Global warming, officially a conspiracy: new study

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Just when I thought you have already said the dumbest thing I have ever heard, you come up with this. Do you really believe that the pollution caused by space travel is in any way significant for the environment?

It has not been scientifically studied yet, so nobody knows.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It has not been scientifically studied yet, so nobody knows.

Er, instead of dissing space travel, try looking up what is going on with the hundreds of thousands of passenger jets plying the skies, the effect on the atmosphere and weather.

For instance, google the account of the three days or so right after 911 when ALL flights in the US were grounded. What it did to the weather here.

And you want to talk about the few dozen spacecraft being launched each year?

Just another example of your anti-science stance.

And of course you will deny that. Sure, we will believe that.

You have chosen your descriptor well.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Er, instead of dissing space travel, try looking up what is going on with the hundreds of thousands of passenger jets plying the skies, the effect on the atmosphere and weather.

For instance, google the account of the three days or so right after 911 when ALL flights in the US were grounded. What it did to the weather here.

And you want to talk about ...[text shortened]... course you will deny that. Sure, we will believe that.

You have chosen your descriptor well.

I had some help with my descriptor. Some people did not like my previous descriptor of "The Instructor" and suggested my current one. So I thought I would try it and see how it worked.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I had some help with my descriptor. Some people did not like my previous descriptor of "The Instructor" and suggested my current one. So I thought I would try it and see how it worked.

Another deflection. I don't give a crap about whatever descriptor you use. You didn't answer my charge. That is answer enough.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Another deflection. I don't give a crap about whatever descriptor you use. You didn't answer my charge. That is answer enough.

You guys seem to want to single out what you think should be banned, so I was just adding another one for food for thought. If you want to stop aircraft flying, then just don't forget to stop space flight too.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You guys seem to want to single out what you think should be banned, so I was just adding another one for food for thought. If you want to stop aircraft flying, then just don't forget to stop space flight too.

Jebezus you head is screwed on backwards. YOU said stop space flights because of the pollution and I just mentioned passenger jets contribute a lot more with their contrails so you go ahead and say now that I want to stop passenger jets.

Just exactly where did I ever say or imply that?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Jebezus you head is screwed on backwards. YOU said stop space flights because of the pollution and I just mentioned passenger jets contribute a lot more with their contrails so you go ahead and say now that I want to stop passenger jets.

Just exactly where did I ever say or imply that?

So you don't want to stop the pollution? What do you want to do then?

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you don't want to stop the pollution? What do you want to do then?

Sigh.

We would very definitely like to stop pollution and prevent any [more] global warming.

However, generally speaking we also value the technological advances and benefits we
have in the modern world.

So what we want to do is find ways [and we already have for the most part] of doing
[roughly] what we are doing now, and indeed continue with our technological progress...
But do so without harming the environment and emitting climate changing pollution.


So for example planes that run on biofuels and/or hydrogen instead of fossil fuels.

Or as another example lets look at cars.

We [generally] don't want to ban cars, we want to make them environmentally friendly
so that we can keep all the benefits of cars but loose the downsides we currently have.
Not only global warming but all kinds of diseases and cancers caused by other pollutants they
emit.


We are not in the main tree hugging hippies who want to commune with nature.

I very much like and want to keep my creature comforts.

I just don't want them to cost the planet.


What baffles me is why anyone sane would have a problem with that.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sigh.

We would very definitely like to stop pollution and prevent any [more] global warming.

However, generally speaking we also value the technological advances and benefits we
have in the modern world.

So what we want to do is find ways [and we already have for the most part] of doing
[roughly] what we are doing now, and indeed continue wi ...[text shortened]... them to cost the planet.


What baffles me is why anyone sane would have a problem with that.

I also value technological advances, but this seems to cost people more money than it is worth. Seems to me that we could save money and cut back on pollution by not using so much fuel to send rockets into outer space to pollute space with debri that eventual comes back to earth. Perhaps there is a wiser way to use that money to stop oil spills and and find ways to make fossil fuels less polluting. We have these catalytic converters on cars that I understand is supposed to cut down on pollution. Perhaps our governments could think along those lines.

Originally posted by humy

You mean the people who receive [b]funding based on global warming

You mean the scientists such as climate scientists that analyses and observe to see if there is any global warming? What? Because, just like most scientists, the get “funding” i.e. they are paid a wage to do science research, it must mean it one big conspiracy that 99% ...[text shortened]... of them report that they observe evidence for warming is because there is evidence for warming?[/b]

No.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
No.

that's totally absurd.