[OT] Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers
Mayor of R'lyeh
1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
virtue.
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
is that we are going to solve this crisis."
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)
Whatever, Al. Why tell the truth when you can tell what you know to be
nothing more than a boogeyman tale that you represent as true? I
wonder if there's any contolling legal authority? 8)
2) When you tell them the truth they start screaming that you're part
of a conspiracy to conceal the *real truth*. Just like those guys who
claim that aliens are visiting and that claim the Buildenburgers, CFO,
Illuminati, the Masons and a few others are secretly controlling all
of our lives, the envirowhackos have got the REAL info. Those
scientist who tell them that they're full of beans are part of the
conspiracy. What a bunch of maroons!
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
--
"We believe Internet Explorer is a really good browser.
Internet Explorer is my browser of choice."
Steve Jobs
Edwin
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
> virtue.
I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
am I closed to counter-arguments.
You seem to have a need to characterize people who don't share your
opinions into an evil, lying, scheming mob who're out to destroy you
and everything you hold dear, at all cost.
You did some creative snipping below. I inserted the context you took
out.
"Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate
about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or
give them hope? What's the right mix?"
A: "I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head
is. "
> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
> the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
> is that we are going to solve this crisis."
"Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept
the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to
a full-blown discussion of the solutions."
> http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
> It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)
Or he could try to get you to read everything said there instead...
> Whatever, Al. Why tell the truth when you can tell what you know to be
> nothing more than a boogeyman tale that you represent as true? I
> wonder if there's any contolling legal authority? 8)
Above you're acting as you accuse others of doing in the paragraph
below;
> 2) When you tell them the truth they start screaming that you're part
> of a conspiracy to conceal the *real truth*. Just like those guys who
> claim that aliens are visiting and that claim the Buildenburgers, CFO,
> Illuminati, the Masons and a few others are secretly controlling all
> of our lives, the envirowhackos have got the REAL info. Those
> scientist who tell them that they're full of beans are part of the
> conspiracy. What a bunch of maroons!
> http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
You're mashing all your opponents into one indistinguishable lump
again... all you failed to do is toss out the words "hippies" and "tree
huggers..."
TheLetterK
You can hardly blame them. Most of them have been indoctrinated into
this sort of belief almost since birth. "Unnatural == Bad", "Humans ==
Ultimate cause of global warming", etc, etc.
TheLetterK
>
> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>> virtue.
>
> I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
> am I closed to counter-arguments.
I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are the
ultimate cause of the global warming trend. Geological evidence, however,
quite clearly demonstrates that the Earth's temperature is not naturally
stable. We have, in fact, been living during a cool period of Earth's
history.
>> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
>> audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is
>> that we are going to solve this crisis."
>
> "Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the
> reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a
> full-blown discussion of the solutions."
None of the environmental nutjobs have presented anything approaching a
viable 'solution'. We could cut all emissions save natural respiration,
and we *still* wouldn't stop or even significantly slow the global warming
trend. Doing so would require active participation on our part (like
manually venting CO2 from the atmosphere). Of course, that would have
a profound negative effect on the long-term health of the Earth's
ecosystem.
Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>> virtue.
>
>I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
>am I closed to counter-arguments.
Then you're a definite minority on that side.
>
>You seem to have a need to characterize people who don't share your
>opinions into an evil, lying, scheming mob who're out to destroy you
>and everything you hold dear, at all cost.
>
>You did some creative snipping below. I inserted the context you took
>out.
>
>"Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate
>about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or
>give them hope? What's the right mix?"
>
>A: "I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head
>is. "
>
>> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
>> the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
>> is that we are going to solve this crisis."
>
>"Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept
>the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to
>a full-blown discussion of the solutions."
>
>> http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
>> It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)
>
>Or he could try to get you to read everything said there instead...
Everything you added was simply Al Gore's rationalization about why
its ok for him to lie. That was already present in the quote I
provided so the further elaboration on his part wasn't needed for
context.
>
>> Whatever, Al. Why tell the truth when you can tell what you know to be
>> nothing more than a boogeyman tale that you represent as true? I
>> wonder if there's any contolling legal authority? 8)
>
>Above you're acting as you accuse others of doing in the paragraph
>below;
I'm hardly engaging in unwarranted scare tactics by exposing Al Gore's
confession that he's lying about global warming.
>
>> 2) When you tell them the truth they start screaming that you're part
>> of a conspiracy to conceal the *real truth*. Just like those guys who
>> claim that aliens are visiting and that claim the Buildenburgers, CFO,
>> Illuminati, the Masons and a few others are secretly controlling all
>> of our lives, the envirowhackos have got the REAL info. Those
>> scientist who tell them that they're full of beans are part of the
>> conspiracy. What a bunch of maroons!
