← Back to Squawk list
  • 57

IATA Set To Combat Greta Thunberg’s Flight Shaming Movement

Submitted
The aviation industry is set to launch a campaign to combat the growing flight shaming movement led by Greta Thunberg. The campaign comes as weakened demand has been reported in Europe. (simpleflying.com) More...

MH370
Weekly PickNews junkieEnthusiastTrusted friendHonor RollDaily PickAmateur PhotographerPromoterAltruistAnnouncerAutobiographer

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


chugheset
chugheset 26
Thank God. Now maybe I'll have an open center seat on my next flight.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
BayneJust
Bayne Just 4
I was thinking the same thing. Less folks on the plane, the more comfortable the flight.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Center seats would open up with fewer folks on the plane.
Less folks would be thinner folks who more easily fit in the shrunken seats.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
BigTuna
BigTuna 25
Oh good, I was afraid there might be a tiny corner of my life that wasn't yet infected with politics but this thread on FlightAware has assured me no such thing exists.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
mbrews
mbrews 9
- I guess we can thank MH370 for keeping Thunberg in the limelight, which is the Green's propaganda aim. Is the brainwashed young victim still stuck in Chile ? If so, probably besieged by anarchists in the streets of Santiago, waiting to bum a ride on some non-polluting magic carpet, back across the Atlantic :)
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Lshstone
Linda Stone 47
Courageous? Why isn’t she taking her hissy fit to China, North Korea, Venezuela or anywhere in the Middle East to scold them for the error of THEIR ways?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 28
Yeah China barely ever sees blue skies.. All from pollution
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 17
Yeah exactly. They would look at her and send her back where she came from.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
dkenna
dkenna 28
I can see how a 16 y/o Swedish girl can be frustrated with the inaction of politicians. With all of her experience in life and knowledge of global economics, we should stop everything and listen to what she has to say. When I was 16, I had ALL the answers too, but I was too busy chasing girls and being a kid to voice those answers to the world.

Is there a sarcasm emoji by the way??
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
demaess
Jan De Maesschalck 6
How weak do your arguments have to be if you have to resort to attacking a 16-year-old girl?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
N6ITE
N6ITE 6
What I find interesting is they are using her as a virtual human shield. If someone tries to go at her with logic, common sense or have an actual discussion the response seems to be "Why are you bullying a girl?". If we look at recent history, we have a college kid who was attacked all throughout the media for not losing his cool or saying anything when a known NA activist beat a drum in his face. How many people verbally attacked him with comments like (paraphrase) "have you ever seen a more punchable face?"
.
If we look to maintain decorum, we can have a conversation but not if the only answer is essentially "think what I think and believe what I believe, or else".
.
On that same note as others in the comments though, why ISN't she in China, India or the Middle East trying to get THEM to see the error of their ways?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 0
How weak do your arguments have to be if you have to resort to attacking someone you don’t at all know?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
E1craZ4life
Edward Bardes 2
How seriously should she be taken if we don't know her?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 3
As seriously as the media takes her. Which must be pretty seriously because we are all talking about her. I’d be plenty fine with the media NOT providing her a platform and then we’d not have to take her seriously.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
royr2
royr2 5
just like the media takes "The Squad" seriously. 3/4 were born outside the US and 2/4 do not have US Citizenship rights yet. Lots of question marks, right? :))
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
royr2
royr2 0
I'm 33 and I still chase girls. ;-) Can I make it a profession?

Get a life, Greta. Still the best, fastest, safest, and most economic form of transportation there is and will be for years to come. It's like the plastic bag argument. Several cities including (I'm ashamed to say) Austin, have 'banned' plastic bags from grocery stores. But yet, they have offered no alternatives in the process, thus causing the end user more money. What do they say? Buy a few reusable 'green bags' or pay $0.50/a piece extra for paper bags - which they put groceries in FOR FREE before plastic bags were even a thing.

F off. Point made. Get outta here unless you can create an alternative that is just as good, CHEAP, and EFFICIENT as Jet-A.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
royr2
royr2 2
I'll make another point too, due to the OP being MH370 - if you haven't noticed by now, he's very active here, and very anti-Boeing. Coincidence? Most likely not.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
royr2
royr2 0
Assuming he's a 'he' and not a she or identifies as a 'she'. *Sarcasm emoji*
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
BayneJust
Bayne Just 14
Roger, is your ignorance an art, a skill, or a talent? This brainwashed little mind of mush is a left wing prop and her 15 minutes has expired. Time for her to go back to mommy and daddy.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
topgunnh
Peter McGrath 15
It's Mommy and Daddy that are pushing her! The kid hasn't got a chance.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
lgj
leif JOHANSSON -6
How wrong you are !! But I suppose you are not much used to read !
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
lynx318
lynx318 1
As to reading, your grammar needs work. Her speeches are obviously written for her and well rehearsed. Caught off the cuff, boarding the boat back to Europe, she sounded like any self absorbed teen who seemed immensely intimidated by half a dozen journalists without a clue what to say. Hardly a mindset activist.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 2
I would bet his first language isn't English.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
coltonfletcher
Colton Fletcher 1
AGREED!!!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Brt1007
Bruce Thomas 8
CO2 is .0004 of the atmosphere, and is distributed like other gases. It’s a colorless odorless plant food. Water vapor is the real green house gas. Except for rain and clouds and such, water vapor must be an existential threat to the planet. It does cause airplanes to crash from time to time. Let’s get rid of it! Morons of the world unite!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
royr2
royr2 2
.004 responds to .04%. of the atmosphere. Global warming is supposed to happen. but naturally. So is global cooling. All of our resources have been made of Earthly resources, thus we cannot "influence" global warming in the way the press, media, or even government claims - because as simply as this - all our resources come from Earth. Again, F-off. y'all will lose in the end, you're assembled to do is cause a 'global panic', which us realists will see through and live on into the future. Deep, am I??? Well get over it or accept it. It's the real, uninfluenced truth. We are in the midst of a 'global warming' period based on our position around the sun. We have nothing to do with it.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
royr2
royr2 0
Excuse me, 4%. Still nothing, comparatively.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
royr2
royr2 1
To add to that, I once had our primary Flight Professor/Engineer/Meteorologist tell us, in Aviation Weather class mind you -which is very equivalent to what meteorologists learn in school - tell us human kind is not capable of destroying the Earth - only itself. "Earth will go on as we continue to know it and even more.: whether we choose to robotize it or make it emotional/human ism our choice. Automation is the future even for the airline business."
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 6
Why can’t she be all three things? Courageous, frustrated, and brainwashed. And if true, why is calling attention to her last trait out of line?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 1
More like "Useful Idiot".
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
abowland
Andy Bowland 4
Who is Greta Thunberg?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
airstars
mike bednar 22
I understand the little brat took a sailboat to America while her entourage flew to America!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
kenoraeagle
DAVID MCKIE 1
Worse part is, she is so stupid, she can't find a way home they doesn't involve fuel. Her couple months of fame should end soon. Someone should kidnap her and drop her of in a refugee camp in Syria.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 4
Kayak.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 4
She will drive them crazy. They won't want her. She just scream at all of them for ruining her future.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

