Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

[Sparko]

And again, you miss the point. But I understand, you choose not to get it. So there is no point in saying anything else.

Jim

CP isn't a public spokeperson calling for CO2 reduction. So if he took such an offer, he wouldn't be a hypocrite.

Besides, how did this turn into being about Elton John? We are not talking about that specific flight. That seems like you have been moving goal posts. We were talking about flying to Global Warming conferences and all the other flights they routinely make on their private jets all year long.

[Sparko]

Well "a bunch of nerds arguing in a discussion forum" is not going to solve anything of import, that’s not the purpose of discussion groups.

Then why were you upset about a stupid derail 50 pages into a global warming discussion that has gone nowhere?

[Sparko]

But they're RICH, Sparko -- they can afford to play the carbon credit shell game, and have people applaud them for it.

if the world were truly in such danger that it could end our way of life in a couple of decades then the whole carbon credit scheme is a joke. If we need to really drop CO2 output then we would not have such a scheme. It's effect is to slow down CO2 reduction. We should all do everything we can to reduce CO2 output and increase it's uptake with plants.

If company X is reducing it's carbon output by an extra 50%, that doesn't give company Y the right to pollute 50% more. They should both be reducing their CO2 output as much as possible.

[Sparko]

I dont see them as hypocrites in this case. Elton John paid for it and paid to compensate for the extra CO2 produce. 0 net impact on AGW.

Where is the hypocrisy?


Jim

1. who cares about this one flight? We were discussing the continual use of private jets by people who call for reduction in CO2.
2. Nice job of ignoring most of my post
3. Carbon Credits is just a scheme for the rich to do what they want and if the world is really in danger, it would not be allowed.

[oxmixmudd]

1. who cares about this one flight? We were discussing the continual use of private jets by people who call for reduction in CO2.

No - the original post by seer is talking about this specific flight and accusing the royals Harry and Meghan of being hypocrites for taking the trip when they campaign for taking action to help curb Global Warming. That is the only topic ANY of my posts in this series on private jet emissions has been addressing. If you wondered off into some other topic in your own mind, that is not my problem, nor am I required to follow you.

2. Nice job of ignoring most of my post

I didn't 'igore your post'. I answered it. The same thing that applies to Harry and Meghan applies to all. If they are being reposonsible in their use of the jets and making sure they pay to compensate where possible, they are being responsible in the context of dealing with AGW.

The other element I have raised in my replies is that there are valid reasons for some people to use private jets. When the security concerns of the flying public are best addressed using a private jet, its use is justified even if it produces more CO2 per person than a commercial flight.

3. Carbon Credits is just a scheme for the rich to do what they want and if the world is really in danger, it would not be allowed.

Wrong. If I plant enough trees to consume the amount of CO2 my one trip produced (not sure the time frame ...) then my net carbon output for the trip is 0. Yes, only the rich can afford to do that, but then again, there are a lot of things only the rich can afford to do. Nevertheless, if they conduct themselves in a way that produces no net CO2, they are not being hypocrites taking a private jet if they are campaigning against AGW. In fact, they are being responsible global citizens and doing exactly what they should do if they are going to charter a private jet.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

Wrong. If I plant enough trees to consume the amount of CO2 my one trip produced (not sure the time frame ...) then my net carbon output for the trip is 0. ...

That just seems so dumb - it's like somebody getting drunk Friday night and going to confession Saturday morning, so their sin output is 0.

Why can't he just forego the glitzy fab vacation and STILL plant the trees?

[Sparko]

Wrong. If I plant enough trees to consume the amount of CO2 my one trip produced (not sure the time frame ...) then my net carbon output for the trip is 0. Yes, only the rich can afford to do that, but then again, there are a lot of things only the rich can afford to do. Nevertheless, if they conduct themselves in a way that produces no net CO2, they are not being hypocrites taking a private jet if they are campaigning against AGW. In fact, they are being responsible global citizens and doing exactly what they should do if they are going to charter a private jet.

Jim

no you are wrong. the NET CO2 in the world is increasing. Despite "carbon credits" - so if the goal is to reduce the global net carbon output to zero then carbon credits are slowing down that goal. If instead of buying someone else's carbon reduction so you could output that carbon yourself, you ALSO reduced your carbon, and everyone else did that, we would reduce the overall CO2 output at a higher rate.

And Elton John "buying" their pollution for one trip is the real "drop in the bucket" because out of all of the private flights these same celebrities take every year, one isn't going to change anything, they aren't buying carbon credits for those flights. And even if there were, the impression they are giving is still that they are hypocrites and when dealing with trying to promote saving the planet from doom, public perception is important. and buying carbon credits is perceived as "cheating" by the rich.

