http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60132
Best Plan to Save Sport of Hang Gliding
Swift - 2019/07/25 23:33:57 UTC
Tormod Helgesen - 2019/07/25 09:48:13 UTC
I'm risking shutting down this thread by replying to this but this is the dumbest argument ever for continuing polluting of the air.
But it was a risk you were willing to take to label a valid argument as dumb.
If your argument is the only truth then the discussion of saving the sport of hang gliding is a moot point to begin with.
(it's vaguely relevant because if the climate changes to much we won't be able to fly since we'll be busy surviving).
Your argument is totally relevant if it is in fact true. It may be better to split those discussions off into another thread but since it comes up so much I would like to know how prevalent your views are in respect to other pilots?
Without arguing the theories of catastrophic climate change, how about a poll on what pilots believe or think they know?
My thoughts on saving the sport depend on personal investment aimed at helping new people coming into the sport by supporting instructors, who are the main asset of our corporate model. New members are the product and the salvation of the sport.
I have to ask again, what would be the point, if your AGW theory is correct?
I personally don't believe the AGW theory is correct and even if it were true, any proposed fixes that I've seen aren't going to change it.
If 100% of our .06% contribution to the total of .04% atmospheric concentration (.0024%) could be eliminated, would it really matter? And at what cost? There would be no hang gliding and there wouldn't be much else. It would take care of the perceived population problem because we would all likely be dead.
I'm all for a CO2 discussion in another thread but how about a preliminary count of how the thinking pilot lines up at this point in time?
Tormod Helgesen - 2019/07/26 07:58:02 UTC
But it was a risk you were willing to take to label a valid argument as dumb.
But it's not a valid argument because it's false. It's just cherry-picking of facts.
You break down the facts into small percentages to make it look less bad, but ask yourself this: Whilst 300ppm CO2 has an proven effect on earths climate, what does a 25% increase do?
]But it was a risk you were willing to take to label a valid argument as dumb.
Yeah Swift. If the author of an argument states that it's valid then it very obviously is. Who better would there be to make that determination?
If your argument...
He's not ARGUING anything. He's STATING FACTS. And nobody - yourself included - is disputing them or questioning their validity.
...is the only truth then the discussion of saving the sport of hang gliding is a moot point to begin with.
- Fuck hang gliding. In this discussion we're dealing with global environmental catastrophe.
- Moot means DEBATABLE - not whatever you're thinking it does.
Your argument is totally relevant if it is in fact true.
Oh. You're expressing doubt about the validity of your position? So what's stopping you from checking the sources and making firm determinations? Don't know how to find them 'cause you get all your information from lunatic denier crap?
It may be better to split those discussions off into another thread but since it comes up so much I would like to know how prevalent your views are in respect to other pilots?
Who gives a flying fuck? Reminds me a lot of:
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31052
Poll on weaklinks
Do you believe taking off with a stronger weak link would be safer for your Aerotowing?
08 - 21% - Yes, it would be safer
10 - 27% - No, it would not be safe
18 - 48% - I already fly with the correct strength
00 - 00% - I'd launch with no weaklink at all, if they would let me
01 - 02% - None of the above
And then we knew exactly how to proceed, what kind of fishing line to use to begin a new track record, how to revise the SOPs.
Without arguing the theories of catastrophic climate change...
We don't need to argue any theories of catastrophic climate change. We just need to extract our head from our ass and look out the fuckin' window for two or three seconds.
...how about a poll on what pilots believe or think they know?
Hang Two minimum. And three logged flights in the calendar year. When you're soliciting opinions from pilots on what they believe or think they know regarding climate science it's important to weed out the folk who just gave it a shot one weekend to scratch it off their bucket lists.
My thoughts on saving the sport...
...run along the same lines as my thoughts on saving the planet.
...depend on personal investment aimed at helping new people coming into the sport by supporting instructors, who are the main asset of our corporate model.
Fuckin' nailed it. And only u$hPa certified instructors with current CPR certification. Otherwise you're likely to get shitloads of guys who've been flying for a few years who think they're capable of communicating stuff to friends who've expressed interest. One can only shudder to think of the carnage we'd see...
http://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=26715
Rethinking towing
ziggyc - 2019/07/01 22:52:10 UTC
I would point out that Nancy got a hell of a lot worse than a black eye. When she plummeted to the ground she was going an estimated 35-40mph and landed head first, herniating her brain into her spinal column. The helmet made it out just fine. She was brain dead instantly; 41 years of life and love....gone in an instant. She was kept alive by machines for one more day so that family and friends could say their goodbyes.