tongo
Dan Grelinger 9
It’s because the ‘Deniers’ (as you label them) haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid. For most of us, wisdom comes with age. Youth comes with it’s benefits (energy, idealism, imagination), but wisdom must be earned with time and fostering a mind that stays open to learning. And it is the wise that see the climate scare-mongers for what they are. Everyone believes the world would be a better place, if only they had complete control. That is what is truly scary about these events.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
dkenna
dkenna 3
Why , so , many , spaces and commas , in this post.............?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
pthomas745
Pa Thomas 9
This will not go over well.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
bschauerte
B Schauerte 11
So ... CLOTHING pollutes 4x as much. Complainers should get naked.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Gentilo
Andrea Gentilini 15
I don't give a damn to a 16er who doesn't have any knowledge about environmental physics. She obviously follows the copycat that someone who makes great profits in the "green" industry gives her.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
lgj
leif JOHANSSON 4
AS she has said several times 'I don't know the solution, but the science people do. I can only point my fingers into the problems'
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 3
If she has not knowledge of the physics, how can she even know there is a problem? She is just a tool.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ba4563070
Cindy Savage -9
The irony in your statement is hilarious.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 1
Yes, if it wasn’t so incredibly sad.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Franky16
Franky16 3
Much to my horror, a couple from my home town in Perth, Australia are set to transport Greta back to Europe on their large ocean going catamaran which they have been sailing around the world for a couple of years. They stated that they are trying to remain neutral in the whole saga, but feel that she is having a bad run and is in need of help to get home as her options are pretty limited. The return journey wont be nearly as fast as her original trip across the Atlantic.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
lukeg20
Luke Gooden 12
Ridiculous campaign, flying is the greatest timesaving method of transport! Enabled so much prosperity from business to tourism. How much time do ppl have, going on 2 week long sea crossings like its the 1800s.

All for the huge hoax/myth/money waster of climate change...

When's the Tesla plane coming out?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
KicksOnRoute66
Roger Anderson 9
Really wish political stuff like this didn't make it to FlightAware
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
canuck44
canuck44 24
This is an aviation forum and aviation as a whole has been made the target of a movement that is as much a religion to the believers as it is political. Putting their motives and lack of factual data aside, the outcome of their actions will impact everyone. If we declare policy changes political and not to be discussed, we have are heads in a dark, odoriferous location.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
My hat is off to you. I think this is the most enlightened and reasonable post in this discussion.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mbrews
mbrews 6
- I agree. Very well put, canuck44. As a climate SKEPTIC, I choose reason and analysis to weigh scientific evidence. The language of climate religion is very revealing. They use the words "climate denier " to label skeptics as Heretics to their articles of faith. Especially in academia, the tactics smack of the Inquisition.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
N6ITE
N6ITE 1
Agreed and well said.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
s2v8377
s2v8377 7
This is an aviation industry story and is relevant to FlightAware.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 5
Soon as it says 'Greta' its political.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jan7bar
Janusz Barbasiewicz 17
Who the hell cares what Greta says.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
jbsimms
James Simms 6
Looking forward to the day she & David Hogg not only have their comeuppance, but end up forgotten by everyone. I would go on but am mindful of the backlash....
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
The weak minded...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger -1
Those downvoting my comment have self-identified themselves as such.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ferminbf
ferminbf -3
Actually, many dumb and dumber people is kinda hysteric making lot of noise because of all that crappy climate change urban legend....
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
E1craZ4life
Edward Bardes 2
If the only way to continue living on the planet is to revert to the Stone Age, maybe we should all just save time and gather everyone in one place, form a big circle, and on an agreed signal all cap the person to the right.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 3
Unfortunately, there are global climate change extremists who are close to taking that idea seriously.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ianmcdonell
ian mcdonell 2
I wonder if Greta knows what Nobel does that contributes so much to the economy of her country? Or Volvo? Or Saab ?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
E1craZ4life
Edward Bardes 6
If cities really wanted to cut down carbon emissions, they should pull cars off the roads and invest in public transportation, which has benefits beyond environmental benefits.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
GaAubie
Ken Hardy 9
I agree, take away everyone's car, start classes in walking and hitch hiking, only Washington politicians should have chauffeured SUV's to ride in.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
canuck44
canuck44 -2
You would have to include electric cars for it turns out they are more energy pigs than fossil fuel. Besides the generation and transmission of power the mining and refining of the lithium is energy bleeding, but tends to kill the folks doing the recovery as radioactive material has to be separated. This is why there are no active lithium refining in the USA although one is planned in Texas.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson -1
OK, now you've confirmed yourself to be operating entirely without knowledge. Everything you just said is completely wrong.

