A top executive of Dubai-based carrier Emirates on Thursday rubbished Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on climate change, saying he did not believe the film's scientific theory on global warming.

"Don't talk to me about global warming... I just do not buy it whatsoever," Maurice Flanagan, Emirates executive vice chairman, said at a regional aviation conference in Singapore.

"Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' is absolute rubbish," added Flanagan, who said he had watched the documentary three times.

More here: http://green.yahoo.com/news/afp/2007...imateaviationemiratesgorefilm.html

Lets see here.

We have an airline executive who will obviously say bah-hummbug to whatever is a barrier to his airline. What he misses is the issue that what he thinks is irrelevent, its what the person who buys tickets thinks.

He could spend money an a rebuttal film.. Why not after all he probably will still find it hot in the dessert either way.

Quoting JoKeR (Thread starter): "Don't talk to me about global warming... I just do not buy it whatsoever," Maurice Flanagan, Emirates executive vice chairman, said at a regional aviation conference in Singapore.

He means he doesn't WANT to buy it. Willfull ignorance of reality whenever that reality effects the bottom line? Sounds like a typical hard-core capitalist to me.

Why on earth would he admit it, I mean his whole company runs on destroying the environment. But its quite sad to see what it is doing to our earth. I always say (or maybe not me, but someone else said it to me) - it won't be the majority of you guys (Over like 30-50) who have to suffer the effects, it will possibly be in our age group(under 30, more about my age), when we all have children/grandchildren. Thats when we really start to take notice.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 1): We have an airline executive who will obviously say bah-hummbug to whatever is a barrier to his airline.

An airline executive in the oil-rich Emirates to boot. Of course he would be against what Al Gore said.

Hi!

Maybe one day he'll regret these words!!! I feel quite outstanding someone that is an Emirates top executive saying something like this...absolutely selfish and that not even care about Earth...very sad coming from the position he is! Would I fly one day ever Emirates? With a fellow like that in their management? Certainly not!!!
Regards

I know people will probably flame me for this but I totally agree with this guy - and I'm part of the next generation of people & don't buy any of this global warming/climate change stuff!

Quite stupid from a marketing standpoint. He should follow the tack that others are taking by acknowledging environmental resposibilities...LH is one of a growing number of airlines that accept responsibility. What a bozo. Will certainly think twice about flying them.

Quoting CV990 (Reply 5): Maybe one day he'll regret these words!!! I feel quite outstanding someone that is an Emirates top executive saying something like this...absolutely selfish and that not even care about Earth...very sad coming from the position he is! Would I fly one day ever Emirates? With a fellow like that in their management? Certainly not!!!

Did you ever consider that maybe he is right?

Quoting CV990 (Reply 5): I feel quite outstanding someone that is an Emirates top executive saying something like this...absolutely selfish and that not even care about Earth...very sad coming from the position he is! Would I fly one day ever Emirates? With a fellow like that in their management? Certainly not!!! Regards

IIRC, Ryanair's Michael O'Leary said the exact same thing about global warming ("it's a bunch of hogwash", etc.), so maybe you might want to put Ryanair on your boycott list as well.

Personally, I think that global warming is a real problem. And I'm not surprised that a top EK exec is in denial, either, given that the Middle East is a huge oil-producing region with a lot at stake, especially with alternate fuels threatening their petroleum interests in the near future.

One last thing: Keep in mind that coal-fueled power plants produce more carbon emissions than air travel, automobiles/trucks, and diesel-powered trains combined, accounting for 35% of all carbon emissions in the USA alone. That is where the real global warming problem lies, yet they're still being built!

[Edited 2007-12-19 09:09:29]

[Edited 2007-12-19 09:14:58]

Heres my thought on global warming.... its somewhat true,

I think we are just helping speeding up the natural process that earth has gone through, look back throughout earths history, this wouldn't be the first time the whole planet was baking. Then it would be freezing for that matter.

Anyway, of course hes not going to buy it, but I partially agree with the guy. Atleast airlines are trying to do something about it and companies with a biofuel.

While I think EK is sounding a little too George Bush (and I am a republican), I gotta ask Al -- if he's so concerned, why is he flying private jets and not economy?


Dave

Let me guess next up the CEO of Exxon saying it's rubbish as well.

...who gives a rats ass what an exective (of any company) thinks about Global Warming. What makes him such an expert that he feels he needs to speak out on it? I don't personally care about anythng he has to say on the subject. I'll leave that up to the real experts on the subject.

[Edited 2007-12-19 09:32:01]

Quoting Davescj (Reply 11): Let me guess next up the CEO of Exxon saying it's rubbish as well.

ExxonMobil did say that for a long time (and funded a bunch of groups to disprove global warming claims), but stopped funding to those groups and admitted that global warming is a threat earlier this year.

OTOH, BP, Shell, and Chevron have all said that global warming is a problem for quite a while.

Quoting Caribb (Reply 13): I'll leae that up to the real experts on the subject.

Like Al Gore?   

Quoting Hugo (Reply 7): Quite stupid from a marketing standpoint. He should follow the tack that others are taking by acknowledging environmental resposibilities...

Very well said!

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 14): Quoting Davescj (Reply 11):Let me guess next up the CEO of Exxon saying it's rubbish as well.

Actually, the quote is 15. Don't know why Douwd20 wasn't quoted....   

That said, Exxon will follow the money. Like any other biz. If alt energy is profitable, they'll dive it and sing its praises.

Remember, the Gulf states can't grow ethonol. So (obviously) they have a vested interest in oil.

