Environmental disaster or golden age of travel?

Question

These days, everyone is very concious of climate change. Protecting the environment is a really hot topic and there are clear pushes by the Government to make us all more aware of the dangers of polluting the planet.

However, with air travel now being accessible to so many people that ever before, are we not turning down a wonderful opportunity to see the world, new places and different cultures?

Answer 1

Who cares what others think about so-called "global warming"? If it isn't that, it would be something else that they would be in panic mode about. Remember the panic over Y2K?

Do what you want, travel as you please, live your life the best way for yourself, and care less about what others think.

Answer 2

The climate has been changing for millions of years. I remember just a few years ago that a new ice age was imminent, now it suddenly is warming up. Tough shxt! No matter what we do to lessen our carbon print on the environment the Chinese will have doubled the output of emissions we save in only a few months. So now these people are trying to curtail our holiday plans to fly around the world and see other countries and cultures for ourselves.So in the end only the rich will have the privilege of air travel.

Answer 3

WRITTEN BY CHRIS W: "The Great Global warming swindle has already been debunked several times by many people dude"

- so has the IPCC's report on MMGW. anyone with an agenda can "debunk" others work and research.

The big issue everyone should agree on, if they can't agree on the climate is the use of non-renewable fuel for transport. Airplanes are behemoths of fuel consumption, and if they can't be re-designed considerably to utilise coal (200 years of coal remain to only 40 max of oil) or solar energy the world will splinter and there won't be a golden age of travel.

-LOL!!!! i've been hearing there is only "40 years left of oil" since i was 7 years old, and that was 30 years ago!!! so now we should be at 10...there are HUNDREDS of years of oil remaining...in fact, new oil deposits were found recently in the Gulf Of Mexico...deeper than ever before, and MUCH more abundant than ever before. that cache alone will be enough to sustain us for a century.

get your facts straight before you "Gloom and Doom" us.

Answer 4

In the UK the government run the Queens flight which is used by senior politicians when not in use by the Royal family in essence a fleet of private jets, how environmentally friendly is that.
Prince Andrew takes an RAF helicopter to a golf match instead of his car, Then his older brother sermonises to us about protecting the environment. Should he not talk to his little brother first.

Answer 5

We don't have to stop traveling or stop doing other things to reduce global warming to the point where we can deal with the remaining effects. Here's the plan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

If we reduce fossil fuel use in cars and power plants, where it's not necessary, we can keep using it for air travel.

The swindle video is trash. Detailed scientific proof here:

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way. If you go to their website on the movie they have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming. The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who says the movie is wrong and responsibility for global warming is (mostly) human.

So, why did Channel 4 broadcast it?

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

Answer 6

I like your point. Environmentalists are denying the lower classes of the world the benefits of scientific progress. They want them to live in huts and carry water.
Environmental wackos do NOT care about the conditions of people in third world countries. THe banning of DDT alone proves this. They knew it was safe. They banned it and killed millions.
CO2 is good for plants... good for the planet... and cars are the savior of the lower classes

Answer 7

Do a cost-benefit analysis. What does it cost the planet, society, your home economy, and yourself personally to travel. And how does it benefit the planet, society, your home economy, and yourself personally to travel? Ask yourself it it's worth it.

Answer 8

The idea that we are responsible for global climate change is ridiculous. The idea was thought up to prevent us relying too heavily on the black stuff, now it's all got way out of hand.

You can't blow your own nose for fear of someone commenting on it's effects to the environment, and trying to measure the carbon footprint your nasal debris leaves behind so they can tax you on it.

