Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
G-RFRY

The Future of Air Travel.

Recommended Posts

... and here she is... :cool:

2020.03.20-05.04-boundingintocomics-5e74

  • Like 1

Mark Robinson

Part-time Ferroequinologist

Author of FLIGHT: A near-future short story (ebook available on amazon)

I made the baby cry - A2A Simulations L-049 Constellation

Sky Simulations MD-11 V2.2 Pilot. The best "lite" MD-11 money can buy (well, it's not freeware!)

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Because you keep making the same fallacious arguments and quoting a number of unreliable, and biased, sources.

 

 

What!!! 😧 Are you kidding? after all the trouble I've gone to, explaining the climate science to you, countering your anti-scientific claims, providing links to prestigious scientific journals like "Nature" and "Science" and "NASA" no less, you must be winding me up. I've even shown you the data regarding CO2 emissions in step with temperature rise, and the loss of sea ice in the form of an animation, both you ignore and refuse to address. And then you cite ONE article out of the multitude I included and use that to claim climate science is all biased and a left wing conspiracy. 🤕

They aren't MY arguments you accuse of being "fallacious" its SCIENCE, climate science! I find it bizarrely arrogant that you, with zero qualifications in this field, and after demonstrating a zero understanding of the basic concepts, believe you are in a position to claim the science is fallacious. I'm truly stunned. 

 

Quote

If you really believe all the climate change hype and doomsday predictions, then I advise you to prepare accordingly.  

 

Huh, the only "hype" is from the media. I don't listen to that, I listen to scientists. Because scientists do actually know what they are talking about... unlike YOU, or me. 

I'm sorry Dave but its almost like you are trolling now. I have asked you direct questions over and over again, a multitude of them, and each time you have refused to answer them. I have countered your anti-scientific claims over and over again and given you links to the REAL science at places like Nature, Science, NASA, The Royal Institution, and each time you fail to provide a single counter argument to what I have told you. That's sir is telling. 

As for "left wing", that's right, it all started a few years ago, when some very intelligent modern day  "lefties" all banded together and invented a time machine. Some say it was Roswell tech stolen from Area 51. With this miraculous technology they went back in time to the 18th century, gathered together some pretty smart scientists of the day. Namely Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, Knut Angstrom, and persuaded them to fake their research. Not content with that, they then headed for the 1900's, and knabbed Guy Callendar, Gilbert Plass, Roger Revelle, David Keeling, and persuaded them to fake their research too. Of course, our evil lefties used the same strategy with Margarete Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and were successful. Does that suggest that Ronald Reagan and Margrett Thatcher were secret lefties??? Who knows, perhaps, maybe. 😲 Truly shocking, who knew? 

And finally... I have asked this multiple times, but if you could kindly explain how such a huge number of scientists  could ALL fake literally thousands of peer reviewed papers? And not just fake them, fake them to generate exactly the same results? 

 

 

Edited by martin-w
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/9/2020 at 8:25 AM, tonywob said:

The biggest issue I see on either side of the fence is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to trust any sources these day, no matter how "credible" they may first appear to be, and this a common thread you see throughout various similar debates.

I spent my entire career working on environmental issues working in the public sector, academia and with a private consulting firm. With that perspective, it is difficult to not look at both sides of a particular issue. But the mantra of the "regulated community" (a nice euphemism for the rich folk who make up every country's oligarchy) is always the same. Here's the tried and true progression that's always used by the oligarchy, whether it has been to foil attempts to limit either pesticide use, water pollution, toxic landfills or acid rain:

1. The problem doesn't exist.
2. The problem exists but it's a natural occurrence not caused by human activities.
3. The problem exists and there is a human component but it's insignificant.
4. The problem exists and the human component is the main factor but there is no technology available to solve the problem.

5. The problem exists, the human component is the main factor and there is technology available to solve the problem, but we cannot afford the cost.

This progression delays a solution to the problem, but eventually public sentiment forces the oligarchy to concede. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Saved me the trouble.

Perhaps the Mods could pin the above post at the top of the thread, and we could just refer to it by numbered point in any subsequent discussion.

Nice to see we are at point... aah, 4.5 about now.
Well over halfway to point 6.
Hope we are betimes, no one knows for sure.

Just a small push needed from the Civilised World.