Pathetic.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 4
good.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Viperguy46
Jesse Carroll 3
Social media and video games will ruin the world! Suggest we start a movement to ban all Facebook, Twitter, etc: , and any Violent video games!
I you want to talk to someone, do it the old fashion way! Pick up a real telephone and call them!
"Just Saying"
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
bizprop
Roy Troughton 6
Why otherwise educated and Intelligent people buy into this crap is beyond me. If the best you’ve got is some indoctrinated angry sixteen year old then you’ve got a lot of work to do.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
be400cpt
be400cpt 7
who is this Greta chick and why does anyone care?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
oldfolkie
Iain Girling 6
A 16 year old with Aspergers syndrome. The obsessive personality that accompanies it has been hi-jacked by her parents and ‘green’ activists to promote their agenda.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
lgj
leif JOHANSSON -2
How wrong you are.....
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bschauerte
B Schauerte 4
So ... CLOTHING pollutes 4x as much. Complainers should get naked.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ptillotson
Paul Tillotson 5
When did so called "informed adults" become ruled by ill informed children. Time to end this nonsense in our aviation industry and throughout the world.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ravanviman
hal pushpak 4
Umm.. So since our beloved aviation industry is in fact acknowledging environmental issues and is in fact working hard towards more efficiency, less carbon, less noise, etc., how (and why) is Greta so wrong about spurring this along? Why the hate? The planet does have a problem, ya know..! Or maybe you don't?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger -2
You’ve drank the Kool-Aid. But not all hope is lost for you. Start asking probing questions. What you’ll find is that once you start to question the ‘science’ behind climate change, you will be labelled, abused, shutdown, ridiculed and shamed. But no real answers will be forthcoming. That will be your clue that there is something amiss.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mweiserny
Mark Weiser -4
Hal, Hal, Hal, Climate Change?? Global warming, you are misinformed, not the rest of us, a couple of million years of documented cyclical changes to climate are well published, but all of a sudden cows, jets and SUV's are ruining life on earth. Listen follow your Goddesses, AOC and Warren, they will lead all you lemmings into the sea, thank god for that, we only have to wait 12 years until you are all gone...whew!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ravanviman
hal pushpak 10
Well, Dan and Mark, what are we actually arguing about? Sounds like you agree that Climate Change is inevitable and part of this planet’s natural cycle. If so, no argument there. The science shows that every cycle snuffed out most life on Earth. I hope we can all agree with that.

So the question is, what’s the Kool Aid I’m, supposedly drinking? Is it that I’m believing a majority of scientists, NASA, the ISS data, and all the climate agencies on Earth that tell us it’s happening faster than we thought. If so, it’s seems to be the only thing we differ on.

Thus I seem to have missed the “Deniers’” argument. Perhaps the point is more moral than idealogical? If a meteor the size of the Gulf of Mexico were heading towards Earth, we could shrug and say, hey that’s life, it’s happened before. Or we could put our heads together and see what we can do to deflect, delay, or mitigate it, even if it's inevitable--we can see we tried. Or do we do nothing and blame "the meteor" on Greta..

My observation is that the industry has already decided to take (Kool Aid) action, while the Deniers have decided to demonise Greta.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger -3
The science does NOT show that every climate change snuffed out most life on Earth. Science DOES show that when the earth was warmer than it is now, life flourished. When it was colder, life suffered. Since I am a living creature, the oft forecasted ice age would scare me. Where I live now would turn into a glacier.

There is little science in ‘climate science’. Not because of anyone’s fault, but because the climate does not lend itself to the scientific method, which by the way, encourages doubt and questioning. In today’s political ‘climate’, those who are easily alarmed (they exist in all times) have been been stirred into a frenzy that is more religion than science.

The reason that this is important is because the real and PROVEN danger to civilizations is tyranny. Over and over in history, tyrants manufacture or use crisis in order to seize power. It is this PROVEN danger that I would like to avoid. Those who are most on the bandwagon touting that humans are responsible for doing something about climate change very clearly are out to damage standards of living and limit population growth. And of course, centralization of power is necessary to accomplish those things. Much like has happened in other tyrannies, such as in China.

Those who willingly are tools for the tyrants-in-waiting will receive my ire.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
MOOLOO
MIKE HOOD 5
This young girl is a rude and disrespectful upstart. She should return to school like most 16 year olds whereupon she may learn some manners if she pays attention.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
coltonfletcher
Colton Fletcher 0
I very much agree!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson -1
OK, Boomer...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jdriskell
James Driskell 4
Unfortunately, many of these comments are not worth the time to read and are evidence of a dearth of thinking. Greta has a perfect right to believe and communicate her thoughts on the very critical subject of climate change.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 5
Ha, now that is funny. You deny everyone else the right to believe and communicate their thoughts, unless they agree with you. Now, that was worth reading!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
usad
usad 3
Wait until someone realizes that nurseries actually purchase and install CO2 generators to promote plant growth in green houses! Oh, wait a minute...that would me CO2 is a good thing. Wouldn't it?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ferminbf
ferminbf 3
I’m just wondering, how is Greta traveling around the world…. By horse, bicycle, hiking, Langskip, Knörr (ancient Viking ships) ????
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Beaso
Mick Beasley 14
She crossed the Atlantic in a carbon neutral yacht and turned down a lot meetings due to the amount of travel required.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 4
Yes thats more accurate than what I said.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
lynx318
lynx318 2
Carbon neutral until the wind dies down and they start the diesel.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 9
She traveled to the US in a racing sailboat, if i'm correct. Then she had crew fly out to her to replace existing crew. Smart eh?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
layman85
layman85 2
False. Her crew sailed back to Europe as they were training for a race that required mileage to qualify.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 12
I am so glad we have you to give us the facts. I used to trust the Wall Street Journal, but now I put all of my trust in layman85.

Here are the lies that the Wall Street is spreading...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/flight-shame-comes-to-the-u-s-via-sailboat-11567162801

‘Greta’s voyage has had its own critics, who have pointed out that some members of the sailing crew will return by plane, while others fly in to sail the boat back to Europe. Boris Herrmann, captain of the sailboat, Malizia II, said that the criticism was expected but that Greta shouldn’t be held responsible for the flights by crew members. “We are kind of the ferry to bring her over. We’re a professional sailing team and sometimes we need to fly. The trip is an example of how difficult it is to have zero carbon impact.”’
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 11
As seen in the comments on the page linked to for the article, using a sailboat might be carbon neutral, but it is anything but to manufacture it. She does not realize that such takes place and at a higher rate than flying.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 4
She's brilliant then, absolutely brilliant. I bet a plane flight to America puts out less pollution than manufacturing a sailboat.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
layman85
layman85 0
I hope the officials of the IMOCA class are listening! The smoking section at Western Sizzlin is saying that this crew didn’t actually sail these miles.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
If you can believe those lying climate change deniers at the Wall Street Journal, it is the captain of the sailboat that is saying that the crew did not all sail back, some took a plane back, and some took a plane to the U.S. to sail the plane back.

