And now we see the real emotion behind your desire to dismiss tech solutions.
It’s sad but I really think a lot of people would rather feel smug about the world burning than put out the fire.
I genuinely think a lot of the resistance to renewable adoption comes from people scarred that it’ll work. Modern chemistry is absolutely amazing, for some reason their successes upset people - you see it everywhere, did you go as far to reject the vaccine? That’s the same ‘it must be bad it’s science’ thinking.
The USAF have performed huge studies on SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) and have concluded they’re effective, reliable, and economically competitive - this isn’t some hippy idealism or scientific fanboyism it’s the cold calculated reality of the most advanced war machine in the world.
They already work, they tested them in all their engines and decided that an e-fuel made from sequestered carbon is the best solution - other saf have been used in transatlantic flights by commercial airlines for a while now, generally in a blended mix with kerosene but pure saf flights have been made.
It’s not common yet because we don’t have the infrastructure established to make them in significant quantities, this is changing with various facilities being built but it could change a lot quicker if there was a push to support transition technologies rather than a knee jerk anti science sentimentalism wrapped in fraudulent pretence of ‘but I read all the research…’ - this isn’t a flat earth, vaccines aren’t from the devil, and we’re not going to drop oil use without a viable replacement.
We need carbon sequestration, we need to support research into that rather than pretending to care about the plant as some form of dunk on progress. It’s just like the train line we tried to build in the UK, it would have cut down the ecological cost of cargo transport hugely and reduced the amount of lorries on the road significantly but eco warriors waged war on its construction attacking machinery, blocking it’s path with tunnels, and endless propaganda against it that got pushed by people who hate progress in any form.
And remember this is only one of the promising technologies, I don’t think it’s even the most promising tbh but its one of the easier to explain and is incredibly promising. You of course know know all this because of the regular in detail conversations you have about it with your double doctor scientist partner who has a very busy schedule.
Dude, I have an aerospace engineering degree. Excuse yourself for making dumbest assumptions. I have not rejected any science. Are you like a troll or bot farm, or just bored? Yes, my partner was at a conference until last Wednesday. She’s no longer at a conference, but I’m not going to go bother her with this frivolous internet argument. Eventually, yes, we will talk about this conversation I’ve had with you. I have talked about this very thing in the past, and she has said we need carbon sequestration at this point to stave off the worst effects of climate change, but at no point has she said we have a scalable solution to do it, or that she thinks we will do anything. Her research takes a very pessimistic viewpoint that we aren’t going to do jackshit about climate change, so we are just going to have to try to adapt to it, which honestly, I agree with. Humans showed through the pandemic that they weren’t up to the task of helping their fellow humans by doing something even as simple as wearing a piece of fabric over their face.
But, by all means, continue to make assumptions, and make yourself look like a presumptuous ass.
Ok so you don’t have any substantive arguments but a lot more calls to unverifyable authority - your wife is welcome to take whatever stance she wants but if the core assumption of her work is that no solutions to climate change will prove effective then yes that’s useful for understanding those eventualities but it’s not a good way of evaluating potentially effective solutions or determinng what is likely to happen
And yes of course I already know you’re going to claim that it’s exactly what she does and that she a triple doctor in advanced whatever helps your cause this time… Ok. It’s a shame she lost her voice and can’t help you provide any meaningful arguments…
I’m in a poly relationship with all of NASA and they published a series of studies on the chemistry and economics of carbon sequestration which said carbon sequestration is a vital part of combatting climate change - though I’m sure your dad works for double NASA
And yes of course I already know you’re going to claim that it’s exactly what she does and that she a triple doctor in advanced whatever helps your cause this time
I already said what she does, climate adaptation. Why would I say she does anything else? You’re just being obtuse now.
though I’m sure your dad works for double NASA
I mean, I do. But it’s in a completely unrelated field to climate stuff, so doesn’t really matter in this argument.
Right… where did I say anywhere in this comment chain that I was the world authority on the subject? Did you want to have a discussion with someone, or are you just bored and wanted someone on the internet to argue with?
I wanted a discussion but what I got was someone making up reasons they totally know I’m wrong but can’t provide any argument more compelling than ‘my wife said…’
And who lets remember lied in the first comment and claimed to have read lots of research into this but has now totally backtracked from that.
Where did I lie? Do you think I sit around reading research papers all day, or that I just read articles about it for the most part, the same way you do? I’ve looked up research on these subjects, and frankly, most of them are behind paywalls, bcz journals don’t allow people to access them without a subscription, or an affiliation with a university. So, no, I most just read paper abstracts bcz I’m not a climate scientist. That doesn’t mean I’m lying when I sat I’ve seen a lot of research on the topic. In any case, this is getting dumb. Have a nice weekend, thanks for wasting both of our time.
I don’t know but the effort you’ve put into making claims about your totally real and deep understanding of this subject you could probably have read one and actually learnt something.
You’ve so far made exactly zero statements that demonstrate any knowledge at all of anything related to the subject at hand, you’ve however written pages about how qualified you or your absent wife supposedly are on the subject… Do you really not see how this looks exactly like the behaviour of someone that doesn’t know what they’re talking about but wants to convince people of the thing they feel should be true because it confirms their other biases?
Do you think people don’t notice when you ignore every technical or fact based point I raise and instead focus on trying to bulster your precueved authority status? When you ignore the statements of genuine authorities in the field like the USAF and NASA do you really think people are going to see it and say ‘well his quadruple doctor wife who’s away at a conference said nuh so two of the most respected aviation authorities in the world probably don’t know what they’re talking about…’
And based on your claims this is the part of the argument which should be easiest for you to show knowledge in, easiest for you to construct an argument about - and no you can’t pretend you don’t have the inclination if you’re going to write so much about your wife’s credentials to try and convince me instead.
