There are many awful things that cause harmful to our environment, however flying in an aircraft is not one of them because Anthropogenic Climate Change is a big stupid lie.

China would be a great place to start, if the pilot can see the airport through all that smog. The Kyoto Treaty made it clear that Chinese CO2 did not effect the climate, only western capitalism's CO2.

"There are many awful things that cause harmful to our environment, however flying in an aircraft is not one of them because Anthropogenic Climate Change is a big stupid lie."

Ask yourself these simple questions:

1) Is it hotter in the city?
2) Are there more cities than before?
3) When was fossil fuel and nuclear material used to discharge energy into the environment?
4) What has human population done over the past few centuries, specifically because the Age of Oil has allowed the cultivation and transportation of food at levels never before attained?
5) Do I know that heat, the transfer of energy due to a difference in temperature, flows from "hot" to "cold"?

I don't expect you to understand a lot about climate given the huge amount of noise extant, the argument about government mandates, etc., but I do expect you to understand than when you burn something, the fire is the hot part. It doesn't require listening to Rush Limbaugh or the Obama Administration.

Heat flows from hot to cold, we generate energy right where we are. It's that simple. That should occur to you when you touch a light bulb, see a picture of the night side of Earth from space, etc.

And if you really want to get past the noises people make about this, you can start back in high-school science class, with the laws of thermodynamics and by figuring out how much CO2 and H2O fossil fuel consumption produces. I think you'll be surprised about that part.

Be sure to exercise logical rigor. The problem is properly attacked by examining what WE are doing, THEN looking for effects, because other environmental factors happen independently of us.

How dare you... I thought Inception was a fun movie.

(...Even if the deadwife backstory and 3rd & 4th dreamlevels were for shit.)

Great musical score. Great. I've had arrivals to the international terminal at LAX that felt just like this. ("Welcome home, Mr. Cobb.")

Yes, the actor may himself be fucked in head. That's not the point.

___________________________


And now, consider this. It's great to think that all the smarmy albums from smug rock stars can now be processed with software to have their pomposity removed.

Hey, you've got to hide your
Love a-way...

New shelf

I'd like to know what our distance to the sun is, and how it has changed over the centuries.

Then the next question is what is the coincidence with warming or ice ages on the earth?

I speak German, so I found the original source. This shows just how utterly clueless (and hypocritical) the Hollywood crowd is. He really did say, exact translation, "I am going to fly around the world, to do something good for our environment".

Does Leo know if his airplane emits "chemtrails"?
Has he ever considered looking for their source?

"Then the next question is what is the coincidence with warming or ice ages on the earth?"

Jim P: Although this has nothing - zippo - to do with whatever our emissions influence is, it is important to realize a couple of things about climate, and this is one of them. (You might recognize that local seasons lag the length of the day by months... the longest day of the year isn't in the middle of summer, etc.)

I suggest a day reading Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer, on a number of subjects.

A good place to start is his BA Facts post.

I believe it was William Shakespeare who said something to the effect of:

I fear not what men do in the name of evil. But, heaven protect me from what men do in the name of good.

This reminds me of some research I had to do in college. Topic was the "brain-drain" out of Africa, motivations, impacts, etc. I came across an article, which described a huge conference that was organized there (can't remember which country). Basically, respected and powerful minds from around the globe flew in to participate in this conference, discuss the problem, and consider solutions. These men and women, many of whom were born in Africa, spent several days discussing Africa's brain-drain and how to fix it. Then, when the conference concluded, they all boarded their planes and flew away.

Here's Phil Plait's article on the Earth's orbit.

He really did say, exact translation, "I am going to fly around the world, to do something good for our environment".

Like Superman?

" Topic was the "brain-drain" out of Africa, motivations... "

*It sucks here. Let's leave.*

'Okay'.

