Global Warming - NOT

[C-GGGQ]

Other than that I guess we should all quit our jobs as pilots because we are complicit in a pretty frickin' huge environmental scandal; I generate about 3,300 lbs/hour of CO2 in a Citation II; your mileage may vary (it works that each pound of fuel generates around 3.3 lbs of CO2), but that tells me I'm not exactly kind to the environment.

actually an airliner, per passenger mile is about 1.5 - 2 times more efficient than a VW Jetta TDI. A jetta TDI get 65MPG or 52 NMPG (divide by 1.25)

Take your planes range (when full of pax) multiply by number of pax, divide by number of cars needed to take all PAX, divide by Jetta NMPG (52), multiply by number of cars to get total gals needed to make same trip, divide by Gals your plane holds = times more efficient

777-200LR as example 9450NM*301 PAX= 2,784,250 NM/PAX/(301/4=75) 75 cars = 37,123 NM every car travels/ 52 NMPG = 714 * 75 cars= 53,550 Gals/47,890 gals = 1.2 times more efficient.

so we're aren't doing THAT bad, efficiency wise

[pika]

1) I'll discuss what I want, when I want, however I want, and you have no control over that, just as Pika will post as many hot women in bikinis, when he wants, how he wants and we do not wish to control that

I will do my best. Even corporate guys need love sometimes.

[wxguy]

I'd just like to add a few comments to this topic.
I remember one of my professors saying that global warming doesn't mean it will get warmer everywhere all the time.
As for whether global warming is man made or not, well I'm not sure. However I do know that we should all hope that it is man made! That way, we may be able to do something about it. If the Earth is getting warmer because, say, the sun's solar output is changing...well what can we really do about that?
I don't know all the answers to Global Warming - no one does, but I'd just ask that everyone keep an open mind. Question everything about Global Warming, find out what the source of the infornmation is.

[hazatude]

I'll be having a styrofoam bonfire tonight to offset the effects of February.

[sigmet77]

That's more like it Haz, and be sure to invite some bikini clad, beer drinking, deer eating, 4x4 loving hot girls to sit by the fire with you. Sure, they won't show up after seeing the pics of your hairy ass, but it is the thought that counts.

[corporate joe]

I'll be having a styrofoam bonfire tonight to offset the effects of February.

1) No you won't. You're just saying you will cause you think that makes you a like rebel, which you think makes you like cool, maaaaan. I think the hip word for that is "poser".

2) Styrofoam was a popular target not because it's a cause of global warming, but mainly because it takes ten times longer than paper to decompose. People realised that styrofoam was pilling up in their local dumps and polluting much more than the alternatives, so they phased it out. Burning it will do nothing but dirty the air your breathe, stink up your backyard and dirty your lawn furniture with black smoke residue.

3) To all the people who actually encourage purposeful destruction of ressources and the environment, think about what you're saying and what that's telling us about your persona. Seriously, think about it for one second. Either you're trying to be provocative by saying you will mindlessly destroy, only to undermine the efforts of those trying to conserve, which makes you an asshole (not a hairy ass), or, you're completely idiotic and don't realize what you're doing, and in that case you shouldn't be let out in public, which does not paint a nice picture of the captain you are (or someday will be). Also, remember that most companies don't like employees (or employees to be) wasting their ressources out of spite or idiocy. Spoken words disperse themselves into nothingness, but written words stay for all to see.

ps pika: thanks for the pic of the chick near the corporate jet. I printed that baby out and I'll hang it at the FBO. Wish the stars weren't there though.

[the_professor]

3) More global warming does not mean more hot bikini weather. It means more extreme weather, economic downfall (the cost is already being felt), and human suffering. All these things are very bad for encouraging more hot women to wear bikinis.

Economic downfall is dependant on where you live I guess. What costs are you referring to that are "already being felt"? It is impossible at this point to try and tie any costs to the wobbly theory behind climate change.

There have been several pieces written that suggest Canada would largely benefit from a warmer climate.

