Climate is far too chaotic to make sense of as to global climate

As a pilot a course I had to pass was Weather. But before you sneer, the weather was global weather. Did you study global weather?

 

Neither of those issues is anywhere near to being significant.

First, let's remember that there is NOBODY who thinks that we're going to end fossil fuel use. The science of climate change shows that solid objectives may be reached without anything even close to that.

Second, let's remember that the largest single source of electricity in Iowa is WIND. Is Iowa in some sort of financial trouble because of that? NO!. Your argument IS demonstrated by real world applications to be just plain BS.

Third, most homeowners in the US could become energy self sufficient at a cost less than current energy costs. The technology ALL exists. Surely that is HUGELY attractive from an economic standpoint. Homeowners could be contributing to our nation's power inventory rather than paying and paying and paying.

 

He has oil money, NOT science.

There isn't any science that accepts Soon. He exists only because of big oil. THAT is the only issue with Soon.

 

Maybe you have a huge fund funding you. Why believe in you?

 

Surely you heard that the USA is not IOWA?

 

(unproven)

 

I'm single engine instrument, land and sea. I fly a Malibu (six place, pressurized, retractable, 25k ceiling) that I own with a friend. I'm required by insurance to take yearly training both flying and classroom.

And, weather is NOT the same as climate. Not even slightly.

An advantage climate has is that it has to do with averages over time. Thus a lot of factors simply get dampened out.

The major issue with climate change is that Earth is warming. That affects agriculture, sea rise, water distribution, etc. And, it allows for feedback loops such as changing Earth's reflectivity, warming tundra to emit huge volumes of methane, etc.

Those aren't part of the rubric for pilot licensing in the US. In aviation training, climate has more to do with a time of year or region and the weather patterns that are more prominent then.

 

??
Iowa proves that your claims of impossibility and limitation are total crap.

 

Between 2005 and 2015 Soon received $1.2 million from fossil fuel sources and did not follow protocol in identifying that conflict of interet in his publications.

 

I am surprised as a pilot too you are that easily fooled by the extremists.

 

And yet as a pilot of a Malibu (made by Piper) you are a huge user of gasoline. Maybe you can locate a windmill to power you through the skies.

 

Since you confess to being a pilot flying a 6 place Piper product, I am shocked you are such an enemy of flying.

 

If and when Death Valley CA starts setting higher heat records. I will worry more than now.

 

According to you he did. And you fly so what is the reason for you to complain about climate?

 

??
There is NOTHING in pilot training that doesn't fully recognize what is said by the vast majority of scientists working in the many disciplines involved in climate research.

 

I am simply shocked by a major user of fuels to be so frightened by climate. Do you not study that climate changes?

 

I don't ask you to believe me.

I ask you to believe the gigantic international consensus of scientists working in the numerous fields related to climatology - physics, chemistry oceanography, surface analysis, high altitude analysis, solar analysis, etc.

I ask you to consider that a conpiracy would require that disciplines would need to know what they "should" find. But, that is an absolute impossibility given the interdependence and coplexity.

Our mainstream science goes through OPEN and rigorous review. The IPCC process is an open process laying on the table what has been found for all to see and review.

This HAS caused there to be corrections. Issues of Mann's original hockey stick were found to depend on a methodology that may look good, but has problems. How warming might affect hurricaes got some correction. Whether ocean currents such as the Atlantic Converyor were found to be less immediate, at least. The "missing heat" noticed 5 years ago has been found, in part through more thorough examination of oceans.

Etc.

Replacing that with BS from vested interests like oil companies, with papers that don't get review and/or are published in sclock journals, popular press and bloggs - these are NOT ACCEPTABLE as alternatives to science.

 

As fright6ened by climate as you clearly are, were in your spot I would sell the Malibu, eliminate the use of the auto and only buy products made using windmills.

 

Do you try to scare the crap out of passengers that dare fly in your Malibu?

 

You should be more worried about Phoenix and other places in the interior southwest.

You should be more worried about water scarcity in the CA breadbasket regions that feed so much of America.

But, I'm not asking you to worry.

I'm asking you to accept the absolutely fabulous science progress that western civilization has brought to us, so we can make rational decisions on how to respond to change - for one example.

 

How long have you been browning your slacks due to your climate phobia?

 

Oh, water. I moved away from CA in 2019 and by golly we have two rivers very near to me. Water is plentiful.

 

Why after your training to be a pilot are you so frightened of climate?

You remind me of an Army pilot I once flew with. I asked him why he flew so low and he said in case he had to land on a road.

Pilots are taught that height increases safety.

 

There are Koch trolls all over, even here.

 

You proselytize antiscience by claiming that science is fear?

That's just sad.