On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:53:59 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Thirty years ago, the cry was that the earth was cooling and that we
were pushing it back into an ice age.

We wouldn't want you to be fooled by appearence...
Nor would we want you to be, despite the fact that you have been.

Max


The fact is that man is the primary reason for the increase in carbon in
the atmosphere. We need to deal with it asap.



Fact? Really? Its been proven without a doubt that man is the reason for
increased CO2 levels? That's in question. And its even more in question
as to whether CO2 is the cause of the result of GW. So your statement is
not founded in FACT, but rather in CONJECTURE.



According to you...



Show the numbers.

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Oh, I forgot to mention that I have solar panels on the house... payback
is about 12 years. Cash flow neutral for the year, cash flow slightly
positive during the summer, spring, fall. Changed most of the lightbulbs
to compact fluorescents. Installed low-e windows throughout. Contribute to
the "green" energy program from the local utility. Improved the house
insulation dramatically, including using cellulose vs. fiberglass in the
attic, and installed radiant barrier. Switched the dryer from electric to
gas... more efficient, less expensive. I think I turned on the AC four
times last summer. I'm not ready to buy a hybrid car just yet, which will
be the next major update in the attempt to be as carbon neutral as
possible. And, I have three vehicles, but the good news is that two don't
get driven much.

Good for you--you are energy conscious. But do you use disposable food
containers--plastic milk bottles, cardboard boxes, plastic condiment
containers, etc.? If so you're contributing to the pollution of the planet.
I realize that foods don't come in reusable containers any longer, but such
things should be considered unless we want to be knee-deep in refuse some
day. Do you change your car's oil? If so, what do you do with the oil?
What do you do with discarded oil filters and air filters?

Also, I volunteer with a environmentally oriented group, which does local
cleanups of the bay....

A good start.

Max

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized.

Max


Just one disappointment after another for poor failed Maxpoop...

Right. I traded one career for another that afforded me four to six times
the income. What a failure.

Max

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized.
Max

Just one disappointment after another for poor failed Maxpoop...


CWM


Many of us were heading down that path before commercial airlines started
having serious problems. Employment opportunities dried up and salaries
didn't go anywhere. Why would anyone want to go after a job when the
industry turned into a nightmare?

Charlie, better known as Binary Bill (BB) would be willing to do almost
anything other than his current factory job.

Max

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. Rob wrote:
Like I said, SAD. There is nothing in our geological history that
comes close to the changes we are seeing now.
Not only is there geological history that indicates we are in a
typical GW cycle, but some of those previous cycles are worse than
what we're observing in this one.
Very true. Bubbles is typical of those who myopically choose to see
only one side of an issue, failing completely to examine the facts
which might dispute their contention.

My take on global warming: The ardent environmentalists, of which I
consider myself one of the most ardent, have had little or no success
in passing measures, either legislatively or economically, which will
effectively begin to clean up the planet's air, water, and land.
Neither have they/we been successful in just mitigating the expansion
of pollution, let alone reducing it. Subsequently the most radical
environmentalists have contrived a plan to get everyone's attention:
global warming. It is little more than a scare tactic to attempt to
frighten a world populace into adopting some clean and green
practices. But it has been a failure, and will be forgotten soon,
much the same as the aluminum cookware/cancer scare of the 1960s.
The GW movement has gotten a lot of folks on board--mostly those who
want to believe, as opposed to those who can be convinced by hard
science and an examination of both sides of the issue--but even they
will eventually put their vigorous, evangelistic dogma aside for lack
of substantive evidence. Thirty years from now, GW will be something
people chuckle about--just another chapter in the humor of human
existence.

You might claim I'm not an environmentalist at all because I'm not on
board with the whole GW thing. Not true. I believe that cleaning up
the planet and reducing the levels of pollution are paramount for a
future environment that will be conducive to a healthy human
existence. But the evidence *against* GW is at least as substantial
as that *for* it, and to turn a blind eye toward it is a fool's
errand. The human race may, indeed, be responsible for some
component of the warming of the planet, but the degree of that
contribution is unknown, and the significance of it cannot be
accurately predicted at this time. Until we have better data, I see
no reason to jump on the GW bandwagon. Show me the money . . . er,
evidence, and I'll be among GW's most outspoken. Until then, I'm more
than just a little ****ed at the distraction that the GW folks have
created, taking the impetus away from the known and quantifiable
aspects of global pollution. I'll continue to work for cleaner air,
water, and land. The sooner we get past this GW phenomenon and get
back to the real business of cleaning up the planet, the better.

Max
Well said. I've been in the same camp for years.
Do you own a Cessna 310? One of my favorite airplanes. I've got about
400 hours in type.

Max
Flew one in corporate charter for years. Great plane. Got about 3000
in type, 4500tt. Still my fav.

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized. You've got me by a couple thousand hours. I flew
skydivers off and on for a decade, most in Super Twin Otters and King
Airs. My favorite airplane is a Pilatus Super Porter--ugly as sin (big
box) but flies like a dream and carries just about anything you can cram
into it. After dropping jumpers, I'd aim the spinner at Mother Earth,
reverse the prop and descend with them at 115 kts. I could usually get
on the ground before them. Got written up by the Friendly Aviation
Agency a couple of times for "flying too close to jumpers." Great plane.