[oxmixmudd]

That just seems so dumb - it's like somebody getting drunk Friday night and going to confession Saturday morning, so their sin output is 0.

No, it's not like that at all. The point is to reduce carbon emissions. One way to do that is to produce less CO2. ANOTHER way to do that is to take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Why can't he just forego the glitzy fab vacation and STILL plant the trees?

They could. Just don't forget that the glitzy vacation helps pay for the salaries of:

The people making the airplane.
The pilots flying the airplane.
The mechanics fixing and maintaining the airplane.
The people working at the airports, the flight controllers, porters, etc etc
The waiters and waitresses that bring them their food at the restaurants they attend

And so on and so on.

It still sounds mostly like sour grapes to me.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

No, it's not like that at all. The point is to reduce carbon emissions. One way to do that is to produce less CO2. ANOTHER way to do that is to take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Which would work WAY better if rich people weren't so extravagant, AND planted trees.

They could. Just don't forget that the glitzy vacation helps pay for the salaries of:

The people making the airplane.
The pilots flying the airplane.
The mechanics fixing and maintaining the airplane.
The people working at the airports, the flight controllers, porters, etc etc
The waiters and waitresses that bring them their food at the restaurants they attend

And so on and so on.

It still sounds mostly like sour grapes to me.


Jim

Sounds like justification and rationalization to me.

And the "sour grapes" thing is just dumb --- I've flown in private jets and enjoyed it* -- I just don't hypocritically scold everybody else for their carbon footprint!


*I especially love the fresh baked chocolate chip cookies inflight!

[Cow Poke]

And Elton John "buying" their pollution for one trip....

I have to wonder if that was part of the deal up front, or that's just the nutjob claim he came up with to try to justify the hypocrisy and snooker the faithful into defending this crap.

[oxmixmudd]

Which would work WAY better if rich people weren't so extravagant, AND planted trees.



Sounds like justification and rationalization to me.

No, it sounds like you lost the argument and now you are just trying to make it about me. On to the next round.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

No, it sounds like you lost the argument and now you are just trying to make it about me. On to the next round.


Jim

Nope. And didn't you say TWICE you had nothing more to say, Carpe?

The "sour grapes" thing is just dumb.

[Cow Poke]

....


They could. Just don't forget that the glitzy vacation helps pay for the salaries of:

The people making the airplane.
The pilots flying the airplane.
The mechanics fixing and maintaining the airplane.
The people working at the airports, the flight controllers, porters, etc etc
The waiters and waitresses that bring them their food at the restaurants they attend

And so on and so on....

Gotta get back to this one.... These people have jobs because other people like to enjoy the speed and comfort of private jets (since that's what we're talking about here). If the climate change hypocrites stopped flying, it would hardly be a dent in this financial activity.

Please try again.

[oxmixmudd]

no you are wrong. the NET CO2 in the world is increasing. Despite "carbon credits" - so if the goal is to reduce the global net carbon output to zero then carbon credits are slowing down that goal. If instead of buying someone else's carbon reduction so you could output that carbon yourself, you ALSO reduced your carbon, and everyone else did that, we would reduce the overall CO2 output at a higher rate.

And Elton John "buying" their pollution for one trip is the real "drop in the bucket" because out of all of the private flights these same celebrities take every year, one isn't going to change anything, they aren't buying carbon credits for those flights. And even if there were, the impression they are giving is still that they are hypocrites and when dealing with trying to promote saving the planet from doom, public perception is important. and buying carbon credits is perceived as "cheating" by the rich.

It's simple math Sparko.

It fly in a private jet airplane for 500 km it puts around 300kg of CO2 into the atmosphere. But I've paid to have an 1/4 of land planted with trees that will take that 300kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere during the next year and 300kg every year thereafter. I have contributed 0 kg of CO2 to the atmosphere on that trip. In fact, I've actually reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere in that over the 50year plus lifespan of those trees, I'll have helped pull 15000kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

I don't know the actual numbers that are used for carbon credits. But as long as there is land available to plant trees, the idea is sound and it works. As long as I pay to sequester the CO2 I produce, my contribution to the problem is 0.

Jim

[JimL]

Well, regardless of when it was first proposed, there is little if any convincing evidence that man-made CO2 has a significant impact on global temperatures.

Source: NIPCC

* Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside the range of normal natural variability, nor were they in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history.

* Solar forcing of temperature change is likely more important than is currently recognized.

* No unambiguous evidence exists of dangerous interference in the global climate caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.

* Any human global climate signal is so small as to be nearly indiscernible against the background variability of the natural climate system. Climate change is always occurring.

https://www.heartland.org/_template-...licymakers.pdf

© Copyright Original Source

You might want to stop getting your info from fossil fuel funded climate change denial organizations like NIPCC and the Heartland.org.