LOL, I love the radar visibility chart, picking up the duck reference from the text. That chart is brilliant! 😀

“If… she… weighs the same as a duck… she’s made of wood. And therefore… a witch! A WITCH!”

If you really want to stick to that topic: Where did that rumour come from? And when was the maximum performance envelope supposedly tested?

At this stage and without evidence or substantial backing by trustworthy people in the know, I would simply dismiss that rumour.

Now lets see some real hard data…

It’s all GAO’s, JET’s and Sweetman’s fault! Really!

Oh come on, not that old riposte. Where on earth do you think the MMGW lot get their funding from?

The university institutes spending their federal budget as alloted to do research? At least that’s the way it’s done here in Germany. Sure, universities do contract research on occasion, but most of the research is done independently.

Quite apart from the highly dubious financial affairs of the current Chairman of the IPCC, funding comes from “interested parties”. In any case whatever the merits or demerits of the funding for the report I have not seen its findings disproved.

That report is a ****-poor excuse for science. Looking at Kilimanjaro alone? Really? A single moutain peak as some wonky pars pro toto for global climate?

Do correct me if I am mistaken. I don’t mean discounted, but, scientifically disproved.

There is nothing to disprove about MMGW in this “white paper”, because this publication doesn’t concern itself with global climate change.

No scientific research is altruistically funded. The IPCC and those of its panel who sign the report, few of whom are climate scientists, are there because governments and environmental organisations fund them to prove the theory.

Yes, it’s the big Greenpeace/PETA/Hemp/Solar lobby paying them off. Big Green. They stand to lose so much more money in this than Big Oil.

If interested parties did not fund research there wouldn’t be any.

That’s not the way it works here. We kind of fund research for its own sake. Universities and departments decide by themselves on how to spend their money.

There are two sorts of science. That which seeks to prove a set of theoretical criteria and that which confronted with a riddle seeks to find a solution.

Neither of those are good descriptions or definitions of science, nor are they very exact in their terminology. In it’s broadest definition, science is the state of knowledge, sometimes paraphrased as “unterstanding of truth”, and the practices to arrive there.
What the FF does in that paper and their general efforts is anything but science or truth.

I have noticed an entire Global Warming thread elsewhere so I would suggest this continues there,

Have fun there.

If you have not read this study, now 5 years old!! I recommend it.

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/Kiliman-MAC-4-8-04.pdf

LOL. Awesome. The Frontiers of Freedom.

Frontiers of Freedom receives money of tobacco and oil companies, including Philip Morris Cos, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.

Exxon Funding

According to a 2003 New York Times report, “Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times “They’ve determined that we are effective at what we do” and that Exxon essentially took the attitude, “We like to make it possible to do more of that”.[1]

Funding from Exxon includes:

* 2002: $100,000 for the “Center for Sound Science and Public Policy” (sic), $97,000 for “Global Climate Change Outreach Activities”, and a further $35,000 for “Global Climate Change Science Projects”;[2]
* 2003: $95,000 for “Global Climate Change Outreach” and a further $50,000 for “Project Support – Sound Science Center”;[3]
* 2004: $50,000 for “Climate Change Efforts”, $90,000 for “Global Climate Change Outreach”, $40,000 as “Project Support – Climate Change” and a further $70,000 for “Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change”;[4]
* 2005: $50,000 for the “Annual Gala and General Operating Support” and a further $90,000 for “General Operating Support”[5];
* 2006: $90,000 for “General Operating Support” and a further $90,000 for the “Science & Policy Center”[6]; and
* 2007: $90,000 for “energy literacy”.[7]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom

The Institute’s President, George C. Landrith, bemoaned that “not a day goes by that we don’t hear a claim in the media that a product we use every day an artificial sweetener, a pesticide, our cell phones is harmful to our health or safety”. The center, he said, would “help lawmakers distinguish between good science and bad science, between the kind of science that is driven by an agenda and engineered to produce certain results, and the kind that is based on sound scientific principles and techniques.”

However, what Landrith did not mention was that Exxon had provided $100,000 in 2002 specifically for the “Center for Sound Science and Public Policy” (sic) as well as a further $97,000 for “Global Climate Change Outreach Activities”, and a further $35,000 for “Global Climate Change Science Projects”;[4]

The earliest submissions from CSPP date from approximately May 2003.[5] These submissions did not mention Exxon’s funding.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Science_and_Public_Policy

Today, Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) wrote to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson lambasting the company for its inconsistency on global warming and urging the company to provide “full accounting of actual giving” to these climate skeptic groups, records which it has withheld from the public:

[…]

The support of climate skeptics, many of whom have no real grounding in climate science, appears to be an effort to distort public discussion about global warming…It is indefensible for private entities to fund phony science to create fictional “scientific” controversies where no legitimate controversy exists.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/18/exxon-global-warming-2/

Good going with your sources there, Joey.

AvWeek – Costs Haunt F-35; DOD Tossing Leadership

Yes, yes, the F-35 is tracking just fine, Dems hate the military, and JET is unreasonably pessimistic, etc. pp….

It amazes me how someone can generate so much paranoia by posting absolute nonsense. Quick! Aluminum foil hats for everybody so the evil :diablo: Americans cannot use the Haliburton machine to control our brains!

What a well-presented argument.

I’d be absolutely surprised if exported US fighter jets didn’t have obfuscated or underhanded code using sensor data as trigger for remotely induced actions. Anything else would be idiocy.

That’s controlled flight at 55°, not instantaneous max.

You make it sound like “controlled flight” and “instantenous max” are mutually exclusive. The dichotomy you seem to create does not help the discussion. A turn at max ITR would be controlled flight as well, but it wouldn’t be sustained. Both would be controlled flight.

Was “sustained flight” what you were looking for?