Al Gore supporters fly into large CB

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Left unchecked, the AGW nonsense has the potential to destroy Rec Av

 

Day by day the AGW hysteria collapses -

 

CLIMATE STATEMENT "AN ORCHESTRATED LITANY OF LIES"

 

Veteran Wellington climate consultant, Dr Vincent Gray, expert reviewer of all four IPCC Assessment Reports, explains why he has resigned his longtime membership of the Royal Society of New Zealand in protest at the inaccuracies in a report on climate change issued on 12 July by the Society's Climate Committee.

 

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=312&Itemid=1

 

Russian scientists deny that the Kyoto Protocol reflects a consensus view of the world scientific community.

 

http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/10/stories/2008071055521000.htm

 

Dr David Evans,a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005. - There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. ...The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions

 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

 

 

[planedriver]

CLIMATE STATEMENT "AN ORCHESTRATED LITANY OF LIES"

Dr David Evans,a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005. - There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. ...The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions

 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Does this mean that they are going to set an example by downsizing the fleet of gas- guzzling government limmo's to hybrid cars???? NOT ON YOUR NELLY!!!

 

And for anyone who voted them in:hittinghead::hittinghead::hittinghead:

 

Just blame it all on me, because despite of all this global warming??? I'm confused why I've just had to throw another log on the fire in an attempt to even get slightly warm.:confused::confused::confused:

 

 

[Ultralights]

i was thinking the same thing, best ski season in years, Snow in Nowra! 8 cm snow in Orange last week, and having a partner in Robertson, the coldest average winter temps in 50 yrs, been sub zero now every night for a fortnight! just when is global warming going to get started and warm the place up a bit!

 

 

[planedriver]

Not even all the "hot air" out of Canberra seems to be having much effect, but they'll almost stand on the street corner and give our money away.

 

I think i'm going to start 'The Hot Air Party" and live out the rest of my days in the lap of luxury on the government funding.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Except that you all seem to forget that renewable energy in the long term is cheaper and we're going to have to deal with the reality that there is a finite - and increasingly expensive - amount of oil, gas and coal. Imagine how wrecked the economy is going to be if we keep burning at the rate we do and 50-100 years from now all of a sudden the stuff really starts to run out and we have neglected to find an alternative? Switching the world away from fossil fuels is going to take a long time. It has to be done and we better start now.

 

Flying an aircraft on renewable energy sources is not practical and won't be for a long time to come. It is practical to change to near-100% renewable electricity generation and great use of electricity to power cars. If we do that, there's more of the black stuff (for longer and at lower prices due to decreased demands) to power our aircraft.

 

Climate change or not, moving away from fossil fuels in other areas is better for the economy in the long run and instead of killing it, it also has the power to save GA. :thumb_up:

 

 

[skybum]

Peak oil as an issue is quite dead. If the intestinal fortitude is there. Australia has got 200yrs of natural gas resources up in the Kimberley. Using Gas to liquid technolgy we could have secure supplies for at least another century. The trick is to stop short term gains by selling the stuff for 2cpl to the Chinese.

 

The green tinged socialists are against infrastructure like freeways. However, my view is that now is the time to be building more, better and long lived freeways and arterial roads whilst fuel is relatively cheap. For electric cars you would prefer to have nice flat even curved and slope roads to facilitate longer range for limited charge capacity.

 

The next big thing is the hydrogen economy or rather, the WATER ECONOMY. A guy called Tesla came up with an idea for free power from the sky. Didn't get much traction. No one could exploit it. It will be the same for H2 from H2O. Abundent power but who controls the water and how can it be exploited? Scary thoughts!

 

Fuel cells or H2 combustion. Methinks solar panels and fuel cells could be in a future for aeroplanes. If there is ever a way of making cells light weight every aeroplane has at least 15 to 20m2 of flat surface and normally flown in sunlight. Conversion of solar to electricity and light weight batteries or even converting H2 right out of the air itself.

 

Technology eventually makes it all affordable. Cutting edge always costs a bit. But drag racing taught me that, eventually, even a group 3 racer will go as quick as a top fueler from ten years before at a fraction of the cost.

 

So rather than doom and gloom, just do what we humans do best. ADAPT to the environment. The ultimate end is to adapt the environment to suit us. But, that is what upsets the green socialists.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Using Gas to liquid technolgy we could have secure supplies for at least another century.

Centuries fly by; it took 100 years from the first internal combustion engines to getting rid of steam trains! Better get cracking now...

 

The next big thing is the hydrogen economy or rather, the WATER ECONOMY. A guy called Tesla came up with an idea for free power from the sky. Didn't get much traction. No one could exploit it. It will be the same for H2 from H2O. Abundent power but who controls the water and how can it be exploited? Scary thoughts!