Edited by WingZ

Share this post


Link to post
  • Like 1

Simulator: P3Dv5.4

System Specs: Intel i7 13700K CPU, MSI Mag Z790 Tomahawk Motherboard, 32GB DDR5 6000MHz RAM, Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Video Card, 3x 1TB Samsung 980 Pro M.2 2280 SSDs, Windows 11 Home OS

 

Share this post


Link to post

Willie Soon:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

He and Bloom are recipients of money from conservative think tanks and other appendages of the oligarchy:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/02/07/dark-moneyed-denialists-fixing-science-symposium-doubt

Been there before ... with what we used to call biostitutes. These are scientists, often retired, looking for extra cash and willing to say anything if the price is right. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Willie Soon:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

He and Bloom are recipients of money from conservative think tanks and other appendages of the oligarchy:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/02/07/dark-moneyed-denialists-fixing-science-symposium-doubt

Been there before ... with what we used to call biostitutes. These are scientists, often retired, looking for extra cash and willing to say anything if the price is right. 

Willie Soon is less credible due to his receiving a lot of money from the fossil fuel industry, although he claims it has no influence on his research.  The question is: did he already hold his views on climate change before getting any funding from industry, or was he paid to come up with research that disputes the man-made global warming theory?  If he already had his theory, then it only makes sense that some industries would want to fund his research which debunks the climate change alarmists. 

Anyhow, Here's another interesting video:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA

Dave

 

  • Like 1

Simulator: P3Dv5.4

System Specs: Intel i7 13700K CPU, MSI Mag Z790 Tomahawk Motherboard, 32GB DDR5 6000MHz RAM, Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Video Card, 3x 1TB Samsung 980 Pro M.2 2280 SSDs, Windows 11 Home OS

 

Share this post


Link to post

Dave... randomly posting various links from climate change denier YouTube channels, from guys like Heller who we have previously debunked, who has definitively been shown to misrepresent the science, isnt helping your cause. In fact the first link I looked at is from a "historian" who's day job is as a newspaper columnist. Hence zero qualifications in climatology. All manner of non-qualified individuals making all manner of claims can be found on the Internet. In terms of YouTube specifically, its often just a way to amass clicks and create a profitable YouTube channel.

And AGAIN you have refused to answer any of the questions I have asked you. Hence, this doesn't qualify as a debate. Just you making claims and then ignoring the responses. I'm afraid your opinion is locked in with epoxy resin, and any counter arguments to your claims, whether backed up with replicated research or not, will simply be ignored. I suspect this is related to your political leanings, as you have implied this is all a left wing conspiracy.

Shall I post the graph again? The data that demonstrates a direct link between our emmisions and the steep rise in tempreture since the industrial revolution? Think you will find its more valid than deniers videos on YouTube. 

Instead of paying attention to those that have been shown to misrepresent the science, why don't you take the time to study the real science yourself. Your responses have demonstrated that you have very little understanding of the science. With a little study you will be in a better position to recognise fraudulent claims on the Internet.

 

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, dave2013 said:

If he already had his theory, then it only makes sense that some industries would want to fund his research which debunks the climate change alarmists. 

 

Dave

 

 

Accept that his claims can relatively easily be debunked and shown to be misrepresenting the science. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Accept that his claims can relatively easily be debunked and shown to be misrepresenting the science. 

 

I get a kick out of your responses because they are always the same, like a script you've been taught by other climate alarmists.  Any study, any fact, any kind of reasoning, anything at all, that points to flaws in the man-made global warming religion, is instantly dismissed as either "fossil-fuel industry propaganda", "debunked", or "misrepresents the science".  The last resort is to say the person you're debating doesn't "understand the science", or you insult the person.  

"Climate Science" didn't even exist  as a scientific discipline until about 30-40 years ago, coincidentally about the time the global warming fanatics started yelling that the sky was falling.  Before then it was global cooling that was going to destroy us.

We uneducated masses are simply supposed to believe whatever the scientists and benevolent politicians tell us because we're just too stupid to understand "the science", and hand over trillions in taxes and have our every action monitored and controlled by some bureaucrat in order to "save the planet".  This is eerily similar to the tactics employed for millennia by the priest class in many cultures, where only those priests knew and understood the esoteric, arcane knowledge and will of the gods.  Anyone who questioned them was labeled a heretic.

Calm down and have some more Kool-aid.

Dave

 

  • Like 1

Simulator: P3Dv5.4

System Specs: Intel i7 13700K CPU, MSI Mag Z790 Tomahawk Motherboard, 32GB DDR5 6000MHz RAM, Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Video Card, 3x 1TB Samsung 980 Pro M.2 2280 SSDs, Windows 11 Home OS

 

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just glad YT hasn't banned videos like this. Not so much the future of Air Travel, more the (short-term I guess :nangis:) future of travelling through air :biggrin:.

Lamborghini - still definitely NON-PC after all these years 🍻 no hybrids, no electric, no forced induction.