Is your post an admission of spreading falsehoods? Or do you claim your veracity is better than the Wall Street Journa?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
augerin
Dave Mathes 2
....I don't think Ms.Thunbergs carbon footprint is as small as she thinks..
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Gentilo
Andrea Gentilini 2
I'll keep flying even I were the only human being on Earth.
I don't give a damn to what this 16er says, she is obviously playing the part that someone wrote for her !!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
gcottay
George Cottay 2
Responses to this topic sure do illuminate the character of those who wrote them.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
BillWilson
Bill Wilson 2
People need to realize that Greta Thunberg is a proxy of folks like George Soros and those who want to do away with fossil fuels--and pretty much civilization as we know it. Greta Thunberg doesn't understand that a jet engine will not run on biodiesel or anything else and if she gets her way the entire planet will reach 3rd world status in no time.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 0
OK Boomer. I guess you confirmed all of this by watching FOX? You haven't heard that parts of Europe can already run their country for days on end with renewables? And they've only just begun to build them out? Not aware of the Tesla battery in Australia that almost paid itself off in a year? Not aware that jet fuel can be created to be carbon neutral?

The alternative is not to live like the 3rd world (which is hardly carbon neutral). It's to allow our technology to advance past the Oil Age. Like we advanced past the Steam Age (Coal Age). Do you look at history books and say "what a bunch of morons, letting horses be replaced by engines!"??

Technology is already changing and will continue to change, whether you like it or not. Economics are driving it. The only problem is with knuckle-draggers who are terrified of change and will do anything to delay. They tend to put it in terms like '3rd world status'... SMH

But yeah, I'm sure it's all the doing of George Soros... LMFAO
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
Brock, your opinions don’t sound much different than mine. I am a firm believer in economic driven technological solutions to the world’s problems. However, I am surprised that you SEEM to be championing Greta Thunberg, who is not in agreement with us. She believes the answer is reducing our standard of living, of doing without. But, perhaps you are with the majority of the rest of us who see that. You just have a weird way of saying it.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson -1
That's where you're losing me Dan. Greta only says that we must make changes to ensure our ongoing survival as a species. The scientific community is in full agreement with that. It's only delayists, denialists and politicians in the pocket of big corporations who take issue with it. And try to convince us with BS living-in-a-cave scenarios. She says that we must listen to science and the scientists, rather than decide what we want to 'believe'... which seems to trend towards what is easiest and cheapest - quelle surprise.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
The scientific community is not in full agreement. Dig deeper. Just as you have joined the abuse of those who question the unproven theories, so has the media. There are many scientists who question the alarmists’ claims, but instead of proof being presented to satisfy their doubts, they are shamed. Again, religious behavior not worthy of true scientists.

Stop abusing those who ask for scientific proof. Dig deeper. Ask intelligent questions. When you don’t get good answers, you may just open your eyes and your mind and realize we are being taken for a ride. And Greta is just a tool who has nothing to offer but her vulnerability, which is why she is being cultivated as a spokesperson.

Climate alarmism is the unproven ‘belief’. If it isn’t, there would be proof behind the claims. I have searched high and low for it, but there is none, and all that is offered is unfounded claims, ‘consensus’, and abuse of those who would even dare to play the role of doubter as required by good science.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson -1
'not in full agreement'... you mean those three discredited hacks who disagree with the (literally) thousands of scientists who have found consensus? The 'scientists' whose work has been found sorely lacking or flawed through peer review (what real scientists do)? Yeah, I'm going to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of those nutjobs. Clearly you're not asking any questions, let alone intelligent questions if you're taking their word over that of the thousands who aren't paid by Big Oil, the military industrial complex, etc.

It's sad that your vision of the world is so narrow and easily influenced by nonsense. If we all went your way, there would be consensus that the world is flat and smoking Camels is great for your throat.

Let me guess... you also believe in God, right? Pretty sure I'm right about that, because your sort of blind belief fits squarely with religion... which absolutely requires blind faith and compliance to control its congregation. If anyone starts to think for themselves, the gig is up.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
Again, you’ve offered no scientific proof, only hearsay and consensus. But that’s OK, it befits you.

It looks like you are the one who has blind faith.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 1
You didn't answer my question. I'll take that as a 'yes', which only confirms your inability to critically question what is right in front of your eyes.

No point in arguing colors with a blind man.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
BillWilson
Bill Wilson 1
Gee Brock, I wanna be just like you when I grow up--a "woke" millennial with all the answers!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson -1
Excellent. The world needs more people willing to get a grip on reality. I commend you for wanting to embrace change and look for answers... instead of just blocking progress!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
BillWilson
Bill Wilson 1
Enlighten me, is there a viable alternative currently on the market to replace jet fuel? Just curious.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson -1
Ah, so it's all about jet fuel? No desire to work towards solutions? If it doesn't exist today as 'viable' (whatever your definition of that is), it never will, never can?

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-synthetic-fuels-carbon-footprint.html

The technology exists. It's more expensive today, just like EV's were a few years ago. I've never said it's going to happen this afternoon or by the end of the week, but clearly we're heading in that direction. Impeding progress is simply ignorant and serves absolutely no purpose.

Do I have all the answers? Hell no. But the difference between me and you is I'm looking for them, advocating for them and calling out fools where I find them. Is that 'woke' enough for you? Maybe if I was closer to death I'd care less...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
BillWilson
Bill Wilson 0
Perhaps your comprehension skills aren't as sharp as your acerbic wit. I asked if there were a viable alternative currently available for jet fuel and you send me a link that tells me what synthetic fuels COULD do--not what's available. You seem to be sincere in your quest for solutions that will improve life on this planet, but if you're trying to convince people to listen to and possibly use this technology it ain't working.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 0
Again, missing the point Bill. Purposely? Re-read my last two paragraphs above. 'Viable' is going to be different for everyone. EV's were 'viable' decades ago, but overly-costly and anemic. 'Viable' wasn't the consensus. Yet today, EV's are taking over and will kill the ICE auto industry. Are killing it already, in fact.