I reckon there is enough water for everyone. Creating hydrogen from the grid, then putting it into a fuel cell and driving a motor is only 25% efficient. The same power from the grid into a battery and then into a motor is 75% efficient. That is why hydrogen isn't going to happen for a long time. That and an electric family car with good range is now perfectly affordable if made in large numbers by the major manufacturers while fuel cell cars cost over $1M.

And don't forget that you don't get your free ride until you invest a whole lot of money (the kind that would "wreck the economy") and hire a whole lot of people to maintain the infrastructure. So there is a real ungoing running cost to these things, though that should be cheaper than fossil fuels.

 

Conversion of solar to electricity and light weight batteries

There have been no major efficiency breakthroughs in photovoltaic cells for a long time, just incremental improvements. We need 75kw for our little planes and currently you can get 150w per square meter, so don't hold your breath!

 

Technology eventually makes it all affordable. Cutting edge always costs a bit.

Absolutely, but hoping for too much progress to come some time from now in one go and not doing anything before that isn't going to work. Someone needs to buy this technology now at cutting edge prices so profit and experience off that can be used to create the next generation. What if the Wright brothers had said: "nah, we need something that will cary 800 passengers for 10 thousand miles at close to the speed of sound. Until we can do that, there is no point."

The sad fact is that, to give an example, the Australian aluminium miners and smelters are making tens of billions in net profit each year and yet in today's paper they are complaining that that government's 20% green energy rule is costing them too much. $300M according to themselves - maybe 1% of their net profit. And I am sure the same applies to all industries. Hardly economy wrecking stuff if you ask me.

 

 

[Guest Murray Scott]

Sad denial

 

I'm with Bass Cheffers. Denial of the uncomfortably bleedin' obvious is a sad but everyday way of dealing with unwelcome challenges, particularly the admission that long-held assumptions and assertions might be wrong. Did anyone see the doco on hurricane Katrina on ABC2 last night? Denial of the threat and complacency about its potential effects there went right up the chain to President Bush and persisted for days after the natural disaster had actually happened. Many aircraft emergencies follow the same course. The subsequent human disaster in New Orleans continued to deepen and is not over yet after 5 years. With climate change the corresponding timescales are likely to be measured in decades or centuries.

 

Sure, the detailed predictions of climate modelling are confusing and sensitive to the assumptions and their weighting, as is inevitable with non-linear systems with multiple feedback loops. The error bars in weather forecasts are quite familiar to aviators. While those same forecasters bust their guts to convince use to take action by matching ever-more complex wrinkles in the data and interactions, the CO2 concentrations keep rising in step with critical polar temperatures and fossil fuel consumption. Strange how political perception of global CO2 closely resembles the physiological perception of CO. A scan of the earth's instrument panel and cockpit gas indicator would convince a cautious pilot that something is happening whose result is likely to be awkward.

 

The graphs of oil consumption too remind me of the footnote to posts by Ian our Administrator, "Takeoff is optional... landing is compulsory". I can imagine our climate denier pilots blithely ignoring the turn-back point, assured "that there must be plenty more fuel tanks here somewhere, we just have to spend more on exploration".

 

Cheers,

 

Murray Scott.

 

PS. Why is everybody so shy of using their real name? And all those puerile smilies? Reminds me of the boys-own "rubber ducky roger over" CB chatter of the 1970's.

 

PS2: And what's this nonesense about "Pilot Officer"? Having abandoned my RAA licence I am neither.

 

 

[Guest MundooTriker]

Dear Murray,

 

PS.

 

One of the characteristics of many online forums is that the missives tend to develop somewhat a cold and arrogant tone.

 

My speculation is that some of the reasons include:

 

a) Political correctness panders to the lowers common denominator so is often insulting to the intelligence of the average bear.

 

b) Diplomatic communication has not been a high educational priority

 

c) Written communication is prone mistaken emotional intents, particularly with pressing time constraints.

 

d) This is Ian's community service and he has a clear objective for friendly communication and promote a sense of humor. I had never really used a smiley before, but I think his idea and frequent requests they are used is a BRILLIANT way of achieving the objective within the time constraints and linguistic abilities of most users. Admittedly if one has a somewhat distinguished image and opinion of oneself, there may be a touch of ego to swallow, but it doesn't hurt after a few times.;)

 

e) Humor is a subjective quality with acceptable parameters, views and "punch lines" as diverse as the involved individuals. My particular brand tends to dryness that is often mistaken for sarcasm or missed altogether.

 

I wasn't able to chatter until mid to late 70's so don't know much about the rubber ducky stuff. I have absolutely no problem with my real name either, nor do many of the forum users. As for "boys own" I want to belong to the Peter Pan club, and play with my toys until I can't play anymore. So, very happy with the Boys Only description. My wife tells me I still am.