I will believe in Global Wrming when I see the Left, start pushing ideas that would actually solve things, and not give themselves more money or power.
The most obvilous one, is that about 25% of household energy use is spent drying clothes. An easy fix, currently illegal in many left leaning areas, is to use a clothes line, instead of a clothes drier.
Doing this even occasionally will save more energy lower greenhouse gasses than changing ALL cars to hybrids and all light bulbs changed combined.
However, no group would make money on changing to clothes lines, no activists would gain power using clothes lines, and it looks 'cheap' and 1950s ish. So no true liberal would ever propose it or do it.

"I will believe in Global Wrming when I see the Left, start pushing ideas that would actually solve things, and not give themselves more money or power."

I see I must repeat myself. The existence of AGW does NOT depend on the actions of any political group.

Fallacy - n - Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.

This is not a matter of my opinion. The existence of a fallacy is objective - it does not depend on me, or my pointing it out, to exist.

Your belief is based, not on the examination of the causes and effects or even data, but on your perception of oppression by a political group. You have actually said so.

Being "unsound" means you cannot support the existence or absence of the claimed phenomena; basically, you're objecting to something entirely different: the intrusion into your personal life by an advocacy group.

Until you make the effort to understand the issue, you will remain a pawn, even if you don't understand just who holds the chessboard. That, too, is suggested by your position here.

If you really want to disarm some political group, you do that by defining the problem they are claiming, THEN debating their measures.

-----

There is a logical position for the direction of the public by government, even absent malice aforethought or greed. Few take the time to understand major issues with natural resources; sizable portions of the public, as shown by the actual tax rolls in the USA, wish "someone else" to take care of them, to make decisions for them, etc. in every aspect of life.
In not studying the basics at issue here, you place yourself firmly in line with those wanting others to think for them.

Now, if you have a point to make about fossil fuel emissions, the difficulty of bringing the Third World through the Age of Oil, etc., please bring it.

Here's a start.

Raddy's a LOGICAL GUY! He just wants people to UNDERSTAND! Especially about that Nasty Mister OIL!!!!! (A career in nuclear power has NOTHING to do with it! It's LOGIC!!!!!!!!)

!!!!

Wrong again, Crid, even about the basics. I do not have the career you claim.

Aren't you getting enough attention here lately?

For the newcomer: I process nuclear waste, hence my "handle". Blaming me for something is somewhat like blaming the janitor for the mess at a rock concert. Or Crid for a bad movie - I think he does video editing, apparently a task qualifying him for everyone's job. I don't make that claim.

But since Crid brought nuclear power up, here's something from XKCD on that subject for you...

...but what is the issue? Understanding the mechanisms of the consumption of fossil and nuclear fuels.

Topic not found. Search again?

> Wrong again

Logic! Have you met Orion?

I see I must repeat myself. The existence of AGW does NOT depend on the actions of any political group. -- Radwaste at January 21, 2013 10:40 AM

Rad,

You make good points. The problem is that leaning even slightly left, the political left try to suck you into into their agenda.

The other issue is that politicians are in the agenda as well.

The example from a few years ago, ethanol was the answer. Then you see the cost of ethanol as MPG, and also see the rise in cost of food. Then the government abandons the idea. The government dumped over $250B into it, then walks away. That means the American taxpayer has lost that money.

The federal government is a barrier, not a help.

The Keystone Pipeline from Canada to the rest of the U.S. pipelines is prohibited. The reason is that a chunk will cross a major aquifer and might have negative affect. If the government said "reroute this section" for $20M or we're going to turn it down. A few million added cost for a $400M project income is peanut change.

The U.S. federal government is and has been Mighty Joe Young compared to the Planet of the Apes rulers.

Or the gold who makes the rules.

There is a reason that you only have so many places to work. The country side should covered with nuclear plants. But post TMI and Chernobyl you are blamed for the accidents.

I sorta missed this earlier...

"Raddy's a LOGICAL GUY!"

And you're not. That pretty much sums it up.