But your original point was all about the conspiracy theory of George Soros...etc. Now shifting to a debate over what constitutes 'viable'. Bait and switch... standard denialist strategy.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
BillWilson
Bill Wilson 0
Do not take my failure to respond to any of your further comments as a victory. I try not to hold conversations with opinionated interlopers who have already decided it's their way or the highway. Thanks for playing.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 0
And without any useful facts, another denialist is vanquished!!

(crowd cheers)

Bye Bill!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
You were the one who was challenged to provide facts to back up your assertions and failed.

Nice try to deflect.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 0
Nice try. Facts provided. There's a whole Internet full of them, if you care to look. Which, clearly you have not...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
More deflection. The facts don’t support climate Armageddon.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 0
I'm assuming you're taking that from the bible or some other work of fiction. Again, no point in discussing the finer details of a Picasso with a blind man.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
waynej007
waynej007 2
Damn global warming.... these record COLD temps here (7deg) and not even winter yet!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

tongo
Dan Grelinger 0
I hope that was in jest. There is absolutely no basis for that happening.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
timjohns
Tim Johns 2
Good, maybe Greta can go straight back to central-casting where she was found, coached and made to look a bit silly. If she (aka - her handlers & puppet masters) were serious they would be asking to meet with the Chinese to express their (completely non-pragmatic) demands directly. But somehow I don't think so.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
zebora
Sebastian Phoenix 1
I wouldnt worry about it, Melbourne is building an extra runway to cope with demand. I doubt if more than 10 people in the world are going to 'stop flying' anyone signing up to this nonsense was not going anywhere anyway.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
bingobanner
Russ Brown 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPMmC0UAnj0
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
DollyBailey
Dolly Bailey 1
She should shame the Democrat politicians hypocrites who are screaming “climate change” and flying around the country in private jets!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
GaAubie
Ken Hardy -2
This girl has all the answers, she should run for the Democratic nomination for President of the US, she would be a great fit with the current group of day dreamers like Warren and Sanders. I wonder if she is an investor in Al Gores company that sells carbon credits? Is there a chance she can sue the Wright Brothers for starting this mess ?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 1
I think you just made the mistake of posting a comment to do with that. Not the place for it.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mweiserny
Mark Weiser 1
I love it! It's all their fault! (Wright Boos) them and all those birds!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
canuck44
canuck44 -1
She is a scripted 16 year old useful idiot funded in part by George Soros. Like David "Camera" Hogg, the anti-gun teenagers, she will be cast aside as her usefulness fades. Notice she doesn't attack any of the world's major carbon polluters China or India.

The alarmists have a new theme as a flawed study proclaiming 11,000 plus scientists have jumped on the fear wagon. The problem is only 240 of them are actual meteorologists, climate scientists or atmosphere researchers. The list includes an OB-GYN, a gender studies academic, psychologists, numerous "journalists", etc. However, because few will look at the list, the media will proclaim the veracity of the dogma until the next useful idiot comes along...while the earth continues to cool in its normal cycle..
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 5
C'mon, Gender Studies, now that is a "real" degree, sure to get the big bucks in Acadamia but useless in real life.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ToddBaldwin3
ToddBaldwin3 3
You make some pretty specific claims there. Since I like to verify things, can you provide some references or citations supporting your statements?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
DGR54Rathborne
DGR Rathborne -7
canuck44 , can i suspect you or family members work in the Oil industries in Alberta ?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
canuck44
canuck44 12
No actually I am a refugee from the Canadian Health care system living in Florida for the last 30 years, but as one who as a hobby studies history of science and the military, I am bemused by the same pattern repeating for all the topics of the left. Declare a crisis, find a semi-sympathetic (more pathetic) spokesperson or symbol, promote it in the friendly media, declare a dogma, demand government (taxpayer) policy always dipping into the trough for friends. The average life of these individuals is two years until the left moves on to the next crisis and dredges up another useful idiot upon which the media can dwell.

Climate Change has become a religion even as research and data eat away at the narrative. The Chicken Little number du jour is 12 years repeated continuously with no science behind it and no even unmanipulated data to support it.

You will notice the world expert on polar bear populations was just fired by the University of Victoria for debunking the Alarmist narrative when she released data showing the bear population is many times previously reported and places like Fort Churchill have a problem with overpopulation. That does not matter to the Climate Mullahs who demanded she be fired and the University did so. This represents everything you need to know about the veracity of the dogma.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
lgj
leif JOHANSSON 2
Ohh, Florida! I hope you can swim!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
At the rate the oceans may rise, I think walking speed will suffice to escape the ‘armageddon’ that the climate change alarmists predict.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
DGR54Rathborne
DGR Rathborne -3
sorry , i don't buy your denials . Of course it appears as though the divide will continue . But is such a high stacks game , you'd better be sure . We might not have the time to correct the damage when you are proved wrong ...Thanks for your response however . It is appreciated ........DGR
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
canuck44
canuck44 8
There were no denials in my posting, only observations and reporting of events. Of course there is a divide but the fulcrum will change. "Settled Science" told us the world was flat but gradually observations swung that consensus to the current thinking although a few flat earth types persist. Climate change however is ideal for the left as the endpoint is well beyond so they are able to peddle the dogma based on computer projections which to date 100% have been wrong. The problem they face is that everyone knows climate change is real, but what is not necessarily real is that man is responsible for change and skepticism is enhanced when manipulation of data, cherry picking, suppression of data and selection of advantageous starting points are exposed.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
JohnSteeleIII
John Steele III 1
USA doesn't want that uninformed idiot.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
SpaceRanger
Michael McMurtrey 0
"And a little child shall lead them."
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
mbrews
mbrews 15
- No. the little child is the one being led as a sympathetic stage prop, by unprincipled zealots who want political power to pursue a utopian agenda. Notice you won't see Greta being paraded anywhere in China. China is the largest, fastest growing source of air pollution. The shameless ones pushing poor little Greta onto Western nation stages are elitists, eager to dictate Everyones energy choices.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
I certainly could do without such ‘leadership’. She is a tool for the liberals trying to build their New World Order tyranny.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TWA55
TWA55 1
Poor Greta, Not sure how the proverb goes, but something like this, one should leave thoughts to the mind rather then expressing out loud and showing the world your true ignorance.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
upchucked
C. WESLEY GRADY -4
Great opportunity to make yourselves stand out in the crowd. Pick out a Nobel Peace prize nominee, who is autistic but who is so engaging that she has been invited to address the UN on Climate Change issues, and then target her with an ad campaign to push for allowing multiple pollution models. This is a really smart, no, make that a genius operation. Please be sure and claim your prize for coming up with the entire campaign. Please.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
StA45
Patricia Lewis 1
A total waste of money
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
DGR54Rathborne
DGR Rathborne -3
I find it surprising that this young Lady , who has my personal support has been drawing such high powered putdowns . If what Greta has been speaking , is patently un true , no one would pay her any attention . Global warming and climate change is here . Wishing it away , will not change this fact . And please don't show your ignorance by telling me it is cold and snowing outside your door , and therefore it is all Lies !! IATA oddly enough trotted out their Stats about pollution , but also deny Greta's are wrong .Carbon based ,oil based fuels will have to be reduced ........Thats my position ..I'd like to hear any comments .....DGR
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger -1
Your surprise is due to you not attempting to understand what is really going on, but just accepting what people tell you. Open your mind, start asking good questions, probe deep. You mischaracterize those you feel are your adversaries as being idiots and therefore make no effort to understand things from all perspectives.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 1
No... they are idiots. Belief requires the suspension of critical thought, which is what deniers do.