...if that course of action were permitted.
New members are the product and the salvation of the sport.
And fuck all those guys who were around in the first decade - flying solo and transitioning to the control bar immediately after launch on their first hops.
I have to ask again, what would be the point, if your AGW theory is correct?
Yeah, it's just Tormod's theory - nothing to do with the consensus of the scientific community and observations with what's actually now going on with every square foot of the surface of the planet.
I personally don't believe the AGW theory is correct...
And reality doesn't stand a snowball's chance in the hell this planet is rapidly becoming against your personal beliefs.
...and even if it were true...
And consistent with the consensus of the scientific community were saying and documenting while totally disregarding your personal beliefs.
...any proposed fixes that I've seen aren't going to change it.
Or even mitigate it - says the guy who presents THIS:
Swift - 2019/07/23 23:04:43 UTC
But again, what is the point if our .06% contribution of the .04% CO2 atmospheric makeup is going to end life on earth as we know it in less than 12 years?
.06% of .04% is .0024% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Is this correct?
If our life hinges on that slim margin what difference is it going to make if we cut 100% of .0024%?
arithmetic to show us all the contribution of fossil fuel burning from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to the present day.
If 100% of our .06% contribution to the total of .04% atmospheric concentration (.0024%) could be eliminated, would it really matter?
See above. And try running it by a seventh grade math teacher - preferably one from well outside of the Bible Belt.
And at what cost?
Obviously way higher than doing nothing and watching all the coastal cities and populations of the planet continue going underwater.
There would be no hang gliding and there wouldn't be much else.
Hang gliding - in this country at least - is rapidly plummeting to the level of near extinction - and there's not shit anybody's gonna be able to do about it after the decades of incompetence, corruption, sabotage it's sustained over the entirety of its existence.
It would take care of the perceived population problem because we would all likely be dead.
WE are all DEFINITELY gonna be dead in the not-too-distant future. And if you have fewer than two kids of your own - and I'm pretty sure the number you have is zero (and ditto for your Bob buddy) then you're helping put our species on the path to extinction anyway. But as our population would steadily diminish our prospects for sustainable survival would steadily increase. Our species has been around for a couple hundred thousand years - and for all but the tiny most recent sliver of that period minus any benefits from fossil fuels.
I'm all for a CO2 discussion in another thread...
...involving a few of those Davis has deemed worthy of participation...
...but how about a preliminary count of how the thinking pilot lines up at this point in time?
Sure. And then if the denier douchebags achieve a 51 percent majority we can continue doing nothing as all the ecosystems of the planet continue collapsing.
Tormod Helgesen - 2019/07/26 07:58:02 UTC
But it was a risk you were willing to take to label a valid argument as dumb.
But it's not a valid argument because it's false. It's just cherry-picking of facts.
There's no cherry-picking of FACTS. There's just this mind-bogglingly clueless mangling of grade school arithmetic that not a single Davis Show motherfucker - on either side of the conflict - has yet picked up on.
You break down the facts into small percentages to make it look less bad...
CHECK THE MATH - asshole.
...but ask yourself this: Whilst 300ppm CO2 has an proven effect on earths climate, what does a 25% increase do?
He's not claiming a 25 percent increase. He's claiming a 0.0024 percent increase. That's a THOUSANDTH of your figure. And that's the same in Norwegian as it is in English.
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10
Post Welcome to, and policies of, the Oz Report discussion group
Davis Straub - 2003/03/04 02:07:45 UTC
I encourage quality posts, posts that actually help the reader and would be of interest to the readers. I discourage drivel, nonsense and lazy, just hanging around, here-I-am-with-nothing-really-much-to say posts.
Sure ya do, Davis. Really hard to imagine just how far things would've gone down the toilet without your constant encouragement of quality posts, posts that actually help the reader and would be of interest to the readers and discouragement of drivel, nonsense, and lazy just hanging around, here-I-am-with-nothing-really-much-to say posts.
