Thank You Sir very much for your very professional input and comment. Really appreciate it .
Cheers
1 Like
Surprisingly, the sails are concertina-ed panels of FRP!! [ link ]
1 Like
Very different type of “sail ships”, but you may as well get used to see this on ships in the future:
No sort of sails will change the climate in any way. If the cost/benefit works, go for it, but don’t blab rubbish about it being crucial in saving the climate.
You misunderstand, they are NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE CLIMATE.
They are TRYING NOT TO CHANGE THE CLIMATE. 
2 Likes
The watch keeper will stay very fit trying to keep a lookout forward.
Still doesn’t work either way. If what you’re doing can’t change the climate, likewise by logical extension, it can’t prevent change to the climate.
There are no possible climate-related reasons for putting so-called sails on motor ships. There may be cost/benefit reasons, but not climate reasons.
1 Like
You know how to pick your sources to suite your agenda:
Source: https://adfontesmedia.com/zerohedge-bias-and-reliability/
In case you don’t trust the above, here is another assessment of Zerohedge:
Bias Rating: RIGHT CONSPIRACY/PSEUDOSCIENCE (8.1)
Factual Reporting: LOW (8.0)
Country: Bulgaria
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MODERATE FREEDOM
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
1 Like
Why bother responding? It’s as much a waste of time as responding to The Flat Earth Society. They cannot be reasoned with as they have no ability to reason. It’s the nature of cults and the brainwashed. Best to leave them in their fantasy world and let them be happy with their like minded
2 Likes
Sorry, but you are the world champion of that. And the word is “suit”, as in be convenient for, not “suite”, as in a set of coordinated furniture … just to add a few finishing touches to your otherwise reasonable English.
You expressed no opinion of your own, no thought, no argument that came out of your head, no acknowledgement of the evidence, no refutation of anything I said.
You just engaged in the classic misdirection known as “shoot the messenger” which means “treat the bearer of bad news as if they were to blame for it.”
Another expression is that your response fails for the logical fallacy of ad hominem, literally “to the person” or in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Use ad hominem and you lose the argument. That applies to you too @tengineer1, just sayin’.
BTW, Zero Hedge didn’t do the research, just commented on it. It was done by a group of scientists as you would have noted had you bothered to read the article.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
PS: I don’t expect the sceptics on this forum to be swayed by evidence.
I always accept verified evidence and I fully support any method of efficiently saving fuel, balanced as always by the costs of implementation.
My objection is, and always has been, the blabbing that these methods are saving the world from climate change.
P.S. I have yet to see the evidence.