Same requirement to believe in Santa Claus.

Odd that none have the credentials to critique climate science work, yet feel it’s their duty to do so anyway. SMH.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 0
You seem to have a theme going here. “If you don’t agree with my beliefs, you are an idiot.” Very wise...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 1
Congrats on missing the obvious. Science isn't belief, which was my point. Being a denier is much like believing in Santa Claus. All the evidence points to him not existing, yet you want to BELIEVE, so you do. You apparently accept Bernoulli's Principle, because you accept that a plane can fly. Yet you can't accept science that doesn't fit your narrative?

In the case of climate change denialism, it's mostly about fear... fear of the future, fear of not being in control. Fear that can't be overcome - mostly due to cowardice.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger -1
You have missed the obvious. Climate ‘science’ is not science. Which is one of the reasons there is so much reliance on consensus. Consensus is the only thing left when science doesn’t work.

You give yourself away by labeling others. Only those who can’t substantiate their beliefs do that.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 1
Climate science is absolutely 'science'. If you have a hard time accepting that, I really don't know what to tell you. Perhaps check with your doctor and see if he has any spare parts for your head?

Here... let me label you. 'Complete Moron'

Except your comments have already given you that label on their own.

JFC
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger -3
Oh Brock, when you cannot justify your position, you resort to name calling, it is a natural reaction when one’s religion is challenged. Another sign that ‘climate science’ is more religion than science. I will not do you the same disservice, but will instead do what is right. I will use facts and good reasoning to suggest how you are wrong.

Here is the first definition of ‘science’ from the dictionary that I received in college. (Yes, believe it or not, I did go, and earned an engineering degree).

science (noun) 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomenon.

What from this definition is missing from what you refer to as ‘climate science’? The climate does not lend itself to experimental investigation, which is a cornerstone of real science. Without the ability to experiment, one is left with unfounded theories that cannot be scientifically proven.

Here is another good definition to consider, that for the ‘scientific method’, as provided by Wikipedia:

“The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3]”

Two very important points you should consider. 1. The scientific method REQUIRES experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypothesis. Without that THERE IS NO PROOF and NO SCIENCE. Who has been able to conduct such experiments on the climate? Hence, the scientific method cannot be applied, which means there is no true science, and what we are left with is speculation and ‘consensus’, which is the buzz word today used extensively in place of real scientific proof. 2. One must apply rigorous skepticism as part of the scientific method. I am doing that! And you abuse me for it. You, my friend, apparently are no fan of the scientific method and science in general.

Open your mind. Don’t blindly accept the baloney you are being force fed. Ask intelligent questions, learn to reason and make intelligent conclusions. It is much more satisfying than just calling people ‘Complete Morons’ that you have no desire and have made no effort to understand.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jdriskell
James Driskell 3
I might remind Brock Nanson that it's difficult to engage in a battle of wits with someone who comes to the show unarmed. Climate change is evidenced all over the globe with positive proof that is available for any one who is willing to open their eyes and remember how conditions have changed during their lives.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 2
Ha! Yes, James, I agree. My mother always told me I was unable to suffer fools. I freely admit this to be the case and I will often take on this sort of 'discussion' as entertainment. Deniers inevitably retreat to strawman nonsense, such as this definition of science! I wonder who went to the sun to do experimental investigation to determine its composition and reaction... *for sure*...? LOL... I guess we can't accept the science relating to it either.

Worse yet, he says he graduated from an engineering program. I find that quite disappointing, since engineers are in fact, Applied Scientists. To be unable to understand and accept science and call yourself an engineer is - at the very least - eyebrow raising. I can only hope he isn't practicing as a P.E. anywhere.

I've had my fun with him... triggering the strawman stuff is an indication the battle is done!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 0
I did not engage in creating a straw man. You claimed that climate science was true science and I used accepted definitions of science to refute your claim.

I’m open to criticism, but so far your aim is at me personally than at what I say.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger -2
If there was any evidence of wits from Brock, perhaps it would be a battle. I don’t count name calling as ‘wits’. As for your suggestion, you have proposed a straw man to strike down, rather than addressing my well reasoned and substantiated assertions. I have never denied that the climate changes. My other posts indicate that I agree the evidence very strongly suggests that it has changed for at least a billion years. My belief is that it will continue to change.

A significant problem with those who allow themselves to get caught up in the climate alarmism is that, to continue to believe as they desire, they must assign ridiculous assertions to others so that they can close their mind and ignore them. Please don’t do that, it does not serve you well.

