and there are more worthy targets, but ignoring 99% of the experts because you suspect groupthink ignores the literal basis of scientific progress (ie consensus), underestimates the professionalism of the people in this field, and completely ignores the fact that they're not the ones with the big money on the line.