Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

Michael_J wrote:

Well, I could also call you names but I will not sink that low. Welcome to the climate inquisition.

I certainly have not called you names! I was referring to the web site. (It wasn’t your web site, was it?)

But by all means explain to me the purpose and relevance of the question I quoted? Another question was whether poverty has increased or decreased in the world during the past decades. How is that relevant to climate change? Please make an argument!

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Personally I think someone who denies climate change is taking place, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that it does, is unfit of making sound judgements and thus should not be in control of an airplane.

The argument by Mooney_Driver that accepting climate change as a fact and consequently supporting the “green” policies that will mitigate it and limit global warming is harming “our own interests” (as pilots, I think he meant) is spurious and excessively selfish. Anyone having children would not want to leave a wrecked world behind for their offspring, or would you?

I do not deny that, following from what I said, GA will have to find ways to produce less CO2 and this will hurt many of us financially or make the hobby unviable for those unwilling or -able to adapt to the future political and social environment.

Novice pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany

MedEwok wrote:

Personally I think someone who denies climate change is taking place, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that it does, is unfit of making sound judgements and thus should not be in control of an airplane.

You can say the same about someone who does not believe in God, and some countries actually do. Anyone who believes in God see all the overwhelming evidence of his existence.

It’s all about believing. The fact is we have zero idea what will happen in 100-1000 years from now, and never will. The only thing we can do is to anticipate and believe. If some are stronger in their believes than others means squat. I’m old enough to be raised in Christian belief. The concept of belief and believing was mandatory in school, this was something we discussed in class, over and over. I see the exact same thing in climate change people. They believe, and therefore the evidence is overwhelming. Remember not a single person has yet seen this “evidence”. All we see is climate changing as it always has done. 20k years ago Europe was covered in ice for instance.

Belief is just an artifact of how our brain is wired together, more like an instinct, and has zero to do with sound judgement.


There is a big difference between denying that the climate is changing and the position that many “sceptics” such as myself hold.

Clearly the climate is changing, with moderate warming over the last 40 years or so.

But the real issues are:
1) How much have man’s activities contributed to this warming – some perhaps, but almost certainly not all. Lots of evidence for similar rates and levels of increase and decrease in temperature over the last 2,000 years that were NOT modulated by changes in CO2 concentrations.
2) Has the increase in atmospheric warming and in CO2 levels caused harm so far – absolutely not, almost certainly the changes so far have been net positive in fact – higher CO2 is causing a significant increase in plant growth, crop yields, and greening of previously marginal areas such as the Sahel. There has been no increase in overall hurricane activity, fire or floods (this is the conclusion of the IPCC itself).
3) Are further increases in CO2 going to cause net harm in the future – in reality no one knows. The climate models on which all the alarm are based are not worth the computer memory they are written on. It is now very clear that sensitivity of the atmospheric temperature to increasing CO2 is much lower than previously thought.
4) Many renewable energy sources are both unreliable and environmentally damaging – wind turbines, solar etc

Personally I would advocate a wait and watch closely approach, while at the same time substantially increasing research into nuclear energy – mostly thorium and small modular reactors.

This is the position of someone that might be referred to as a “rational optimist”.

Upper Harford, United Kingdom

PV in the UK (especially in the north and west) was a non-starter. People up here constantly whinge about overcast weather, but then buy the salesman’s spiel about PV panels? (Wind on the other hand is often rather too viable…)

How do these huge PV farms work? This pics was taken somewhere west of Birmingham, which is not quite “south” There is a lot of them about. It is presumably subsidy farming?

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Undoubtedly subsidy farming, or a really good deal on bulk solar panels (an installation like that will pay a fraction of what a homeowner would pay per kWh)

Andreas IOM

Yes, better deal on the panels plus less cost per kW on ancillary equipment like inverters.

Last Edited by aart at 23 Sep 09:29
Private field, Mallorca, Spain

Yes, subsidised. But in the UK at least, not as much as fossil fuel subsidies. Germany spends x 3 on renewable subsidies than FF.

What is FF?

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Fossile fuels?

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top