Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[JustALooseScrew]

wc98 said:

to be fair to el stovey i think his position is he supports the declared scientific position ,the one we get on the msm. he isn't really interested in the scientific debate more taking the piss out of people that don't believe the consensus as espoused by the bbc. i haven't once seen him preach about about cutting emissions or anyone, not least himself, altering their lifestyle to accommodate catastrophic anthropogenic global warming/climate change.

I'd agree with that, a good synopsis.

[gadgetmac]

There is ample down time, certainly for long haul pilots. Regulations 'n all if I recall correctly.

My next door neighbour is a BA long haul pilot.

[Kawasicki]

Australian sceptic vs The Consensus.

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/03/peter-ridd-free-s...

[JustALooseScrew]

gadgetmac said:

There is ample down time, certainly for long haul pilots. Regulations 'n all if I recall correctly.

My next door neighbour is a BA long haul pilot.

My next door neighbour is a feral cat lover.
She's also quite dumb.

[gadgetmac]

JustALooseScrew said:

gadgetmac said:

There is ample down time, certainly for long haul pilots. Regulations 'n all if I recall correctly.

My next door neighbour is a BA long haul pilot.

My next door neighbour is a feral cat lover.
She's also quite dumb.

Nope. Are you saying that Pilots are dumb?

[zygalski]

Right, this is getting boring now.
Can Turbobloke please misrepresent a climate change scientist, or post some plagiarised quote masquerading as his own?

The disciples are letting you down, 'spam.

[deeps]

El stovey said:

deeps said:

Stovey believes in anthropogenic CO2 induced CGW, and being the second rudest, alarmist poster (after gadget) in proclaiming it, should expect to be targeted if it's known that he doesn't keep his own house in order.

I’ve explained this numerous times to you.

I’m not a hypocrite because I’m not telling anyone how to live.

As I’ve also explained previously, I’m doing plenty to reduce my carbon footprint in my job.

I have no need to justify how I live to you, because you’re clearly brainwashed and a moron.

As with most alarmists your logic is demonstrably poor. You state that I'm a brainwashed moron and that you don't need to justify yourself to me, but have already preceded the ad hom by attempting to do just that.

I believe your guilt actually runs deep, and that's probably the underlying factor in why you feel the need to be here most every day.

Edited by deeps on Tuesday 12th March 03:02

[deeps]

gadgetmac said:

Jasandjules said:

El stovey said:

I’m not complicit in anything, and no green loons are coming for me. People need to fly, the best we can do is to do it efficiently, which I am.

No, people do not need to fly. We have been around for many thousands of years yet have been flying for what, 200 or so (Counting balloons here for completeness). We also have technology now that enables us to talk to people on the other side of the world. So no, people do not "Need" to fly. People "want" to fly, that is a completely different thing.

Yes, people do need to fly. Unless you know how we can deliver urgently needed 'stuff' to other parts of the world quickly that involves using video technology. Or get to see dying relatives who live abroad etc.

Shall we also immediately cease to use coal fired electricity for our hospitals and homes?

Technology is moving forward but we are currently on a path that hasn't come to an end end.

What a ridiculous argument.

No. People do not need to fly. People need to breathe, eat and keeping warm is helpful too. They definitely do not need to fly. Logic fail again.

[deeps]

El stovey said:

Diderot said:

El stovey said:

I’m not complicit in anything, and no green loons are coming for me. People need to fly, the best we can do is to do it efficiently, which I am.

And how are you flying efficiently? Switching off the engines and gliding? Lift and coast?

Reducing fuel burn by switching off the APU on the ground. Flying more direct routings, getting shortcuts, taxing on one engine, finding better flight levels to make use of jetstreams, not tankering extra fuel, flying efficient low drag approaches, reduced thrust take offs, planning with closer alternate airfields, reducing taxing time etc

That's great El stovey, your efforts will be making a huge difference, possibly saving how much in terms of percentage?

Would you tell us how much fuel you burn on average per mile, and how much per week on average please?

[deeps]

gadgetmac said:

I'm certainly not saying what I do...the outcry would be heard in India. LOL.

I remember you did say once before that you had a larger carbon footprint than stovey, almost proud of it

Funny old world, when it turns out the people who you take pleasure in calling 'deniers' daily on this thread have a combined carbon footprint that is most likely tiny in comparison to just the two of yours, gadget and stovey.

Funny that the two biggest believers and contributors of alarmism on this thread also turn out to be the biggest contributors of CO2 emissions. Hypocritical doesn't even come close.

Perhaps there's some Gore and Dicaprio in that.

[Rhyolith]

Does alarmism work as a means of convincing people?

[durbster]

deeps said:

That's great El stovey, your efforts will be making a huge difference, possibly saving how much in terms of percentage?

Would you tell us how much fuel you burn on average per mile, and how much per week on average please?

This is the quality of the argument now.

Perhaps it's time to close the thread?

[powerstroke]

Rhyolith said:

Does alarmism work as a means of convincing people?