>> http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
>
>You're mashing all your opponents into one indistinguishable lump
>again... all you failed to do is toss out the words "hippies" and "tree
>huggers..."
I prefer the term 'stankin' hippies' for that sort.
George Graves
TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:21:39 -0400, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
> >
> > 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
> > virtue.
> >
> > "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
> > bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
> > to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
> > they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
> > believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
> > presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
> > the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
> > is that we are going to solve this crisis."
> > http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
> > It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)
This is only part of the reason. I have a college buddy who is a
researcher in another, unrelated field, but he works for a large
midwestern university and he tells me that most researchers will say
anything to obtain and/or keep a grant. Most of the people in the
earth-related sciences feel that the adage: "the squeeky wheel gets the
grease" is a fruitful avenue to persue in getting grant providers'
attentions. In other words, make whatever it is you're working on,
whether it be global warming, global dimming, the earth's core swapping
poles, ozone depletion, etc., into a potential disaster of biblical
proportions in order to scare the pocketbooks into funding your research
further. Its all about the big spin and the media is always there to
take negative news and run with it.
--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.
Bob_S
<gmgraves-B6581F...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
I believe the earth is warming. However, I am not convinced man is to
blame, in whole or in part.
--
Cheers,
Bob S
John
made such a fool of yourself yet again. People that argue against
global warming are rare and remind one of the scientists years ago that
argued the Earth was flat.
Wegie
Bob_S <Bo...@NOSPAM.COM> wrote:
> I believe the earth is warming. However, I am not convinced man is to
> blame, in whole or in part.
yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal
and huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so
god like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the
ecosystem, surely these fires are not "man made".
wake up people, china alone burns 2.22 billion tons of standard coal a
year. the earth is on "unnatural" fire, it's now time to put industry to
work to solve & reverse this whole mess, before earth becomes the next
mars.
--
.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
LOL! I read what he said. He admits that he's lying to scare people.
Its quyite plain.
> People that argue against
>global warming are rare and remind one of the scientists years ago that
>argued the Earth was flat.
No one ever did. That's a 19th century myth. Now they do remind me of
those 'scientists' who were arguing during the 1970's that we were all
going to die in a new Ice Age...largely because its mostly the same
bunch.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <Bob_S-36DFE8....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Will someone get Chicken Little here a helmet? 8)
John
Not only are you technically incompetent with computers but also
incompetent in Science and reading as well.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Unable to counter my arguments with facts, John resorts to
namecalling.
John
ZnU
<gmgraves-B6581F...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
You guys sound like the Creationists. It's all a big conspiracy of the
scientific establishment. Right.
This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
a little whacky.
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
ZnU
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:57:03 -0700, Edwin wrote:
>
> >
> > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
> >> virtue.
> >
> > I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
> > am I closed to counter-arguments.
>
> I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are the
> ultimate cause of the global warming trend. Geological evidence, however,
> quite clearly demonstrates that the Earth's temperature is not naturally
> stable. We have, in fact, been living during a cool period of Earth's
> history.
The amount of faulty logic I've seen coming from the global warming
deniers in just the last couple of days is astounding, and you've just
provided another neat example.
The fact that Earth's climate has changed in the past does absolutely
nothing to prove that the *current* warming trend is not anthropogenic.
That 'reasoning' is precisely analogous to saying that, well, Joe can't
be in the hospital because he was hit by a car, because the *last* time
he was in the hospital, it was because he fell out a window.
> >> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
> >> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
> >> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
> >> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
> >> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
> >> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
> >> audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is
> >> that we are going to solve this crisis."
> >
> > "Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the
> > reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a
> > full-blown discussion of the solutions."
>
> None of the environmental nutjobs have presented anything approaching a
> viable 'solution'. We could cut all emissions save natural respiration,
> and we *still* wouldn't stop or even significantly slow the global warming
> trend. Doing so would require active participation on our part (like
> manually venting CO2 from the atmosphere). Of course, that would have
> a profound negative effect on the long-term health of the Earth's
> ecosystem.
>
> Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
> output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.
Odds are, global warming (unless it ends up as a runaway cycle, which we
can't really predict), wouldn't be particularly bad for the planet, in
the long run.
It would certainly be very bad for human civilization, in the short run.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <pan.2006.06.01....@none.net>,
> TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:57:03 -0700, Edwin wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>> >> virtue.
>> >
>> > I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
>> > am I closed to counter-arguments.
>>
>> I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are the
>> ultimate cause of the global warming trend. Geological evidence, however,
>> quite clearly demonstrates that the Earth's temperature is not naturally
>> stable. We have, in fact, been living during a cool period of Earth's
>> history.
>
>The amount of faulty logic I've seen coming from the global warming
>deniers in just the last couple of days is astounding, and you've just
>provided another neat example.