Answer 9

See it while you can Arch

Answer 10

Excerpts reprinted with permission from Tom Gremillion
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Global warming is a hoax, invented in 1988, that combines old myths including limits to growth, sustainability, the population growth time bomb, the depletion of resources, pollution, anti-Americanism and anti-corporate sentiment and, of all things, fear of an ice age. Those that espoused and supported the old myths have joined forced into a new group called “Environmentalists.”
Most environmentalists have no technical or scientific credentials whatsoever. What they have are major news outlets ready and willing to publicize their every utterance regardless of whether or not they are backed up by scientific proof. Atmospheric science requires highly technical knowledge and skills, not possessed by the vast majority of the so-called environmentalists, who yet feel qualified to demand that human activity subjugate itself to the whims of their new deity, Mother Nature.
Environmentalists claim that the Earth’s atmosphere is getting hotter. They claim that the polar icecaps and glaciers will melt and sea levels will rise over two hundred feet, flooding most coastal cities. They claim that many areas of the Earth will turn into deserts. They make all these claims but cannot substantiate them with real scientific evidence. Parts of the polar icecap and glaciers are melting but other areas of the polar icecaps and glaciers are thickening. The environmentalists base their “proof” of the existence of global warming on the melting areas but are strangely silent, even militant to the point of violence, if anyone mentions the areas that are thickening, and those thickening areas are many.
In the past, there have been many times when the global mean temperatures were warmer, sometimes much warmer and colder, much colder than they are now. Global mean temperatures are cyclical with the seasons but also with other normal cycles, as they have been for the entire history of the Earth. Scientific data from ice cores, tree rings and other indicators of global mean temperatures prove this. Human activity has never been the cause of these global temperature swings as the “global warming” advocates claim. If human activity was the cause, where were the SUVs, the power plants and industries in our historical past? They did not exist. If human activity was not the cause of these global temperature swings, what was?
The energy output of the Sun is far greater in one second than human activity could produce in a million years. The Earth rotates around the Sun. Its orbit is slightly elliptical. The energy reaching the Earth from the Sun varies slightly as the distance from the Sun to the Earth varies due to its elliptical orbit. The Sun activity increases and decreases with fluctuations in the solar flares emitted by the Sun. Differences in these fluctuation rates cause increases and decreases of solar energy hitting the Earth. This causes fluctuations in the global mean temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere.
In 2004, the energy from massive solar flares bombarded the Earth with solar energy. This solar energy caused heating of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. Most of the energy of the solar flare eruptions dissipated into space. The amounts of energy ejected were massive, much greater than normal. Had the Earth received a full blast of the solar energy from one of the numerous flare eruptions in 2004, the consequences to life on Earth could have been disastrous. The higher than usual amounts of energy that struck the Earth’s atmosphere did have their effects, however, including some heating of the atmosphere.
Then there is the eruption of volcanoes, such as Mt. St. Helens, ejecting dust and ash into the Earth’s atmosphere. The amount of dust and ash in the atmosphere varies the amount of energy that can cause heating or cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere. Volcanoes also eject the kind of compounds that environmentalists call greenhouse gases. A single eruption the size of the Mt. St. Helens eruption released more of these gases, dust and ash into the atmosphere than all such emissions by human activity since the beginning of recorded human history. And there are numerous volcanic eruptions yearly.
The oceans are also a major source of greenhouse gases, as are trees. Trees and other vegetation take in carbon dioxide and give off other gases such as methane, a major greenhouse gas, and a host of other compounds, many of which are also greenhouse gases. Decaying vegetation also gives off methane gas. Studies of smog in the Los Angeles basin indicate that over 90% of the smog is generated by the vegetation in the area. To aid in perpetuating the hoax, however, environmentalists, aided by major news media outlets, censored and suppressed this study.
Studies have shown that greenhouse gases produced by human activity accounts for around 1 percent of the gases in the atmosphere. The total elimination of human generated greenhouse gases would have a negligible effect on Earth’s global mean atmospheric temperatures. The elimination of all U.S. gasoline powered vehicles would reduce worldwide “greenhouse” emissions by less than 0.2%.” What would be the effect on global mean temperatures? None. Doubling of manmade greenhouse emissions above current levels would increase the global mean temperature by one degree Centigrade, which is within the normal range of temperature swings.
It is the fluctuations of the Earth’s orbit around the sun, volcanic eruptions, the emission of gases by oceans and trees, all natural occurrences, that cause rises and declines in global mean temperatures, i.e., “global warming” and “global cooling,” not human activity.
Satellite data taken over the past 25 years indicate no surface or atmospheric warming. If anything there has been a very slight cooling, on the order of 0.01 degree Centigrade.
Recently, astronomers have noticed a thinning of the polar icecaps on Mars.
Is this “global warming, Mars style” and do Martian SUVs, power plants, and industries cause it? Hardly, but the “environmentalists” think so. Some even blame it on us here on Earth.
Global warming IS a hoax. Those claiming that “global warming” is real have an agenda other than saving the planet from human activity.