Max

Sounds cool. Have seen pictures of that maneuver. Have some time in 18s
and 99s, but that was maybe the most unpleasant part of my aviation life.
Not the planes, but the circumstances.

Interesting that I was on the same track before the bottom fell out of
commercial airline opportunities. I got out 20 years ago and started down
a different path.

I had an eye problem that kept me from flying airlines. It was minor, but
with hundreds of high-time turbine pilots coming out of the military, there
was no need to take me. It was no issue for flying corporate, but I just
couldn't get my arms around that at the time. I did fly cancelled checks in
a Lear 24 for a while, but that was as far as my "corporate" career went.
Talk about boring work.

Max

* Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote, On 5/31/2007 4:28 PM:
....
Fact? Really? Its been proven without a doubt that man is the reason for
increased CO2 levels? That's in question. And its even more in question
as to whether CO2 is the cause of the result of GW. So your statement is
not founded in FACT, but rather in CONJECTURE.


According to you...


Show the numbers.

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf


The AR4 just doesn't cut it. They are only willing to say that "since
1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial
warming influence on climate" and "For the period 1950 to 2005, it is
exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance
plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that
of the combined anthropogenic RF."

This is a far cry from the 100% certainty that Cess is looking for.
Clearly, it isn't worth doing anything if its only "extremely likely"
that we have a problem. And since the scientists can only say its
"exceptionally unlikely" that natural influences equal the human
influence, that leaves a huge possibility that the warming was really
caused by a volcano that we didn't notice.

And obviously, if Global Warming was real, the President Bush would be
calling for setting goals on greenhouse gas emissions. Until that day
comes, nobody has anything to worry about.

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Oh, I forgot to mention that I have solar panels on the house... payback
is about 12 years. Cash flow neutral for the year, cash flow slightly
positive during the summer, spring, fall. Changed most of the lightbulbs
to compact fluorescents. Installed low-e windows throughout. Contribute
to the "green" energy program from the local utility. Improved the house
insulation dramatically, including using cellulose vs. fiberglass in the
attic, and installed radiant barrier. Switched the dryer from electric to
gas... more efficient, less expensive. I think I turned on the AC four
times last summer. I'm not ready to buy a hybrid car just yet, which will
be the next major update in the attempt to be as carbon neutral as
possible. And, I have three vehicles, but the good news is that two don't
get driven much.

Good for you--you are energy conscious. But do you use disposable food
containers--plastic milk bottles, cardboard boxes, plastic condiment
containers, etc.? If so you're contributing to the pollution of the
planet. I realize that foods don't come in reusable containers any longer,
but such things should be considered unless we want to be knee-deep in
refuse some day. Do you change your car's oil? If so, what do you do
with the oil? What do you do with discarded oil filters and air filters?

Also, I volunteer with a environmentally oriented group, which does local
cleanups of the bay....

A good start.

Max



A quick response... then I'm outta here to go sailing for a couple of
hours...

Use some recycled food containers... best you can do without washing out
ziplocks. Recycle cardboard boxes, etc. via the recycling program or
craigslist. I use synthetic oil in all the cars. Change the oil every 20K or
so. The air filter doesn't need to be tossed.. can be reused. A good start I
suppose. I could do more.

I wonder how many people here actually do this sort of stuff.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:37:52 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote, On 5/31/2007 4:28 PM:
...
Fact? Really? Its been proven without a doubt that man is the reason for
increased CO2 levels? That's in question. And its even more in question
as to whether CO2 is the cause of the result of GW. So your statement is
not founded in FACT, but rather in CONJECTURE.


According to you...


Show the numbers.

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf


The AR4 just doesn't cut it. They are only willing to say that "since
1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial
warming influence on climate" and "For the period 1950 to 2005, it is
exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance
plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that
of the combined anthropogenic RF."

This is a far cry from the 100% certainty that Cess is looking for.
Clearly, it isn't worth doing anything if its only "extremely likely"
that we have a problem. And since the scientists can only say its
"exceptionally unlikely" that natural influences equal the human
influence, that leaves a huge possibility that the warming was really
caused by a volcano that we didn't notice.

And obviously, if Global Warming was real, the President Bush would be
calling for setting goals on greenhouse gas emissions. Until that day
comes, nobody has anything to worry about.

I don't think the 10,000,000,000 odd tons of carbon/year are in much
doubt at all, or the levels of atmospheric CO2 or even the 1.2 W/m2
CO2 radiative forcing (fig2). The doubt is mainly in the
clouds/aerosol contribution and the sensitivity of temperature to
radiative forcing. Just a big coincidence, I suppose, that it all
seems to fit..

Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized.
Max
Just one disappointment after another for poor failed Maxpoop...


CWM

Many of us were heading down that path before commercial airlines started
having serious problems. Employment opportunities dried up and salaries
didn't go anywhere. Why would anyone want to go after a job when the
industry turned into a nightmare?

Charlie, better known as Binary Bill (BB) would be willing to do almost
anything other than his current factory job.

Max



Factory, eh? Poor thing.

Maxprop wrote:


I had an eye problem that kept me from flying airlines. It was minor, but
with hundreds of high-time turbine pilots coming out of the military, there
was no need to take me. It was no issue for flying corporate, but I just
couldn't get my arms around that at the time. I did fly cancelled checks in
a Lear 24 for a while, but that was as far as my "corporate" career went.
Talk about boring work.

Max


Lear? deep sigh

My envy is beyond words.