 

PS2, A bit of Boys own, and, this is a flying orientated forum, so I thought Ian's designations were more consistent with users expectations, sense of humor, and interest designations than a simple counter noting the number of responses since initial membership. Also in my opinion an clever protection to avoid issues becoming too personal, and potential safeguard against being targeted personally. There is an enormous personality range to keep in check on a site like this and the moderaters have done an exceptional job, so I suggest some of these humourous little quirks save them time and help them with their job.

 

Fly safe, smile lots, and this is one of my online favourite sites.:big_grin::thumb_up:

 

Regards

 

Andrew John Huxham

 

Innisfail QLD 4860

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Heres a diferent take on things. Part of a speach by Ian Plimer (Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne and Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide)

 

Environmentalism Can’t Replace Religion: A Note from Ian Plimer

 

Despite our comfortable materialistic lives, there are many who ask: Is that all? They want a meaning for life and yearn for a spiritual life. Some follow the traditional religions, others embrace paranormal beliefs and many follow a variety of spiritual paths.

 

A new religion has been invented: Environmentalism. The rise of environmentalism parallels in time and place the decline of Christianity and socialism. This environmental religion is terrified of doubt, scepticism and uncertainty yet claims to be underpinned by science. It is a fundamentalist religion with a fear of nature. It has its own high priests such as Al Gore and a holy writ, such as the IPCC reports. Like many religious followers, few have ever read and understood the holy books from cover to cover.

 

Like many fundamentalist religions, it attracts believers by announcing apocalyptic calamities unless we change our ways. Its credo is repeated endlessly and a new language has been invented. Logic, contrary data or questioning are not permitted. Heretics are inquisitorially destroyed.

 

It states that now is the most important time in history and people are told that humanity is facing the greatest crisis in the history of time. We must make great sacrifices. Now. This religion uses thinking out of the Judeo-Christian tradition: If the world has been destroyed, then we humans are to blame.....

 

more at - http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003347.html

 

(my bolding)

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

The whole speech is a bit idiotic because nothing scientifically is being said, he is just trying to shoot the messenger by questioning the environmentalists motifs and intelligence it seems. Pot, Kettle, etc.

 

It states that now is the most important time in history and people are told that humanity is facing the greatest crisis in the history of time. We must make great sacrifices. Now.

I hate it when people say we need to make sacrifices; we simply don't have to. All we need to do is change slightly the way we do things. Like not burn coal to make our electricity but build wind, solar an nuclear plants. And power some of our cars with that cheap electricity. How is that a sacrifice? All of them run more economically in the long run and both the environment and the economy would be better off.

 

 

[skybum]

Silly thing is, basscheffers. Thats what we have been doing since the first oil shock in the seventies.

 

Coal fired stations are more efficient than they were in the seventies. Better coal feed, more efficient burning. Less particulates going out the stack. The ONLY thing coal can be picked on is CO2. Calling CO2 a pollutant is just downright shonky by some of these greeny types.

 

Cars are more efficient, Jets are more efficient, the only engine that hasn't improved is a Lyconental!

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Thats what we have been doing since the first oil shock in the seventies.Coal fired stations are more efficient than they were in the seventies. Cars are more efficient, Jets are more efficient, the only engine that hasn't improved is a Lyconental!

Unfortunately, the rate at which they become more efficient is left in the dust by increased usage. It's cool if every decade a new generation of jets becomes 5% more efficient, but if travel on them is increasing at 5% every year it doesn't help much for oil usage. Same with coal and gas fired power plants.

Santos is now going to build another gas-fired power plant in Victoria. Why? The current ones are easily able to handle night-time load and the new one would be for daytime only use, really. So why not build a combined wind and solar thermal plant? The levelised energy cost for those is the same as for clean(-ish) gas and coal; it is only the upfront investment that is higher. Mandating this is much easier than some stupid carbon trading scam.

 

And it is the same with nuclear; the build is expensive, but to operate it is cheaper than coal or gas.

 

There really is no excuse.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

The whole speech is a bit idiotic because nothing scientifically is being said, he is just trying to shoot the messenger by questioning the environmentalists motifs and intelligence it seems. Pot, Kettle, etc.

basscheffers, I think you missed the piont of the speech. Its not about the 'science' as such, more a comentary on the people - the 'true believers' ;)

 

 

[Methusala]

We "true believers"( why is it that people resort to in-slang?) have walked through valleys in Switzerland that 10 years ago had glaciers almost to the valley floor. Where are they now? We have seen the massive depletion of ice formations at the Poles; was that ice really there a few years ago? Is it possible that ice melts as the place becomes colder?

 

The true answer is that average temperatures are getting higher, but climate change overlays cyclical weather. So it is possible to get cold and hot seasons or years but the opinion of most weather students is that we have a problem.

 

By the way, electric flight is comingevidenced by the electric Moni motorglider at Oshkosh this year.