[corporate joe]

3) More global warming does not mean more hot bikini weather. It means more extreme weather, economic downfall (the cost is already being felt), and human suffering. All these things are very bad for encouraging more hot women to wear bikinis.

Economic downfall is dependant on where you live I guess. What costs are you referring to that are "already being felt"? It is impossible at this point to try and tie any costs to the wobbly theory behind climate change.

There have been several pieces written that suggest Canada would largely benefit from a warmer climate.

You continue to amaze me. You ask questions about your beliefs, and when given facts, you don't bother reading the replies. Why are you pretending this is a discussion when in fact it's a monologue of you repeating your inherited beliefs which are oblivious to all the facts brought that contradict them.

Every "argument" you have brought, every link you have provided I have read and researched. I opened my mind, weighed what you have said, and I have looked for answers. You on the other hand, continue to repeat the same things that have been refuted many times by myself and other posters, you refuse to read the facts provided, yet you stand here and claim that you are not part of the "bandwagon" and that you are thinking for yourself. The roles are reversed my friend. You're thinking by yourself (not for yourself) and your mind is completely closed, yet you're projecting and accusing others of your flaws. Nonetheless, I will refute and ridiculize another one of your beliefs, AGAIN.



Show me one thorough study from a reliable source saying that Canada's economy as a whole will benefit from Global Warming.

In the meantime, I offer a 700 page study from the chief economist and Vice-president of the world bank, that says:

"global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%. But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096594.stm (shortened news story)
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independe ... report.cfm (full report here)

But, if you know science better than the overwheling majority of scientists, then you probably know economics better than the world bank.

PS: for those wondering why I am such a dick right now, please see post, "why I am such a dick".

[Hedley]

co-joe: a moment of perspective.

It would appear that your definition of an idiot is someone who doesn't agree with your opinions.

Problem is, I'll bet your opinions have changed. Your opinions when you were younger, and when you will be older, will indoubtably be different than they are now.

So, by your definition, you were an idiot when you were younger, and you will be an idiot when are are older.

But wait! Perhaps when you will be older, you will be wiser, and you will conclude that you are an idiot now.

Can someone please point out my flaws in the above reasoning or initial assumptions?

[corporate joe]

co-joe: a moment of perspective.

It would appear that your definition of an idiot is someone who doesn't agree with your opinions.

Problem is, I'll bet your opinions have changed. Your opinions when you were younger, and when you will be older, will indoubtably be different than they are now.

So, by your definition, you were an idiot when you were younger, and you will be an idiot when are are older.

But wait! Perhaps when you will be older, you will be wiser, and you will conclude that you are an idiot now.

Can someone please point out my flaws in the above reasoning or initial assumptions?

Wise words. One problem though. I am old, and my definition of an idiot, amongst other things, if you read clearly the post where I used that word, is someone who purposely destroys ressources. It has nothing to do with diverging opinions. My circle of friends and families are filled with people of diverging opinions. I meet intelligent people everyday with diverging opinions.

I also meet idiots with different opinions, and idiots with opinions identical to mine. If in some cases I meet people with diverging opinions, who I consider to be idiots, that does not mean that I consider all people with differing opinions to be idiots. Small, yet important nuance.

Also this case is a bit different. Suppose we are at your local lake xyz (insert name of your place of choice to fish) and we have a discussion on the type of boat that was anchored here yesterday. I say it's type A, you say it's type B. You would not consider me an idiot because we can not agree (and neither would I). However, if we met the owner of the boat and he told us that his boat is type B, and by-passers confirmed they saw it was a type B, yet I continued to explain to you why it was a type A and it couldn't be a type B, then, after a while, you would consider me an idiot. Your judgement would not be based on my diverging opinion, but rather on the way I reasoned.

