Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

The image of GA in the media: Commuting by plane causes media hype

Mooney_Driver wrote:

As for hopping on gravy trains, there are such folks and not few, but I’d say they are more overseas than here in Europe, as European research is mostly government funded. But obviously it is only human to notice the huge interest and therefore researching in the “right” way is quite tempting.

I find the view on the intrinsic trustworthiness of governments somewhat alarming given European history over the last 1000 years or so. There is quite obviously a particularly European government motivation to reduce per capita energy consumption based on security, and equally a motivation to fund researchers who support that agenda.

Re where to get funding: no matter what other business motivations you may have, aligning your work with the motivations of the ‘king’ is good business. Especially when the king/pope/unelected government aristocracy (take your pick) buys the buildings in which you sit and will do so for the indefinite future. Most academics are not stupid people.

A separate argument is whether the ends justify the means.

Airborne_Again wrote:

Also, Galileo wasn’t in opposition to scientific consensus – he was in opposition to the church.

Exactly

Airborne_Again wrote:

Surely you don’t mean that some politicians decided that we want a climate crisis and then set up funding schemes so that 99% of climate scientists would arrive at the same conclusion!?

No. But politicians will try to hijack science to their own ends which is what happened with environmentalism the day it was born. Personally I find it regrettable that environmentalism has found a bedmate with socialism, which doesn’t help the environment at all. There is a huge business opportunity in all of environmentalist goals, but if you want to actually do something for the environment and develop technology in the direction needed to improve things, why on earth pair up with people who, where they were in power, created the worst possible climates and did not care a nilly about those things? Changing technology and changing the way we produce energy, move, drive, live e.t.c. requires the support of where the money is and the money rarely sits with socialist radicals, but in the economy.

Stuff like these articles damage both aviation and environmentalists alike: One comes out like a inconsiderate twerp, the others as political radicals. Does this help anyone? No, it’s just destructive, as much as most of the sensationalist “we’re all gonna die because you eat meat” and similar headlines.

The press doesn’t help this with articles like this and others, trying to destroy people’s little pleasures by making them feel guilty every time they take a well deserved time off someplace warm or calling them names for having children. And Science would be well advised to stay away from this sort of fanatism as well.

LSZH, Switzerland

Silvaire wrote:

I find the view on the intrinsic trustworthiness of governments somewhat alarming given European history over the last 1000 years or so.

Well, I’d rather see government funded schools and universities which, at least in most places, can keep a relatively independent thinking going as opposed to funding with strings attached. Clearly there is tons of science funded by economic interest as well, but to me, this kind of thing always comes with the risk that results which do not agree with the funders interests will get low if any exposure. Of course there is no guarantee in government funded research either depending which government we are talking about, but I’d think in Europe state run universities still are quite free in their research. If you have a cigarette maker run studies about how damaging smoking is then you’d be more careful I reckon.

Personally I’ve always said that a positive vision of a future based on hope will be much more creative than a destructive one based on fear. With fear you may well create a short term success in changing society to something you want but in long term it does not really help.

LSZH, Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Personally I find it regrettable that environmentalism has found a bedmate with socialism, which doesn’t help the environment at all.

I am confused by your references to “socialism”. Wikipedia defines “socialism” as “a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers’ self-management”. This is essentially also my understanding of the word, but you seem to mean something different? Certainly there are no socialist economies in Europe.

Stuff like these articles damage both aviation and environmentalists alike: One comes out like a inconsiderate twerp, the others as political radicals. Does this help anyone? No, it’s just destructive, as much as most of the sensationalist “we’re all gonna die because you eat meat” and similar headlines.

The press doesn’t help this with articles like this and others, trying to destroy people’s little pleasures by making them feel guilty every time they take a well deserved time off someplace warm or calling them names for having children. And Science would be well advised to stay away from this sort of fanatism as well.