 

Kind regards, Don

 

 

[Ultralights]

 

Link to story here

 

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

 

 

[skybum]

Could someone please explain how a fighter can crash land in Greenland during WW2 and get recovered 50 years later from under 25 stories of ice and transported over a mile from where they touched down on the surface?

 

 

[Ultralights]

quick answer, ice usually moves, just very slowly, just as it deos in a glacier, retreating glaciers are caused by less snowfall/rain at their sources. just as a river flow reduces in times of less inflow.

 

if the aircraft was trapped in ice for 50 yrs, i would have thought it would have travelled more than a mile before being uncovered.

 

 

[skybum]

Ultralights, the "recovery" took place 256ft down in the ice. The aircraft all performed survivable forced landings on the surface. Fifty years later, they are over a mile away AND 256ft under the surface in ice:thumb_up: NASA says 7cm a year. Glaciologists say Greenland forms ice at 7ft per year...just a little different. Even the creationists tried to jump on board. they tried to prove because of the meterage these aeroplanes were down in the ice over fifty years proved the Earth was only 2000years old.:confused:

 

If the planet has been warming since the industrial age because of CO2 levels and Greenland is one of those places were melt is starting to overtake acreation then these aeroplanes should have been getting pretty close to surface..just wasn't the case.

 

 

[brothach]

Namaste Aviphiles,

 

Wow... politics and religion!! My faves!!:thumb_up:

 

Folks...we are messing in our nest and all we can do is squabble about whos mess it is! Fact is...we're up to our necks in it!

 

See the Olympics...See the smog inside the swimming thing?!

 

The developing world wants to enjoy the comforts we give to ourselves...and if they all get it we will have some serious pollution! And who do we think we are if we try to tell them they cant?

 

We could spend some of the billions (that go to all of the useless wastes of money that we have all heard about, and are sick of hearing about) to really wipe it all up!

 

As humans we think of it, and then we make it happen...think submarines (Jules Verne), helicopters (DaVinci)..etc. If you build it they will come! Then lets build it and not have to drive to the country for some fresh air!

 

It really is for our own good. You dont need to subscribe to any of the popular reasonings for it...substantial or not...it just feels like the right thing to do! And it's within our grasp...we are our only hurdle.

 

 

just re-read and realized i have started to babble...too much to try to articulate, in a small span of attention.

 

Go Green you capitalist,sweatshop wearing, crude guzzling, non-composting, battery-hen egg eating, fast food chain endorsing, hmmm, if this font went smaller i would keep rambling...lol

 

Great forum all

 

Brodie Jamieson, and proud of it!:yin_yan:

 

ps- I apologise for my unbroken brumby of a high horse!! Please take anything I say with as many grains of salt as you need!! Peace

 

 

[Ultralights]

there is a difference between Pollution, and global warming, opps, climate change, Im all for les pollution, and am thankful that our skies are the clearest and cleanest i have ever seen, i have pics from flying in the 1980's and the sky is brown! you just dont see that anymore thankfully, so we are on the right track pollution wise, but we are the cause of global warming, well, im not convinced..

 

 

[Methusala]

It is quite clear that those who won't be convinced... well you know about preaching to the converted. There is a precautionary principle stating that lacking knowledge to the contrary we should tread very warily. It is said that the American Indians would not proceed with an idea if it could not be demonstrated to cause no adverse effects over 7 generations. We are told that the North polar ice caps could melt for the 1st time in millions of years. The catastrophe that has been forecast by the majority of informed opinion is so frightening that we should be very wary of media (corporate mouthpieces one and all), telling us to relax. Where did all that ice go? Regards, Don.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

presenting "GLACIER GIRL"

 

it looked pretty battered by the time they lifted it out.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Murray Scott]

Cautious Believers

 

Thanks Don, both for the sensible caution on climate change and for the inspiring news of the Electraflyer.. I bet it cost a packet for the battery but demonstrating the possibility of personal electric flight is precisely the sort of innovation that justifies recreational aviation. No commercial outfit would have tackled that challenge; it is truly a tribute to an enthusiast's faith (in a sustainable future), determination and engineering expertise.

 

Murray Scott

 

We "true believers"( why is it that people resort to in-slang?) have walked through valleys in Switzerland that 10 years ago had glaciers almost to the valley floor. Where are they now? We have seen the massive depletion of ice formations at the Poles; was that ice really there a few years ago? Is it possible that ice melts as the place becomes colder?The true answer is that average temperatures are getting higher, but climate change overlays cyclical weather. So it is possible to get cold and hot seasons or years but the opinion of most weather students is that we have a problem.

By the way, electric flight is comingevidenced by the electric Moni motorglider at Oshkosh this year.

 

Kind regards, Don

[Captain]

Don't worry about the graphical data in ultralight's post # 16.

 

The graph below is the one to be really concerned about.

 

[ATTACH]6314.vB[/ATTACH]