Good.
CLINTEL has written a letter to the IPCC after reviewing the last report (AR6). Interesting analysis and here
The EuroGA forum has a few sections for non-aviation related discussions. In comparison to some other such topics (e.g. Covid-19) Climate change seems poorly suited for discussion. I have found some recent posts here to be quite offensive, and I’m sure I have also offended some people with my posts – for which I apologize.
This only creates animosity and distracts from the real purpose of this forum, which is to discuss flying. Thus from now on, I’ll stop reading and posting in this thread. Just to let you know why I won’t respond to any further comments on my recent posts.
CLINTEL QUOTE
We, like you, are committed to a sustainable future for the planet, but insist that the path to sustainability must be informed by objective climate science; in our view, adaptation, much more effective than mitigation, is the optimal way forward.
Michael_J wrote:
CLINTEL has written a letter
Thank you Michael. Good work in posting that. The major issue of individuals who cannot see both sides and give proper thought and interpretation to what should be a meaningful debate is that as you highlighted, the debate is shut down.
We absolutely do not require that.
Airborne_Again wrote:
ust to let you know why I won’t respond to any further comments on my recent posts.
VOILA….as if to prove the point
BeechBaby wrote:
because she is a virtue signaler,
I really loathe this term.
Sam Leith said it best in, of all places, The Spectator (a very right wing publication):
“The term ‘virtue signalling’ is not an argument but a sneer. When you say somebody is ‘virtue signalling’, you’re not bothering to commit yourself to an argument about whether the position they are taking is right or wrong. (Perhaps, indeed, you feel on sticky ground entering that argument.) Rather, you are making a groundless and unfalsifiable presumption about their motive for doing so and using that as the supposed basis to dismiss the whole shebang. It immediately, lazily and arrogantly, frames any assertion of a moral or political principle as an act of narcissism.”
In short, throwing around the term “virtue signalling” is almost always playing the man and not the ball.
alioth wrote:
In short, throwing around the term “virtue signalling” is almost always playing the man and not the ball.
In this case Sam it is a She, not a He. Let’s not upset the WOKE agenda. For clarity it is not my phrase, and like you I loathe it. It is a media/social agenda phrase. I used it here deliberately to make the point of where we are. The abuse by all sides of a young woman for political agenda
Michael_J wrote:
CLINTEL has written a letter to the IPCC after reviewing the last report (AR6).
How very interesting. This is a lot closer to what I (as a former physicist) call science. And contains a lot of arguments and details I keep repeating.
It’s not saying that there was no climate change, no. But it is a lot more balanced, pointing out that a lot of things are not yet proven or might even never be proven. That we should move some things in the next decades, but not in the next days. Thanks a lot for sharing.
throwing around the term “virtue signalling” is almost always playing the man and not the ball.
Certainly VS is a pejorative term. However is it universally inaccurate? Humans participate in all kinds of behaviour which involve signalling to others that they have certain values, and a lot of this signalling is particularly unattractive. Even more so if they themselves do not follow what they are preaching.
And yes social media is what has driven VS, because it makes it very easy and costs nothing. If you want to do it in real life, say by spending 50k on an electric car which you almost never drive, it’s cost you 50k to do that and most people don’t value it that much 
Speaking as an admin here, not much p1sses me off more than having somebody who does constant VS while taking great care to post nothing of use to anybody on aviation. We don’t have anyone here now doing that, but we have had.
I think this topic is topical right now because of the big conference, where all the politicians (who almost universally have zero understanding of science) are keen to line up behind this position. It will probably fizzle out in due course, both here on EuroGA, and in reality when spending is looked at in detail. What does this mean for avgas? Probably nothing in the next 20 years although I would not be surprised if we do get 100UL in that timeframe.
Peter wrote:
We don’t have anyone here now doing that, but we have had.
Perhaps we should use this point as time for some reflection. I was one of the first on this site. I was there on day one. There are times that I do not make sense, spout some rubbish, am clearly wrong, however, since Covid I noticed a growing nasty little clique develop. It was noticed In all threads. This little clique set about belittling a lot of peoples comments, views and general observations. I am still here, groan, but I have to admit I did drift off to alternative forums, none of which I really liked. This drift solely due to this clique. I also communicated off thread via Kitmail with some people who actually felt the same as me.
This is not good. EuroGA is an internet forum where there has to be active open debate, some fun, and gain some useful knowledge, God knows a lot of us need it.
Open threads on General discussion topics. Of course, but please keep the toys in the pram.
since Covid I noticed a growing nasty little clique develop
I think Covid has done a lot of damage to a lot of stuff online. It has produced a lot of nastiness.
It has also stopped a lot of people flying, permanently. For example most of the group of day trip regulars I used to meet up with, UK, N France, etc, have packed it up and sold up, or just disappeared. And they were long-term flyers, mostly with IRs.
This little clique set about belittling a lot of peoples comments, views and general observations
That should not be happening. Can you point to a particular post?
