ralarcon Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 "China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, is under intense international pressure to reduce its use of fossil fuels. Although China’s leaders aim to reduce the country’s fossil-fuel consumption to 80% of its energy mix by 2030, they will not forsake national economic growth for the supposed global good. This is because China’s Communist Party knows that to stay in power – its highest priority – it must maintain the economic growth rates that have raised the incomes of much of its population and kept opposition at bay. China’s leaders know that GDP growth is tied to fossil- fuel use. " My point precisely ! And so, many other nations in the developing world, including India and Russia. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 "Our gas costs $1/ gallon more than the other states." That is making a significant difference in your monthly expenditures, I'm sure. You know how much difference it is making in the "Global Warming " trend. The answer is ZILCH ! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 18 pages of posts, looks like this is one of the most, if not the most dynamic thread the site has ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 And looks like a good one to walk away from. The only thing this post has proved since its inception is there are believes and non believers and would have been better served on a climate change site. Didn't see mention of an LSA aircraft in any post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 And looks like a good one to walk away from. The only thing this post has proved since its inception is there are believes and non believers and would have been better served on a climate change site. Didn't see mention of an LSA aircraft in any post. You must not be looking close enough. There has been 3 post in the last 3 pages that mention LSA, LSA companies, or responses to questions about LSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 And looks like a good one to walk away from. The only thing this post has proved since its inception is there are believes and non believers and would have been better served on a climate change site. Didn't see mention of an LSA aircraft in any post. You missed my posts on the internal combustion engines used on Flight Design products. Carbon footprint on them , even Pipstrel and Air Bus "Electric" aircraft were mentioned. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted December 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Quote from: Anthony on November 18, 2015, 08:02:20 AM I think there was a lot done by NACA before NASA. Plenty of airfoil testing is one.My 201 uses the NACA 63-215 airfoil, and I'd bet the wings on most GA aircraft are some derivative of a NACA airfoil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted December 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 And looks like a good one to walk away from. The only thing this post has proved since its inception is there are believes and non believers and would have been better served on a climate change site. Didn't see mention of an LSA aircraft in any post. Okay Roger, now you've done it, up on my soapbox I go! Should we discuss NASA or just walk away? We have a government of the people, for the people and by the people, we the taxpaying citizens of the United States own and direct NASA, NASA does not own and direct the citizens. As citizens we have responsibility to see that our asset (NASA) is used for beneficial purposes otherwise we cease to be a benevolent society. If NASA has lost its way then involvement by citizens is required to right the ship. NASA is a bureaucracy and becomes less about space and aeronautics and more about political correctness as time goes by. How will our next president know that many are unhappy with space / weather agencies who can tell congress to shove it if we are silent? How do our fellow citizens become informed if silence is the pc order of the day? Based on NASA publications my group (drivers in CA) now pay tens of $billions in cap and trade, its only the beginning and in no way can taxation alter the climate. If we don't discuss such trends we become sheep led to the slaughter (Taxation based on NOAA secrets) with barely a bleat in protest. For an analogy lets assume we are building an artificially intelligent super robot to serve our needs. Currently we are testing robots that are programmed to disobey if the instruction threatens the bots safety. When we loose control of the super-bot do we become its slave? We better figure that out before the time comes, no? Now that NASA and friends get to call plant food pollution and deem this pollution has to be controlled at any expense. We are slowly learning that we must doom civilization in order to save it? Just walk away? We are not lemmings, we are not sheep, we are thinking people and there is no reason to silence us. Respectfully submitted: Charlie Tango Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 And looks like a good one to walk away from. The only thing this post has proved since its inception is there are believes and non believers and would have been better served on a climate change site. Didn't see mention of an LSA aircraft in any post. It's under Random Thoughts...what are the limits of discussion under this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 It's under Random Thoughts...what are the limits of discussion under this thread? Point well made. However , sometimes the truth in a coherent well made argument, hurts. When it challenges our beliefs. Some of us would rather avoid these conversations. This discourse is what our American Democracy is based on. Honest people discussing honest issues, in a civil conversation. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Point well made. However , sometimes the truth in a coherent well made argument, hurts. When it challenges our beliefs. Some of us would rather avoid these conversations. This discourse is what our American Democracy is based on. Honest people discussing honest issues, in a civil conversation. Cheers Agree. But I do see the subject related to aviation given the symbol of the big jets the Global Warming goofs use in their hypocrisy. And especially given aviation is still burning leaded gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Agree. But I do see the subject related to aviation given the symbol of the big jets the Global Warming goofs use in their hypocrisy. And especially given aviation is still burning leaded gas. Absolutely ! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 And by the way, the point is that NASA has lost it's Aerospace roots and is doing more politically focused work (read correct), now than it used to. Thus eroding its original reason for existence. Again premature cancellation of the Shuttle Program, and focus on CO2 emissions is a change in emphasis that looks politically fabricated. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 And by the way, the point is that NASA has lost it's Aerospace roots and is doing more politically focused work (read correct), now than it used to. Thus eroding its original reason for existence. Again premature cancellation of the Shuttle Program, and focus on CO2 emissions is a change in emphasis that looks politically fabricated. Cheers Yes, that was CTs original point....NASA is our national aeronautics agency...it's original mission was to research flight for the USA...and it has been veered from that mission to do politics and activist crud on the global warming subject. which is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Must be NOAA and all the international agencies too. NOAA stands for National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Precisely the point. NOAA's job should not be NASA's job, that is why they are separate agencies. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 What was the point again? The point is the NOAA is about weather. NASA is about space and flight. If Obama is hellbent on wasting taxpayer cash on global warming it should be done at NOAA not NASA. Today the senate voted to repeal Obamacare and defund Planned Parenthood. Global Warming is not on anyone's radar except the hardcore left-wingers and they will soon be out of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted December 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 The point is the NOAA is about weather. NASA is about space and flight. If Obama is hellbent on wasting taxpayer cash on global warming it should be done at NOAA exclusively. Not spread and infecting other agencies. Today the senate voted to repeal Obamacare and defund Planned Parenthood. Global Warming is not on anyone's radar except the hardcore left-wingers and they will soon be out of power. I don't agree, if Obama wants to spend our money on global warming he should be constrained by a check and balance system. '97% concensus' / 'science is settled' is merely rhetoric, fixing global warming via taxation can't be done and therefore is theft. Now that we operate the government on continuing resolutions instead of budgets and any threat of legislation to control spending results in nothing but cries of 'shutting down the govt' the check and balance has vanished and we are not operating as a constitutional representative republic. When our constitutional representative republic returns so will the check and balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 I don't agree, if Obama wants to spend our money on global warming he should be constrained by a check and balance system. '97% concensus' / 'science is settled' is merely rhetoric, fixing global warming via taxation can't be done and therefore is theft. Now that we operate the government on continuing resolutions instead of budgets and any threat of legislation to control spending results in nothing but cries of 'shutting down the govt' the check and balance has vanished and we are not operating as a constitutional representative republic. When our constitutional representative republic returns so will the check and balance. No argument on the theory of government....but remember we are talking about a president that does what he wants, no rules, no limits, nothing based on facts, no separation of power, no need to please the voter...and that's pretty far away from the the ideal you describe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 "The point is the NOAA is about weather. NASA is about space and flight. If Obama is hellbent on wasting taxpayer cash on global warming it should be done at NOAA not NASA." Exactly right, why is NASA taking the lead on "Global Warming" and not NOAA ? Why is manned space travel so de emphazised ? Why was the Shuttle program cancelled before we had a vehicle to substitute it ? Why are we paying the Russians to hitch a ride on Soyuz ? If you know the history and traditions of NASA, using Soyuz is terribly demoralizing to NASA employees. (some of which I have spoken with). Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Welcome to the CT Flier Poitical Forum. For me personally, flying my airplane and learning how to take care of it is a lot more fun. Well , I agree but that is not the subject of this thread. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 When President Kennedy said, that he pledged the United States would put a man on the Moon and bring him back, before the end of the decade, he was making a political statement as as well as a technological statement. And he, actually, fulfilled that statement Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Welcome to the CT Flier Poitical Forum. For me personally, flying my airplane and learning how to take care of it is a lot more fun. Flying and airplane is only possible if the country is not under attack...and the economy is not destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted December 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Private Cygnus Spacecraft with NASA Cargo Makes 2nd Launch Try Today https://ca.news.yahoo.com/private-cygnus-spacecraft-nasa-cargo-makes-2nd-launch-182720292.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Flying and airplane is only possible if the country is not under attack...and the economy is not destroyed. Yes , I understand that General Aviation in Europe and Australia is restricted and more expensive than it is in the US, because of political issues with regulations. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Private Cygnus Spacecraft with NASA Cargo Makes 2nd Launch Try Today https://ca.news.yahoo.com/private-cygnus-spacecraft-nasa-cargo-makes-2nd-launch-182720292.html Not a manned space flight ! And a bit late, lots of technology and expertise has been lost, forever, at NASA. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.