If you have a problem with the content of my post, with either assumptions, information, reasoning, or conclusions, then state it. Otherwise I will make the reasonable assumption that you are the one who was arrived unarmed.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 0
It is not the aviation industry that is the big polluters. Back when I was an automobile mechanic, I was also an emissions testing technician in the Metro Atlanta area. We had to take classes to get certified to do such. There are many different sources of hydrocarbon emissions and it isn't just airplanes as noted in the article. Mobile and stationary devices or businesses all contribute.

Why does Southern California have such long commute times? https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/11/06/survey-la-ranks-1-most-stressful-commute-in-us/

Why is the commute around Metro Atlanta so bad? https://atlanta.curbed.com/2018/6/22/17492552/atlanta-traffic-commutes-nation-study

Due to the kind of work I do, I have no choice but to drive as an inspector. It has taken me 1.5 hours to drive 15 miles, through the middle of Atlanta, east to west trying to avoid the choked interstates at rush hour. There are those who sit in traffic for up to 2 hours.

What do both SoCal and Metro Atlanta have in common? Educated peoples who live outside of Atlanta or LA (or any other number of cities in SoCal) and thought it better to drive so far than live closer to work due to possible other issues.

I have asked what people are willing to give up to help combat climate change and the biggest thing people will not give up are their own motor vehicles. They also do not want to forgo electricity, even if from some sort of hydrocarbon powered plant. No one wants to push for more nuclear power plants to wean ourselves off of coal or some type of fuel. Until those who want people to give up flying gets rid of their own pollution creating devices and move into a cave, don't try to tell others what or how they can use for their lives.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ravanviman
hal pushpak -1
DGR, See my comments in response to Mark and Dan above. We are definitely in a minority on this forum!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson -4
Which I find incredibly disheartening. There should be more intellectual power in this group, yet the comments suggest exactly the opposite. Very sad.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger -1
And there’s another one!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson -3
Interesting how grown men are so easily triggered by a 16 year old girl... says more about them than it does about her.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
raphaelsv
raphaelsv -1
A bunch of old men yelling at a 16 year old girl trying to make the world a better place by doing pretty much the only thing she can in the face of governments and corporations unwilling to change themselves because of money. Calling her names, insulting her conditions, calling her a puppet, putting it all down as a conspiracy because youre too god damn dumb to draw any other conclusions. You all should take a good look in the mirror. Disgusting that the aviation community is filled with such narrow minded bigots like we see in the comments here. Sure we can accuse her of being hypocritical taking planes and all, but even the inventor of the combustion engine had to use horse and carriage to get around first. Its not about her, and shes said that mulitple times. Its about listening to scientist. Im sure the aviation community has the common sense to believe people who know what they are doing, given the nature of what pilots do for a living. You all should hang your heads in shame and i hope someone lets you know to your face how moronic you sound
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 5
Well, lead the way! Park your car, shut off your computer and chargers for every device you have (forever), no more flying, grow your own food, and the biggest "climate offender" -- no more Air Conditioning for you. Oh also, no more breathing (too much CO2, that giant portion of our atmosphere).

Let us know how it goes!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
raphaelsv
raphaelsv -1
You just proved how stupid you all are. I never said anything about what youre commenting about. I realize the reality of the situation. I get it. Im not gona stop flying. The point is you people keep shitting on a 16 year old girl who is trying to raise AWARENESS. Its silly how many people dont realize that. And it seems all the replies to my comment prove that. Christ. Im not gona repeat myself, just take a good, critical, look at whats happening and get back to me...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tahoe967
Buster Chappell 5
The problem is that the little turd is trying to make us aware of something that has been going on for millions of years - climate change! The f---ing climate is going to change whether we like it or not and we will not be able to do anything about it! Do some f---ing research!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
I have done what you ask. You should also do the same. Think about this. Why is Greta getting all this attention? Is it because she is a leader in the field of climate study? Is it because she has invented novel methods of ‘solving’ climate change? Is it because of demonstrated ability to solve complex problems?

No.

It is precisely because she is a 16-year-old girl with handicaps. Someone that emotionally driven people have a hard time criticizing. And you have fallen for it. Your comments prove that.

If you want to be respected, pick a standard bearer that knows what they are talking about. The only thing that Greta knows is what the alarmists have told her, and she parrots it faithfully. No someone, in my opinion, who is worth listening too.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
raphaelsv
raphaelsv 0
Listen, man, its only people like you who think its because shes mentally handicapped. Its your excuse to lambast her for taking a flight for speaking at the UN. Most people who heard of her never knew she had these conditions. Its irrelevant to why she was there. Its only now that you know who she is that youre saying that. Her story was that she wanted to raise awareness about climate change, organized a protest at her own school that caught attention. This attention caught worldwide attention. Thats why she was invited to speak, because she became the voice of thousands if not millions of chlidren protesting for lawmakers to make a change. Think about that for a second. You, and i mean you personally, caught on cause some social media influence taught you to believe she was only there cause she was ”a person with asbergers and funded by soros”. Jesus man, its unfathomable how gullible people are to this propaganda that tries to blacklist people, and blacklist a child who wanted to get the attention of her local government.

My point is that its a child who did the only thing a child can do and its a god damn miracle it caught even the attention it has now. I know flying accounts for 2,5% of emissions. I still fly. Im going to a flight academy. Im not ignorant to whats being portrayed as bad to what is actually bad. My problem is you people calling her an asbergers kid who only got attention cause of some weird US political shit. No man. Read up on the story, read what she tried to accomplish before you even knew her fucking name.

I realise youre a real american guy with the facts, but try to understand the situation beyond what is on the surface
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
I have read up on her, why do you assume that I didn’t. I knew already all that you are trying to tell me.

Think about this. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of others who consider themselves advocating for efforts to combat human caused climate change. Why is it that someone who knows the least is picked by so many as the standard bearer?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tsilver473
Tony Silverstrå 1
Do you know gresus is big, she can also see things normal people can*t, she*s a big fake, can*t answer questions from journalists
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger -1
And the hypocrisy continues.... Yelling insults at those who insult. Real mature...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson -3
Excellent comments Raphael. And I see you triggered the biggest troll in the thread too... LOL... he's easily triggered. Must be lonely in his mother's basement.