I agree that it’s not constructive to blame individuals for the climate problem, but that can’t be taken as an argument that we do nothing. It is clear that we need radical changes in our lifestyles. What do you suggest?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Mooney_Driver wrote:

I’d rather see government funded schools and universities which, at least in most places, can keep a relatively independent thinking going as opposed to funding with strings attached.

My point, based on direct experience, is that government is not the place I would go to remove constraints from research funding.

Airborne_Again wrote:

Certainly there are no socialist economies in Europe.

I could have said “The Left” instead… And no, not anymore. But remember in the 1970ties and before there were quite a few countries in Europe which considered themselfs socialist, not that they were by the definition in Wikipedia. I would not consider the GDR or most of the other eastern block states to have been at the forefront of environmental care, yet they largely funded the initial green movement via the left wing parties in Europe initially.

Airborne_Again wrote:

I agree that it’s not constructive to blame individuals for the climate problem, but that can’t be taken as an argument that we do nothing.

Exactly it is not constructive but destructive and does not help the issue. It’s one small example of how people today get singled out and badmouthed for something trivial as that just because GA and Aviation in general is a target of convenience.

What do I suggest? Do the feasible and stop hindering the possible. Show the people and the industry what is in it for them rather than trying to scare them into submission. People who think positively are rather more receptive to new stuff than people who due constant fearmongering become either resigned, depressed or indifferent up to the point where they rebell.

A lot of this is happening but instead of pushing further in this direction, actions like these which happen quite openly all the time do not help opening people’s minds about this, but will close it. Until you end up with folks in power who totally reject the whole subject as fake news. Not what we need but totally self-explicatory why it happened. Or do you think the “deploarble” teacher targeted in this article will have gained a very positive attitude towards the environmentalists after this?

LSZH, Switzerland

I will leave this here,



Of course if you take the same animation between -4.5billion year and today (instead of 1860 and today) you will see a decrease of earth temperature from 6000 degres to 20degres, but obviously I don’t live 10 billions years

ESSEX, United Kingdom

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Exactly it is not constructive but destructive and does not help the issue.
….
What do I suggest? Do the feasible and stop hindering the possible.

But if individual action is not enough, then collective action is needed and the only people who seem to take this seriously (and still not seriously enough IMO) are what you call “the left”. Conservatives tend to deny that there is a problem at all.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

These alliances (e.g. environment and left-wing) are often less than obvious.

I think the reason is that the “1st World” is basically capitalist (albeit with a lot of redistributive policies thrown in) so most “we want to change this” movements align themselves with the opposite end of the political spectrum, on the principle of “your enemy is my friend”.

The problem is that the principle of “your enemy is my friend” rarely works, especially in the long term – example – and by aligning themselves with a bunch of what most people call “loonies” these protest movements merely undermine their own credibility in the eyes of the wider public.

To achieve change you have to align yourself with the winners, not the losers, i.e. have to work from within the system which calls the shots.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

I agree that it’s not constructive to blame individuals for the climate problem, but that can’t be taken as an argument that we do nothing. It is clear that we need radical changes in our lifestyles. What do you suggest?

If you expect the UN IPCC to provide you with a 100% independant, non biased and scientifically widest possible analysis then think again:

  • The IPCC is a political invention
  • The IPCC’s “doomsday scenarios” only exists in computer models that constantly predicts much more warming than observed.
  • “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the
    scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
    risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. "
    https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/ipcc-principles.pdf

So what happens to published research that points to natual causes? Filtered out. It does not require a Pulizer price to find climate scientists who talk about this problem.

I mentioned earlier the published study på the two climate professors Curry and Lewis who concludes that the climate sensitivity is much lower than the 3 degrees C that the IPCC reports. This means that about 0.2-0.3 degrees of warming the last 100 years can be attributed to humans. Not much. This means that humans are NOT the primary cause. Of course the IPCC cannot report that. Climate has become yet another billion dollar industry with new ways for the politicians to excert more control with more new taxes.

Can recommend Prof. Curry’s blog https://judithcurry.com/ for a more independant view on the matter.

Last Edited by Michael_J at 02 Apr 10:45
EKRK, Denmark
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top