Of course she was.
And now we see the real emotion behind your desire to dismiss tech solutions.
It’s sad but I really think a lot of people would rather feel smug about the world burning than put out the fire.
I genuinely think a lot of the resistance to renewable adoption comes from people scarred that it’ll work. Modern chemistry is absolutely amazing, for some reason their successes upset people - you see it everywhere, did you go as far to reject the vaccine? That’s the same ‘it must be bad it’s science’ thinking.
The USAF have performed huge studies on SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) and have concluded they’re effective, reliable, and economically competitive - this isn’t some hippy idealism or scientific fanboyism it’s the cold calculated reality of the most advanced war machine in the world.
They already work, they tested them in all their engines and decided that an e-fuel made from sequestered carbon is the best solution - other saf have been used in transatlantic flights by commercial airlines for a while now, generally in a blended mix with kerosene but pure saf flights have been made.
It’s not common yet because we don’t have the infrastructure established to make them in significant quantities, this is changing with various facilities being built but it could change a lot quicker if there was a push to support transition technologies rather than a knee jerk anti science sentimentalism wrapped in fraudulent pretence of ‘but I read all the research…’ - this isn’t a flat earth, vaccines aren’t from the devil, and we’re not going to drop oil use without a viable replacement.
We need carbon sequestration, we need to support research into that rather than pretending to care about the plant as some form of dunk on progress. It’s just like the train line we tried to build in the UK, it would have cut down the ecological cost of cargo transport hugely and reduced the amount of lorries on the road significantly but eco warriors waged war on its construction attacking machinery, blocking it’s path with tunnels, and endless propaganda against it that got pushed by people who hate progress in any form.
And remember this is only one of the promising technologies, I don’t think it’s even the most promising tbh but its one of the easier to explain and is incredibly promising. You of course know know all this because of the regular in detail conversations you have about it with your double doctor scientist partner who has a very busy schedule.
Dude, I have an aerospace engineering degree. Excuse yourself for making dumbest assumptions. I have not rejected any science. Are you like a troll or bot farm, or just bored? Yes, my partner was at a conference until last Wednesday. She’s no longer at a conference, but I’m not going to go bother her with this frivolous internet argument. Eventually, yes, we will talk about this conversation I’ve had with you. I have talked about this very thing in the past, and she has said we need carbon sequestration at this point to stave off the worst effects of climate change, but at no point has she said we have a scalable solution to do it, or that she thinks we will do anything. Her research takes a very pessimistic viewpoint that we aren’t going to do jackshit about climate change, so we are just going to have to try to adapt to it, which honestly, I agree with. Humans showed through the pandemic that they weren’t up to the task of helping their fellow humans by doing something even as simple as wearing a piece of fabric over their face.
But, by all means, continue to make assumptions, and make yourself look like a presumptuous ass.
Ok so you don’t have any substantive arguments but a lot more calls to unverifyable authority - your wife is welcome to take whatever stance she wants but if the core assumption of her work is that no solutions to climate change will prove effective then yes that’s useful for understanding those eventualities but it’s not a good way of evaluating potentially effective solutions or determinng what is likely to happen
And yes of course I already know you’re going to claim that it’s exactly what she does and that she a triple doctor in advanced whatever helps your cause this time… Ok. It’s a shame she lost her voice and can’t help you provide any meaningful arguments…
I’m in a poly relationship with all of NASA and they published a series of studies on the chemistry and economics of carbon sequestration which said carbon sequestration is a vital part of combatting climate change - though I’m sure your dad works for double NASA
I already said what she does, climate adaptation. Why would I say she does anything else? You’re just being obtuse now.
I mean, I do. But it’s in a completely unrelated field to climate stuff, so doesn’t really matter in this argument.
Ok well you’re clearly the world authority on this, shame you can’t give any meaningful arguments…
Right… where did I say anywhere in this comment chain that I was the world authority on the subject? Did you want to have a discussion with someone, or are you just bored and wanted someone on the internet to argue with?
I wanted a discussion but what I got was someone making up reasons they totally know I’m wrong but can’t provide any argument more compelling than ‘my wife said…’
And who lets remember lied in the first comment and claimed to have read lots of research into this but has now totally backtracked from that.
Where did I lie? Do you think I sit around reading research papers all day, or that I just read articles about it for the most part, the same way you do? I’ve looked up research on these subjects, and frankly, most of them are behind paywalls, bcz journals don’t allow people to access them without a subscription, or an affiliation with a university. So, no, I most just read paper abstracts bcz I’m not a climate scientist. That doesn’t mean I’m lying when I sat I’ve seen a lot of research on the topic. In any case, this is getting dumb. Have a nice weekend, thanks for wasting both of our time.
I don’t know but the effort you’ve put into making claims about your totally real and deep understanding of this subject you could probably have read one and actually learnt something.
You’ve so far made exactly zero statements that demonstrate any knowledge at all of anything related to the subject at hand, you’ve however written pages about how qualified you or your absent wife supposedly are on the subject… Do you really not see how this looks exactly like the behaviour of someone that doesn’t know what they’re talking about but wants to convince people of the thing they feel should be true because it confirms their other biases?
Do you think people don’t notice when you ignore every technical or fact based point I raise and instead focus on trying to bulster your precueved authority status? When you ignore the statements of genuine authorities in the field like the USAF and NASA do you really think people are going to see it and say ‘well his quadruple doctor wife who’s away at a conference said nuh so two of the most respected aviation authorities in the world probably don’t know what they’re talking about…’
And based on your claims this is the part of the argument which should be easiest for you to show knowledge in, easiest for you to construct an argument about - and no you can’t pretend you don’t have the inclination if you’re going to write so much about your wife’s credentials to try and convince me instead.