Yes for some ...... for about 5 mins for others then they look for the agenda !!!!...

[Murph7355]

durbster said:

This is the quality of the argument now.

Perhaps it's time to close the thread?

Aren't these the sort of things that need looking at politically though?

The undertone might not be best, but consider the fundamentals of the point of view rather than wanting to give up on the discussion.

Assuming protecting the environment/climate is paramount, shaving %age points from usage of fuel in a particular mode of transport is never going to be as effective as stopping that usage altogether.

Arguing that someone else will just do that usage anyway, and may not do it as well, misses the point.

If we are then to say that the practicalities of life preclude ceasing these things... Then protecting the environment/climate evidently isn't paramount as it is trumped by the need for that mode of transport (etc). ..

Whether we can make transport (to continue that angle) cleaner/less resource hungry in the context of the overall system we are part of who knows. I suspect it unlikely, which would mean total changes in behaviour are required if anything material is to be done.

[gadgetmac]

deeps said:

gadgetmac said:

Jasandjules said:

El stovey said:

I’m not complicit in anything, and no green loons are coming for me. People need to fly, the best we can do is to do it efficiently, which I am.

No, people do not need to fly. We have been around for many thousands of years yet have been flying for what, 200 or so (Counting balloons here for completeness). We also have technology now that enables us to talk to people on the other side of the world. So no, people do not "Need" to fly. People "want" to fly, that is a completely different thing.

Yes, people do need to fly. Unless you know how we can deliver urgently needed 'stuff' to other parts of the world quickly that involves using video technology. Or get to see dying relatives who live abroad etc.

Shall we also immediately cease to use coal fired electricity for our hospitals and homes?

Technology is moving forward but we are currently on a path that hasn't come to an end end.

What a ridiculous argument.

No. People do not need to fly. People need to breathe, eat and keeping warm is helpful too. They definitely do not need to fly. Logic fail again.

Up sweating again at 3am again eh

Explain how we get urgently needed vaccines from one part of the globe to another then?

How can we move rural patients quickly to large medical centres? How can we quickly transport time-sensitive organs from one facility to another?

How about visiting elderly or sick relatives abroad?

It's like saying we don't need cars because horses are available.

Should we all dump our vehicles? Maybe do away with Big ships, hell we can sail our perishables around the world?

That top IQ of yours isn't really working for you is it?

[Jasandjules]

gadgetmac said:

Yes, people do need to fly. Unless you know how we can deliver urgently needed 'stuff' to other parts of the world quickly that involves using video technology. Or get to see dying relatives who live abroad etc.

No, that is people "wanting" to fly. Not need. There is no necessity but only desire. I can appreciate that you must protect pilots who are pro AGW but it does you no credit to do so.

"Global aviation accounts for 11% of all transport carbon dioxide emissions and Aviation is also the most carbon-intensive form of transportation, so it's growth comes with a heavy impact on climate change". (from Whatsyourimpact.org)

Yet you defend it. OK then.

[turbobloke]

Memo to politicians and taxgasphobics: "The growth and physiological performance of cycads have been severely compromised by declining CO2 during the Cenozoic Era" which according to authors Nackley et al has resulted in an endangered species situation. Fortunately for cycads and other photosynthesising species forming the key 'producer' base for the global food chain, carbon dioxide levels are increasing from near-starvation levels on a greening Earth.

[gadgetmac]

Jasandjules said:

gadgetmac said:

Yes, people do need to fly. Unless you know how we can deliver urgently needed 'stuff' to other parts of the world quickly that involves using video technology. Or get to see dying relatives who live abroad etc.

No, that is people "wanting" to fly. Not need. There is no necessity but only desire. I can appreciate that you must protect pilots who are pro AGW but it does you no credit to do so.

"Global aviation accounts for 11% of all transport carbon dioxide emissions and Aviation is also the most carbon-intensive form of transportation, so it's growth comes with a heavy impact on climate change". (from Whatsyourimpact.org)

Yet you defend it. OK then.

How would asking an individual pilot to stop flying help the situation? Is he asking you or anyone else to give up driving?

Does he build the aircraft himself?

Should all of the pro AGW taxi drivers to stop ferrying people around for a living?

Maybe we can ask pro AGW Ambulance drivers to give it a rest while we're at it?

This is a ridiculous argument.

[turbobloke]

More good news in what should be compulsory reading for politicians especially USA State Governors. A peer-reviewed study has poured cold water on climate alarmism as agw takes yet another blow: stronger hurricanes cannot be explained by higher CO2 levels.

The hurricane trend 1958-2005 has been examined (data!) and attribution of hurricane intensity to anthropogenic climate change is still not possible. "These results indicate that currently we cannot attribute changes in North Atlantic hurricane intensity to human related forcings.” Trenary et al in GRL (2019).

Cool.

[gadgetmac]

You'd think with all of these "blows" AGW is taking you'd have won the argument by now instead of actually losing the argument as more Americans than ever now believe in AGW.