Finally remember that this is not about opinions. It's about facts. It's about real consequences affecting all of us. It's about our planet and our species. When a human mind can not make the difference between fact and belief, when a human mind is incapable of correctly weighing all the evidence available and analyzing the pros and the cons, then that human mind is not working properly. If you choose to grasp one piece of information yet you do not take into account all the other pieces of informations staring you right in the face, what does that tell you about the person's mental capacity?

Does that make a little more sense to you?


PS: there is another member on these forums called co-joe. I am corporate joe. Again, small difference, but important nuance. Furthermore, I am sure he would like to be kept out of this.

[Cat Driver]

Corporate joe:

You should get Al Gore to build you a church to preach in, Al has the money and together both of you could make tons more with you as the boogeyman keeping the flock cowed in fear ......just like every other religion.

[corporate joe]

Corporate joe:

You should get Al Gore to build you a church to preach in, Al has the money and together both of you could make tons more with you as the boogeyman keeping the flock cowed in fear ......just like every other religion.

I am a bit disapointed by that reply. I truly had higher expectations. Al Gore = Global warming? Is that the stage where you're at in this discussion? Does your doctor have a church to preach fear in if he's telling you smoking is bad for you?

[trancemania]

Y2K !!!!

Now be honest.

Who of us here were scared the world was going to end?
Probably the same poeple who believe in global warming.

[corporate joe]

Y2K !!!!

Now be honest.

Who of us here were scared the world was going to end?
Probably the same poeple who believe in global warming.

Excellent point you bring there. Y2K is a great example!

Except you've got it upside down. Scientists and world businesses kept telling people not to worry about the year 2000, that it was just a number, but uneducated people didn't believe science and facts and were omnibulated by their own inherited beliefs.
The same way some people today still don't believe science and don't have the facts straight, the same people for whom it is more convenient to deny than to take responsibility.

[C-GGGQ]

pretty sure if scientists said nothing would happen on Y2K, it wouldn't have been such a big deal, and IT employees would have been working like dogs trying to prevent what could happen. (trust me after my friends father worked for the two solid weeks leading up to y2k without coming home, all he did was say "nothing happened" and passed out on the couch, microsoft programmer)

[trancemania]

It was the public.

You kidding me!!!

The programmers were"sceintists" in their own field,who were predicting "the end of the world"

Straight from wikipedia:

This fear was fueled by the attendant press coverage and other media speculation, as well as corporate and government reports

Special committees were set up by governments to monitor remedial work and contingency planning.

The United States Government responded to the Y2K threat by passing the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act, by working with private sector counterparts in order to ensure readiness, and by creating internal continuity of operations plans in the event of problems.

Point is.We tend to over-react as humans.DOOM and GLOOM

[corporate joe]

It was the public.

You kidding me!!!

The programmers were"sceintists" in their own field,who were predicting "the end of the world"

Straight from wikipedia:

This fear was fueled by the attendant press coverage and other media speculation, as well as corporate and government reports

Special committees were set up by governments to monitor remedial work and contingency planning.

The United States Government responded to the Y2K threat by passing the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act, by working with private sector counterparts in order to ensure readiness, and by creating internal continuity of operations plans in the event of problems.

Point is.We tend to over-react as humans.DOOM and GLOOM

You're confusing the programmer aspect of Y2K (not enough digits in tons of systems) with the irrational fear of the end of the world by the public. The governments and scientists tried to clam the public telling them planes would not fall out of the sky, elevators drop from buildings, and satan would not come to instore a 1000 year rule (or whatever that story was).

As GGGQ mentioned programmers had A LOT of work to do in many computer systems, and yes the governments also had the same issues with their computer systems, but that's not what the public's irrational fear was.

I have to agree with the doom and gloom part of your post though. It is true that humans tend to act in many irrational ways. Maybe that's why it's so difficult for the common people to make the difference between real issues and made up scares. Maybe that's why 2500 scientists from all over the world in different discplines producing thousands of studies and gathered data aren't enough to convince you. Remember the line between skepticism and irrational denial is very thin.

[trancemania]

At least we agree about something.

I think its the public that blow things out of proportion.

The sceintists show their findings and the are probably taken back at how far the public takes it.

Both sides will always stick to their side.More so if you try force them to see your point of view.

Lets look at some bikinis!!!!

[hazatude]

I'll be having a styrofoam bonfire tonight to offset the effects of February.

1) No you won't. You're just saying you will cause you think that makes you a like rebel, which you think makes you like cool, maaaaan. I think the hip word for that is "poser".

2) Styrofoam was a popular target not because it's a cause of global warming, but mainly because it takes ten times longer than paper to decompose. People realised that styrofoam was pilling up in their local dumps and polluting much more than the alternatives, so they phased it out. Burning it will do nothing but dirty the air your breathe, stink up your backyard and dirty your lawn furniture with black smoke residue.

3) To all the people who actually encourage purposeful destruction of ressources and the environment, think about what you're saying and what that's telling us about your persona. Seriously, think about it for one second. Either you're trying to be provocative by saying you will mindlessly destroy, only to undermine the efforts of those trying to conserve, which makes you an asshole (not a hairy ass), or, you're completely idiotic and don't realize what you're doing, and in that case you shouldn't be let out in public, which does not paint a nice picture of the captain you are (or someday will be). Also, remember that most companies don't like employees (or employees to be) wasting their ressources out of spite or idiocy. Spoken words disperse themselves into nothingness, but written words stay for all to see.

ps pika: thanks for the pic of the chick near the corporate jet. I printed that baby out and I'll hang it at the FBO. Wish the stars weren't there though.

I ran a kerosene lantern tonight for about an hour. Black JetA smoke going up somewhere in the atmosphere...

I stand by my written word.

I am the most supercool poster on Avcanada!

[the_professor]

In the meantime, I offer a 700 page study from the chief economist and Vice-president of the world bank, that says:

What a banker has to say about global warming is of no interest to me. His 700 page report, which by definition contains dozens of assumptions (i.e. This is what might happen if global warming is in fact taking place), is itself is built upon the hundreds of assumptions that define climate change theory itself.

So in response to my skepticism, you offer me a report from a banker (aka economist, and economists are no better at predicting the behavour of the economy than a weatherman is at predicting the weather) that is nothing more than assumptions being made about assumptions.

You are clueless.

[Widow]

Does anyone else wonder if we are naturally headed towards an ice-age while global-warming is producing contrary weather?

[the_professor]

You're confusing the programmer aspect of Y2K (not enough digits in tons of systems) with the irrational fear of the end of the world by the public. The governments and scientists tried to clam the public telling them planes would not fall out of the sky, elevators drop from buildings, and satan would not come to instore a 1000 year rule (or whatever that story was).

No, you're confusing/denying the similarities. Many "consultants" and "gurus" made millions travelling the world in 1998/99 preaching the doom that would befall anyone who did not implement their Y2K "Cure".

Same as today we have thousands of scientists who have suddently found that there is a bottomless pit of research money available to anyone who can pull some kind of "climate change study" out of their ass.

We were lucky with Y2K, because there was a hard date and time beyond which we could point to the Y2K consultants and call "bullshit". Only a fraction of the Y2K work performed was actually required. Unfortunately with climate change it is impossible to expose the scientists as frauds, because it will take thousands of years before we can consider any atmospheric changes to be part of a statistically significant trend.

Until then Joe will preach to anyone who will listen, even if it's only him and those pigeons on a park bench somewhere....

[corporate joe]

You're confusing the programmer aspect of Y2K (not enough digits in tons of systems) with the irrational fear of the end of the world by the public. The governments and scientists tried to clam the public telling them planes would not fall out of the sky, elevators drop from buildings, and satan would not come to instore a 1000 year rule (or whatever that story was).

No, you're confusing/denying the similarities. Many "consultants" and "gurus" made millions travelling the world in 1998/99 preaching the doom that would befall anyone who did not implement their Y2K "Cure".

Same as today we have thousands of scientists who have suddently found that there is a bottomless pit of research money available to anyone who can pull some kind of "climate change study" out of their ass.

We were lucky with Y2K, because there was a hard date and time beyond which we could point to the Y2K consultants and call "bullshit". Only a fraction of the Y2K work performed was actually required. Unfortunately with climate change it is impossible to expose the scientists as frauds, because it will take thousands of years before we can consider any atmospheric changes to be part of a statistically significant trend.

Until then Joe will preach to anyone who will listen, even if it's only him and those pigeons on a park bench somewhere....

Last time we left off, you were saying global warming was good for the Canadian economy. Still waiting for one the studies (because you claim there is more than one). Then we'll move on to your next belief.

I presented you with a study from the world bank VP and chief economist contradicting your belief. Now you must prove and back your claim. Otherwise, once again your argument has been refuted, and your credibility remains at zero. For every invented belief I will bring scientific proof and an explanation. Then we'll compare facts with facts, one argument at a time, and we'll see who his pulling things out of his ass. If you continue posting in this topic it is because you actually want to debate and discuss, not because you want to repeat your same uneducated monologue filled simplistic views void of any data backing them up. Saying things with nothing to back them up all while ignoring arguments that disprove your opinions make you irrational and unworthy of entering any debate, effectively removing all value to any argument you bring.

So, once again, you made a claim, I disproved it, either you back it up, or you admit you were proven wrong and then we'll move on to your next claim.

[corporate joe]

In the meantime, I offer a 700 page study from the chief economist and Vice-president of the world bank, that says:

What a banker has to say about global warming is of no interest to me. His 700 page report, which by definition contains dozens of assumptions (i.e. This is what might happen if global warming is in fact taking place), is itself is built upon the hundreds of assumptions that define climate change theory itself.

So in response to my skepticism, you offer me a report from a banker (aka economist, and economists are no better at predicting the behavour of the economy than a weatherman is at predicting the weather) that is nothing more than assumptions being made about assumptions.

You are clueless.

CAREFUL KIDS, THIS ONE'S PG-13

True Napoleon Strawman reasoning. Let me illustrate the flaws in your argumentation:

1) I claim global warming will cause economic downfall.
2) You reply saying it depends where you live, that several pieces have been written saying global warming was going to be positive for Canada's economy. Those pieces you were quoting, if they exist (since you still have not brought any data to back up your claims), would also be based on the assumption that global warming is real.
3) I reply giving you an actual 700 page study from the chief VP of the world bank, to counter your claim about global warming being good for Canada's economy. I did not, as you claim, give you that study to prove the validity of global warming.
4) So, You in return, completely change the fact we were debating about (which is the effects of global warming on the economy), and out of nowhere in true strawman fashion claim that: in return to your skepticism I offer you a study of assumptions based on assumptions which does not prove that global warming is real (which is not the initial argument I was bringing facts to validate). You completely failed to mention that you were the first one to make a claim about economic studies on global warming (which, just as the one I have provided ,would be assumptions based on assumptions according to you). In other words, you tried to discredit my reply backed up with proof, by changing the initial argument.

So, you can make a claim about studies (that you still not have proven even exist) to say global warming is good for the economy, but if I offer a counter fact with credible data to back it up, you quickly change your position and do not apply the same rules of logic. Your reasoning is flawed in so many ways, yet you dare call modern science imperfect. Your feeble mind is incapable of realising how it is imprisoned in it's own little box, and you are so blind to everything around you that your world limit's itself to what's in your backyard. Black or white, everything you see is over simplified. That leads to intolerance, incomprehension and extremism. You should have been a stain on bed sheets, but now your a stain in society. Your existence is bleak, your contribution to our species almost inexistent. Like I said before, I pity your kind.

[. .]

professor,

You obviously weren't involved in your schools debate team. CJ is actually spelling out what you need to do here. Do you not understand how absolutely stupid you're beginning to look in this thread?