>
>The fact that Earth's climate has changed in the past does absolutely
>nothing to prove that the *current* warming trend is not anthropogenic.
>
>That 'reasoning' is precisely analogous to saying that, well, Joe can't
>be in the hospital because he was hit by a car, because the *last* time
>he was in the hospital, it was because he fell out a window.
The reasoning from the global warming believers is like standing at
the beach watching the waves lapping at the shore and suddenly
deciding that the next wave can only be caused by man and that its
going to kill us all.
When something has been happening for thousands of years there's no
reason to believe that its anything different when it happens in your
lifetime.
>
>> >> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>> >> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>> >> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>> >> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>> >> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>> >> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
>> >> audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is
>> >> that we are going to solve this crisis."
>> >
>> > "Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the
>> > reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a
>> > full-blown discussion of the solutions."
>>
>> None of the environmental nutjobs have presented anything approaching a
>> viable 'solution'. We could cut all emissions save natural respiration,
>> and we *still* wouldn't stop or even significantly slow the global warming
>> trend. Doing so would require active participation on our part (like
>> manually venting CO2 from the atmosphere). Of course, that would have
>> a profound negative effect on the long-term health of the Earth's
>> ecosystem.
>>
>> Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
>> output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.
>
>Odds are, global warming (unless it ends up as a runaway cycle, which we
>can't really predict), wouldn't be particularly bad for the planet, in
>the long run.
>
>It would certainly be very bad for human civilization, in the short run.
We have a much greater capacity to adapt when climate changes than
they did in the past. It wouldn't be near as catastrophic as past
events.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article
You're going to seriously claim that scientists never fudge their
outcomes for grant money? Get real. Its happened too many times for
anyone to believe that.
>
>This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
>I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
>a little whacky.
LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
doesn't even come close to explaining it. There's too many times where
things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.
But to the Darwin Fundamentalist any deviation from the Holy Writ
requires execution.
The sad thing is that even if this other process is found Darwin
Fundamentalists will call for the discover's blood even though he's
most likely to be one of their own.
Dave Fritzinger
Of course it happens. Scientists are human, with all the foibles that
humans have. However, science is, by its nature, self correcting.
Mistakes do get caught because scientists tend to repeat other
scientists experiments. If they can't replicate them, they then tell
other scientists.
>
> >
> >This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
> >I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
> >a little whacky.
>
> LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
> that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
> doesn't even come close to explaining it.
Tell us, oh wise one, what evidence you base this on. Show us the
evidence that falsifies Darwinian evolution. Don't worry, I'll wait.
> There's too many times where
> things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
> reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
> unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.
Only to the scientific illiterate, Mayor. Again. show us the data (that
is hard data, not someone saying, this can't be possible) that
falsifies evolution. For that matter, come up with anything that shows
ID to be scientific. Present to us the theory of intelligent design.
Show us how it could be falsified. Show us what experimental data
supports it. This was asked of Michael Behe (the leading scientist who
supports ID) at the Dover trial, and the best he could do is admit
that, by the standards needed to make ID science, astrology would also
have to be considered a science.
> But to the Darwin Fundamentalist any deviation from the Holy Writ
> requires execution.
Again, Mayor, show us the data that disproves evolution and common
descent. You won't do it because you can't.
> The sad thing is that even if this other process is found Darwin
> Fundamentalists will call for the discover's blood even though he's
> most likely to be one of their own.
No, if someone comes up with data that disproves evolution, it will be
doubted at first, much as Temin and Baltimore were doubted when they
first demonstrated reverse transcriptase, or Alverez was doubted when
he presented the hypothesis that the dinosaurs were destroyed by a
comet strike 65 million years ago. But, as the data showed they were
correct, their hypotheses were accepted. And, the same thing would
happen with someone who "disproved" evolution. It is very doubtful it
will happen, though, since there is data collected over 150 years that
all supports evolution and common descent. And, not a single data point
that casts doubt on the theory. If you disagree, present some data,
instead of your usual spouting of nonsense, such as above.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
Alan Baker
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
> virtue.
Funny. That sounds like you...
Dave Fritzinger
That's funny. You put your own interpretation on what he said, IMHO. It
appears to me that he is saying you have to overwhelm them with facts,
not that you have to lie to them. But, that is because you want to
believe he is dishonest, while I believe in the honesty of people until
they prove otherwise.
[snip]
Mayor of R'lyeh
<dfri...@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
You illustrate my point nicely, Dave. You sound like a Catholic that
has just come across someone who doubts Papal Infallibility.
ZnU
The current pattern of change does not appear to resemble pre-human
historical events. There has been extensive study of this. See,
climatologists get their grant money (to put this in terms you might
understand) whether global warming is caused by human activity or by
something else, and the answer to this question could have pretty big
implications, so they're more than willing to look at the full range of
possible causes.
It's a hell of a lot harder to move cities and vast agricultural
operations than it is for a bunch of nomads to change their migration
routes. Moreover, it won't just be sea levels rising a few millimeters a
year or something, which is a problem that, while costly, would be
manageable without catastrophe. It's very well established that higher
ocean temperatures produce more severe tropical storms, which means
there will be sudden violent weather events to deal with as well as slow
changes in sea level, optimal land use, etc.
I don't know why you guys are so hopeful that global warming has natural
causes. If we're causing it, maybe it's not to late to do something. If
e.g. solar variation is causing it (not presently considered likely),
we're screwed.
ZnU
What you're positing is that something like 95% of climatologists are
engaged in a huge conspiracy to mislead everyone else. That's not quite
the same thing as a few scientists fudging their results, now is it?
I think you'll notice, if you actually examine the history of scientific
fraud, that it's virtually always other scientists -- not critics of
science -- who expose it.
> >This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
> >I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
> >a little whacky.
>
> LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
> that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
> doesn't even come close to explaining it. There's too many times where
> things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
> reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
> unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.
> But to the Darwin Fundamentalist any deviation from the Holy Writ
> requires execution.
> The sad thing is that even if this other process is found Darwin
> Fundamentalists will call for the discover's blood even though he's
> most likely to be one of their own.
The phrase "Darwin Fundamentalist" doesn't even make sense. The current
understanding of evolution has already moved well beyond Darwin. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis for an overview. There's
certainly room for new ideas; the discovery that horizontal gene
transfer (something with, incidentally, a purely Darwinian view does not
contemplate at all) can occur in 'higher' species has gained acceptance
within just the last 10 years, as new evidence has come to light.
The reason ID isn't getting anywhere isn't because of some Darwinian
orthodoxy; it's because none of the proposals of the ID movement have
any kind of scientific merit. In particular, irreducible complexity and
specified complexity, which are supposed to lead to a supported 'design
inference' are fundamentally flawed, and not even in particularly subtle
ways. ID is based, when you get right down to it, on nothing more than
intuition -- intuition which not everyone shares.
Tim Smith
> In article <Bob_S-36DFE8....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Bob_S <Bo...@NOSPAM.COM> wrote:
>
>> I believe the earth is warming. However, I am not convinced man is to
>> blame, in whole or in part.
>
> yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal and
> huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so god
> like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the ecosystem,
> surely these fires are not "man made".
Hell, just grounding most aircraft in the US for the three days after 9/11
had significant effect on the temperature variation over those three days.
Pretty dramatic proof that we can affect things.
--
--Tim Smith
Wegie
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal and
> > huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so god
> > like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the ecosystem,
> > surely these fires are not "man made".
>
> Hell, just grounding most aircraft in the US for the three days after 9/11
> had significant effect on the temperature variation over those three days.
> Pretty dramatic proof that we can affect things.
yeah, airplanes is where most EVERYONE misses / forgets the impact, it's
an out of sight / out of mind kind of thing. About 1 gallon a second is
burned in 747-787s, and there are always about 200 of them in the air at
any one time, and 1000's of smaller planes are always up in the air too.
they are invisibly lacing the planet with fire 24 hours a day.
for a simple round trip flight from Chicago to London, produces 358.00
Tonnes of CO2, (250 people) and similar length flights happen 100's of
times a day. pretty scary when you start to understand the problem.
http://www.climatecare.org/britishairways/index.cfm
--
.
ZnU
wrote:
A large plane that's 60-100% full typically burns less fuel per
passenger-mile than a car with one (sometimes two) people in it.
Airplanes aren't exactly environmentally friendly, but when you take
everything into account they're a much smaller problem than cars, and
probably one that would be a lot easier to fix, since moving planes to
hydrogen would only require changing fueling facilities at airports.
That's not a trivial task by any means, but compared with converting a
significant percentage of the gas stations in the world it's fairly
straightforward.
Airbus is already working on some basic R&D for hydrogen-fueled
passenger planes.
Dave Fritzinger
That's funny. You sound like someone who is totally unable to refute
any of the points I made. And, we both know why that is, dont' we?
Actually, you are pretty funny. You tried to phrase things so that if
anyone refutes what you said (which wasn't hard, since what you said
was so much BS), you could come back with the exact line you tried to
use on me. It is a pretty transparent dodge, though, as it is quite
obvious that you just don't have the ammo.
You are being more than a bit dishonest here, Mayor.
George Graves
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
Its not a conspiracy, its just the way not-for-profit research works
these days.
> This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
> I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
> a little whacky.
I didn't say that I agree with the Mayor about global warming, I just
said that researchers need grants to fund their research and they spin
their proposals to make sure that they get it. We all know that the
press thrives on bad news, so they are going to take the gist of these
proposals of doom and gloom and run with it.