 


Mark Robinson

Part-time Ferroequinologist

Author of FLIGHT: A near-future short story (ebook available on amazon)

I made the baby cry - A2A Simulations L-049 Constellation

Sky Simulations MD-11 V2.2 Pilot. The best "lite" MD-11 money can buy (well, it's not freeware!)

Share this post


Link to post

Why would YT ban such a glorious exercise in audible excess? 

3 hours ago, HighBypass said:

Not so much the future of Air Travel, more the (short-term I guess :nangis:) future of travelling through air :biggrin:.

Nope. For that, you have to turn to another product in the VW stable.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, WingZ said:

Why would YT ban such a glorious exercise in audible excess?

To be fair, it's a far better "audible excess" than a heck of a lot of "music" videos out there :biggrin:

Oh, and there's no doubting that some electric vehicles are quick, bloody quick! :cool:

  • Like 1

Mark Robinson

Part-time Ferroequinologist

Author of FLIGHT: A near-future short story (ebook available on amazon)

I made the baby cry - A2A Simulations L-049 Constellation

Sky Simulations MD-11 V2.2 Pilot. The best "lite" MD-11 money can buy (well, it's not freeware!)

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I get a kick out of your responses because they are always the same, like a script you've been taught by other climate alarmists.  Any study, any fact, any kind of reasoning, anything at all, that points to flaws in the man-made global warming religion, is instantly dismissed as either "fossil-fuel industry propaganda", "debunked", or "misrepresents the science". 

 

Dave

 

 

😁 Its DEFINITIVILY proven as misrepresenting the science. Its claimed to misrepresent the science when there's proof its the case. How many links would you like? Here s one where your pal Heller who you love to cite is debunked by a scientist, Heller even tried to claim that it snows CO2 in the arctic. 😂

"Tony Heller, aka Steven Goddard. The guy who claimed it snows CO2 atop the Antarctic ice dome"

https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?t=c&Search=Steve+Goddard

http://gregladen.com/blog/2018/08/08/how-steve-goddard-a-k-a-tony-heller-does-bad-science/

Here's another...

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/hosted-by-former-australian-senator-tony-heller-repeats-false-claim-that-scientists-fake-the-warming-trend/

 

Quote

like a script you've been taught by other climate alarmists.

 

Yeah, that's ridiculous David. I'm 62 years old. I've been paying attention to the SCIENCE regarding this for decades. 

Regarding "scripts" see the climate deniers script, the one were they keep repeating the same misinformation that has been debunked over and over again. Like, it's been hot before, its just weather, its cold in my backyard so its not happening, its all a huge conspiracy to steal my taxes. etc etc. 

 

Quote

The last resort is to say the person you're debating doesn't "understand the science".  

 

😁 Would you like a list of examples from your previous posts? 

 

Quote

"Climate Science" didn't even exist  as a scientific discipline until about 30-40 years ago,

 

🤣 There is a prime example, you complain when I say you have no knowledge of climate science, then tell us that climate science has only existed for 30 years. The British Society for Climatology dates back prior to 1890! And its  a prime example of how you don't even bother to read anything I type. Over and over again I have referred you back to the mid 1800's and the work of scientists studying global warming and climatology. I even gave you a list of the scientists in the 1800's studying global warming and the role our CO2 empoisons play. I even typed you out a nice little humorous story to entertain you, referring to time travellers. LOL! 

 

Quote

We uneducated masses are simply supposed to believe whatever the scientists and benevolent politicians tell us because we're just too stupid to understand "the science", 

 

You must decide if you are too stupid to understand. What you have done is fail to even TRY to understand. Evidenced by your lack of knowledge. See previous reply relating to the history of climate science. See your previous inability to know the difference between weather and climate and short term variability and long term average trends. And local compared to global temperatures. And the water vapour positive feedback loop etc etc. 

As for politicians, fascinating that each time there's an IPCC report, the scientists are forced top PLAY DOWN the effects of warming to appease the politicians.

 

Quote

Before then it was global cooling that was going to destroy us.

 

Oh god David, its like I'm banging my head against a wall. 😄

And finally another example of failing to offer counter arguments when I reply to your claims. 6 TIMES as many climatologists wrote papers at the time predicting warming rather than cooling. And it was mostly the media that ran with the cooling hypothesis. This is typical of your approach during this debate David, I counter your arguments and you fail to offer any counter arguments of your own (because you don't have one) and then you simply repeat the same claim later in the debate, as if I have never replied. 

Then we have the multitude of direct questions I have put to you repeatedly that you categorically refuse to answer. 

Pointless to debate this with you I'm afraid David, as you don't debate in the accepted way. Thus pointless. Hopefully though, others MAY have found some of the information here interesting. And I guess it kept me entertained while in self isolation for two weeks after moving to the channel islands. 🙂

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...