I too am disgusted by the childish behaviour of the deniers and the hypocrisy of their comments. Why they're so panicked by a 16 year old speaking truth is beyond me!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
Raphael’s ‘excellent comments’ were only insults. And then you continue to insult as well.

For those without facts or sound reasoning, it is the only strategy...

Well played, my friend.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 0
Well, let's see... "old men yelling at a 16 year old girl trying to make the world a better place"... you're an old man, you're essentially yelling at a 16 year old girl (oddly triggered by her, actually...). And you yourself have produced exactly zero in the way of supportable facts.

What exactly is it that you're trying to prove again?? I think I've missed it in all the obfuscation you're using to dance around the reality of being scared of change... and apparently, 16 year old girls!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
If you understand real science, it is the duty of those proposing theories to produce the facts and proof. I am only calling out that there is no proof to suggest global disaster from climate change.

You seem to support those who suggest that there is, so the burden of proof is on you.

And, per your repeated mode of operation, you will not provide anything useful.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 1
Science works through hypothesis and efforts to prove or disprove. There has been essentially nothing to disprove accepted climate science, save for a few discredited and deeply flawed papers by the people you seem to follow blindly.

But I get it. Much easier to wake up and face the day if you can fool yourself into thinking everything is rosy. No brains, no headaches.

Probably best that you continue life with your blinders on. They're necessary to accept religion too, and I'll wager you're really worried about where you go after death. The notion that there's nothing beyond is probably terrifying.

And I'm sure the idea that we're living in a simulation probably panics you completely... that definitely doesn't track with mainstream religious indoctrination!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 0
“There is nothing to disprove accepted climate science?” What you call “accepted climate science” remains unproven. What you are saying is “there is nothing to disprove what has not been proven”. Isn’t the burden of proof on those who propose the theory?

Of course, if there is no proof, those who are NOT scientists will say, “Well, YOU prove it isn’t true!” But, that’s not how science works.

Bring the proof substantiating the theory or be silent. Your suggestion that it is “just out there” when you don’t provide it suggests you accept whatever you read on the internet.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 1
It's about disproving theories Danny. You haven't even managed to begin to do so, mostly because you don't know how, but also because you can't.

Perhaps just crawl back in your denialist's cave and contemplate how God will judge you for not using the brain he gave you to good purpose.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tomspann
Tom Spann -4
you cannot fix stupid You are beyond help
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 1
Ok then.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
GaAubie
Ken Hardy -2
A major cold wave is sweeping in over the middle and eastern part of the US, predictions are that records will be broken and we have global warming to thank for this, Greta and AOC told us the world will be finished in 12 years, now its down to 10. Time to quit pooping which adds to the CO2 level, throw away those clothes which also add to the CO2, go naked, you will be saving the planet
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
royhunte92
Roy Hunte 5
I wonder what happened to the 'scientists' in the 70s and 80s that predicted that by 2008 the human race would have died out because of the 'rapidly cooling earth', methinks that the current alarmists are on the same trane of thought just on the other end of the thermometer.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
There will always be those who, in their quest for power, will create ‘emergencies’ that can only be solved by creating a tyranny.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ba4563070
Cindy Savage -4
SMH. All the "strawman" arguments invoked by the mere mention of a 16 year old. I'm thinking many of you agree with her but you can't voice your aupport for fear of losing tribal membership.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger -1
Then you commit the error of underestimating others...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mweiserny
Mark Weiser 0
Amen Roger, but I had to poke him
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
tahoe967
Buster Chappell -1
Greta is a robot repeating what f---ed up adults tell her!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 1
Lets not fuel back up this heated discussion that was finished a week ago. Please.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 1
Going out on a limb here... admittedly, a really thick and strong one... but I'm guessing you voted for Trump, right? Probably a member of the NRA? Coal roll for fun on weekends? Maybe sporting a mullet?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
More strategies employed by the uninformed and unreasoned. How about sharing some science rather than insults?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 1
Ah there you are, Pookie Bear! I've missed you!

You want science? You apparently have a computer. Check out this link! https://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+do+the+scientists+say+about+climate+change
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 0
I checked it out. I found no real science. Instead, I found an avalanche of ‘consensus’. The religious alternative to real science.

Real science is backed by hypothesis that have been experimentally proven. Got any of that? Anything else is just a theory, and as such, REAL SCIENCE says we should all be doubters. Unless, of course, you’ve become a religious convert to the cause, which is how you present yourself.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 1
LOL... clearly you didn't look very hard. Or it's you with a religious fervor towards seeking and believing in fairy tales, like the Tooth Fairy and God.

I don't think you can be helped, frankly... stupid can't be fixed.

Bye!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
You have offered no scientific proof of climate Armageddon. And you cannot, because it does not exist. Your blind faith in unproven theories is astounding. Beyond belief in the Tooth Fairy I would suggest.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
brocknanson
Brock Nanson 0
Sigh... stupidity abounds...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

brock55
brock55 24
Based on your statement the same could be said about all the cars on the road. All are headed in the same direction on the highway. If airplanes, according to the article are only 2.5%, then where is the rest coming from? Aviation is easy to blame but not the major problem.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 4
Hey, social media 'shaming' is a lot worse than this. There is more problems that need to be figured out, not just flight shaming.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 5
Not saying anything against @brock55. Totally agree.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
realgoes
Ron Goes 1
It's statistically impossible to fill all flights. Airline load factors easily show at least 70% of seats filled. The RJs aren't always full but they burn close to turboprop fuel burns and a lot less fuel per seat on the shorter sectors. That's per seat.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ebrites
scott ebrite 7
You don't fly or get out much, do you?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 0
aka hermit
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
N3055C
Joseph Crecente 2
You need to start marking your comments as sarcasm, otherwise people will think you actually believe this. :)
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 1
Think of the thousands of factories belching out terrible fumes into the atmosphere everyday... Plan exhaust wouldn't come even close.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 0
Plane*
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
waynej007
waynej007 1
Flights all seem pretty full the last few years I've been flying. Stuffing more and more people into the additional seats! BTW... its called competition.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss