Mitch Cronin

I just came across this and it made me smile... I hope you haven't all seen it already:

Lol... I'm sorry, but I have to throw this out there... Mr. IFG... I don't think I've ever told you how much I love your writing.. You make me smile every time you write, somehow. I can see your grins. I can hear your chuckles. ...and I feel like I can grok your point of view perfectly. ...at least until you frazzle me, that is. Then I'm lost. ?

I've learned not to trust my memory, but does anyone else remember an over-wing refuelling port existing on the dear old -200's? You don't suppose....? ...nah...

I'm just guessing, but that whole quote tells me you aren't giving much thought to the 'education' one acquires while attaining that ATP licence.... you're not a pilot, are you?

Exactly Greg.... So now, evidently, we'll only be able to count on one of the cockpit occupants to be possibly capable of that dreaded visual approach.

Well there goes the neighborhood. ... There you go eh?... Shortage, ah heck never mind, we'll just make it easier to get the job. I thought the idea of 2 pilots was redundancy? backup? safety? if one pilot should somehow become unable, the other can... ? So if the guy in the right seat isn't qualified to fly without supervision, where's that redundancy gone? Isn't it somewhat like saying the MEL was just amended to read: Engines --- 2 Required --1 serviceable, and 1 almost serviceable. or maybe it's more like: Engines ---2 Required --2 if ops normal Note:-- Any abnormal operations require 1 engine only

I obviously know very little about air combat tactics, but it seems to me that in a world with thrust vectoring, any fighter aircraft without that capability would be like fish in a barrel for any opposing force with that ability. Drones can probably out-turn almost any other aircraft because they don't need to worry about gee limits on a human pilot and they're much lighter than conventional birds.... But unless they too can be made with thrust vectoring agility, it's easy to imagine them being shot down by a craft with such ability. If I was defending an empire, I think I'd be looking for something with thrust vectoring, maybe VTOL capable, as many hard points under each wing as can be had, and some good old fashioned guns. ...in any case, it sure looks to me that in today's world, a fighter without thrust vectoring is as obsolete as a Sopwith Camel. Am I wrong?

Surely the argument can't be whether or not our airforce should have the best flippin' equipment available? ... I mean, I'm sure everyone here would agree that any Canadian Air Force pilot should have everything he needs, precisely when he needs it... So... the argument must be whether we think we need an airforce or not??? I don't quite get why anyone would think we don't? ... or.... was I wrong with my first assumption?

I challenge you to find a single post within this thread, from anyone other than woxof, which claims the science is settled? There has been only one repetitive voice of confidence throughout this thread... and now you'd aid him in re-writing his history? Most of us have been saying all along the trouble is that we don't know enough, yet there was always woxof, calling us 'believers', and "greenies"... ...and I got tired of looking...

Hi Choc, sorry, I should have said, I was responding to this from Fido: Those slams you speak of were necessarily rather narrowly focused. Their presence, and therefore their soapbox was provided for by that so called, "open federalism" Harper created, which is supposed to be so unifying. What business do provincial leaders have at a national conference? Their interests are within their own confines, but the issues are not. Harper's government brags that this new policy is part of what "has strengthened national unity and neutralized the tired old debate between separatists and centralists that has been holding Canada back for more than forty years." I don't think so. Any Premier's provincially focused rant shouldn't be seen as any indication of what Canadians are thinking.

You're still getting it wrong Malcolm, but you're closer to truth than Fido. Your, "some parts of Canada", should be, some Canadians.

Why Fido, because the likes of these guys are snivvling about lost profit: "Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of Canada, Jeff Rubin, former chief economist for CIBC World Markets, Frank Stronach, chairman of Magna/[Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of Canada, Jeff Rubin, former chief economist for CIBC World Markets, Frank Stronach, chairman of Magna"? "A recent study by a University of Ottawa professor and others estimates that 42 per cent of the job loss in Canadian manufacturing over the last few years resulting from the rise in the dollar can be attributed to our rise in oil exports, and identifies the computer and electronics, textile, transportation, machinery, paper and plastics sectors as those most affected. " Another recent study by a highskule dropout and others estimates that 100% of the job loss in Canadian manufacturing over the last few years, that has not been a result of bankruptcies, can be directly attributed to employers seeking more profit. Free Trade, Privatization, Global Economy, Shareholder Value, Investment Return, Cost/Profit Analysis, Average Annual Return, Return on Equity, etc... In the language of the triple C Conservative there is no Humanity. Seems to me a high Canadian buck is a damn fine thing for the average Canadian shmuck. And Fido.... if you don't like Canada, please turn south, and start going... write back when you like what you see.

... and some of us are just wondering if woxof ever speaks for himself? Regarding the article: These things sure make one raise an eyebrow. I think it's pretty clear there's dirty work going on in factions from both poles of the issue. Reading only what gets posted here, it certainly does seem as though the science is nowhere near as conclusive as had been reported.

It sure is an awesome picture! ...but that it gives you "so much joy" is a puzzle.

That's rather illuminating woxof.... Suddenly, if it no longer means it might cost you anything, or otherwise effect you, you have no problem accepting the idea of anthropogenic global warming. "Sounds quite reasonable" all of a sudden eh? Hmmmmm.

Actually.... what you just posted says nothing at all that would support that claim. In fact, it suggests a rather uncommon variation, and nowhere is "cause" addressed, or even suggested.

Woxof, I've already answered those questions. Once again... I believe we should do whatever we can to mitigate environmental disaster and to ensure the surviveability of future generations. If handing money to China is the way to accomplish that, then we should do just that. However, I don't believe that will accomplish anything of the sort. ... ...Now to address your answers: 1- "If I am wrong, then apparently there will be no Arctic ice in 5 years according to Al Gore, a high chance of nuclear war according to Gwynn Dyer and a planet inundated by floodwater " ...and these possibilities are ok with you? 2- ...I don't work for a multi-national corporation. 3- ...Re: "It sounds like you are hinting that most are trying to stop any climate change accord." This should show you exactly what I meant about how poorly you read into what others are writing... absolutely that is not what I'm "hinting". On the contrary, if you'd been reading and comprehending anything I've written, you'd know that I'm certain multinational corporations have a huge vested interest in this issue and very likely love the carbon trading game. I'm sure they're all quite pleased with very weak, essentially meaningless accords. 4- To the query: , you replied: Are you sure you understood the question? If you did, then you've pretty much admitted you'd devastate the planet if you believed it necessary to permit your own survival. You'd have identified your interest as being purely selfish. Which would mean your voice in this matter is worth only one in 6.8 billion. Many of us are trying to take our undeniable responsibility to future generations seriously, so in effect, we carry their billions of voices as well. If we don't leave the world in any condition for them to survive, we'd be guilty of a more heinous crime than ever before committed on this earth.... and we wouldn't deserve to survive it ourselves. 5- Birth control in the third world? But you also said "sacrifice by all not some"? Which way would you like it? I don't think you're a bad guy woxof. I just think you've misread a lot, and you've made a lot of assumptions in error. Have a Merry Christmas. Mitch

I did answer you woxof, you're not reading. To answer again in plain English: If anthropogenic global warming is truly of concern, and If we can prevent further harm by paying developing countries money (a concept I do not understand, nor endorse otherwise), then I would think we should pay as much as we can. But as I have repeatedly said, I don't think that's any solution at all. So the question - which again, I have repeatedly said, is based on the erroneous assumption that; if I think anthropogenic global warming is a reality I must therefor agree with sending money to developing nations - is pointless, but HAS BEEN ANSWERED. There remains some questions you haven't answered.... such as, ...What if you're wrong? ...and, are you considering the interests of the multinationals in this debate? ...are you considering their ability to influence the outcomes? ...are you considering the future well-being of the planet as second to the considerations of jobs and the health of major corporations? ...What solutions do you propose if anthropogenic global warming is indeed a reality?

Hi Handyman.... Merry Christmas. ....I have a bit of trouble with that 'but' comment. First, one would have to define "progress" don't you think? ...and second; Business, as it stands, is forever in search of growth. Don't you think there could be a point at which our planet's health will need to be the higher priority? ...you said "never". ?

Hmmmmmm.... ....Hmmmmmmm ....? ....Could it be? .... Woxof, if I may..... ( ) Your approach doesn't seem to answer any of the questions posed. Your assumption that anyone who believes this issue is important must therefor agree that we should be sending trillions to dictators and despots, is in error. One does not imply the other. I think the whole carbon trading scheme is just another way to distribute funds to countries that will use them to procure all sorts of new contracts with global corporations... while governments up taxes to pay for it all. Meaning, of course, it's another way to distribute wealth among the wealthy at our expense. ....and I think it'll very likely have next to no impact on our global environment. I do, however, think we need to follow up on the needed science, with sincerity and all the resources we can muster. Surely you can recognize the enormous resources available to those that could regret that process, and any change the forthcoming knowledge might suggest is necessary? If you think a bunch of greenies and socialists can mount a campaign, can you imagine the campaign the major 'multinational corporations' could wage? Do you not imagine it might already be at play? Their interests are very keen on this whole topic.

That was interesting. Thanks for that Moon.

Basically Moon, - and I mean no offence - it says that attitude needs to change... and it describes why it prevails, and why it needs to change.... and discusses what it's been costing us so far... and potential costs of not changing it. I think you could safely strike every reference to global warming, and take nothing away from the meat of it. ....and I'm not at all sure you'd disagree with it either.

Woxof, watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...95060267517042# and tell me what you think, will you?