Dave

Quoting FlyTUITravel (Reply 6): I'm part of the next generation of people & don't buy any of this global warming/climate change stuff!

As has been the case for centuries, there are people out there who regularly measure temperature so you don't need to subscribe to a theory. The recorded data show that global warming is occurring.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 15): Like Al Gore?

Like scientists who diligently study the issue.

Hasn't it been reported that a few of the main theories in Al Gore's film has since been proved to be untrue.
There are many news items on this; including:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm

Al Gore is just a puppet...

Forgive him.... Mr Flanagan would not be familiar with global warming and its effects....

He lives and works in a desert with summer temperatures in high 40's 'C! What global warming?!?!

Quoting FlyTUITravel (Reply 6):

Ditto.  

Quoting Art (Reply 18):

Yeah, but we have had an ice age.......... The earth cools down and heats up amd cools down simple. Im sure I read that a few years ago they thought we were going to have another ice age.

I can see a flaming coming on.  

Tom.

I have two questions:

1) Why would he say it - no PR upside for Emirates?

and

2) Why did he see if three times if he thought it was rubbish?

May DXB suffer from a lot of sandstorms and abnormal weather in the future.

Quoting Hugo (Reply 7): Quite stupid from a marketing standpoint.

Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe Emirates will be perceived as an airline with balls that will just say: "We are in the business of transporting people, safely and as cost effectively as we can. Period. That is all we can do. We'll get the most efficient aircraft we can find to do our job. It is not our place to determine if people should or should not fly or if flying contributes to global warming or not or if global warming even exists."

That is the position I'd take. If you want to hear about how you should change your lifestyle and fly less, go talk to the emasculated CEOs of BA or LH. If you want safe, affordable comfortable transportation for the trips you choose, come talk to us.

Whether "global warming" exists or not, or is man-made or not, he might be advised to get used to the idea that much of the world believes it to be true.

His present attitude may give him some difficuilties negotiating in Australia, say, where climate change is accepted by all political parties, right and left.

The Australian Minister (Secretary) for Climate Change may take a dim view of Emirates unless they can show a commitment to the idea.

mariner

Well, in all honesty what should he be doing, hanging his head in shame as the CEO of an airline? Aircraft that don't create pollution do not yet exist.

The way the whole Global Warming issue mysteriously falls along American party lines makes me believe that anything anyone says, either side, about it will have some fresh BS coating on it. Here's the way I see it. We have 2 options - we either assume it is due to carbon emissions and do something to stem those emissions, or we just say it's a natural process and there's nothing we can do about it and leave it at that.

Now fast forward to 20 years later:

If we have done something about it and found out that we were wrong, and it was entirely natural, then we have 20 years of research and technological development into clean and renewable fuels. We are far less dependent on foreign oils. The air is cleaner. Pollution as a whole is on the decline. People are now used to a more eco-friendly way of living.

Compare this to if we decide it's due to natural causes, and we haven't done something about it and now find out that we were wrong. It's 10 times the problem at 10 times the expense at 10 times the pain-in-the-ass factor to actually do something about it.

Since there are obvious differences in the reported science of the issue, I will take a neutral position. However, the cost of doing nothing and being wrong is much higher than the cost of doing something and being wrong. And that is why I will support any effort to get our normal lives cleaned up. Global Warming seems a rallying point for the global environmental movement because its direct results could very well be catastrophic. But on the whole, we must be concerned about everything, and the entire world around us...how many more hundreds of years can healthy life be sustained on this planet by 8, 10, 20 billion people based on our current records of per capita pollution & waste?

"In every deliberation we must consider the impact on the seventh generation" (From the Great Law of the Iroquois) I'll be dead in 60 years but my kids, and their kids, and their kids, and their kids won't, and they will be living with the impact of the decisions my generation made. Nuff said!

Quoting Ag92 (Reply 3): I mean his whole company runs on destroying the environment. But its quite sad to see what it is doing to our earth

Quoting CV990 (Reply 5): Would I fly one day ever Emirates?

I will assume that the two individuals who posted these messages are aviation enthusiasts vicariously, by way of participating in fora such as these, plane spotting, reading about airlines and the aviation business, etc., and not people who actually fly on airplanes. If they believe what they say, then flying on present-generation airplanes, whether they are operated by Emirates or any other airline, is taking part in an activity that is destroying the environment and therefore, if they believe what they have said, they have an absolute obligation not to fly on airplanes that destroy the environment no matter what airline. Or, to put it another way, if Emirates or any other airline "runs on destroying the environment," then anyone who does not want to be part of the problem needs to be part of the solution by not aiding and abetting this activity. In other words, if you don't want to be an accomplice in destroying the environment, don't fly. Either that, or perhaps these sorts of absolutist statements should be tempered a bit lest the authors come off sounding, well, extreme.

Not completely out of topic, but has anyone (country) started building levies yet? Bangkok, for example, already has a good portion of areas along the coast that floods during torrential rain falls, the problem isn't just rising sea level, but erosion of lands from sea with rising level, this would've been prevented if everyone started building levies early enough. Instead, we fund wars trying to loot for more oils and it amazes me how many (the mass populace) are so ignorant and complaicent about it. We can all learn from the Dutch.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 8): Did you ever consider that maybe he is right?

Emirates is an OPEC country that sells oil, and flys a huge fleet of planes. His idea of global warming is more useless than most because his entire country and business depend on massive use of non renewable CO2 producing fuels.

If hes right whats the worst that can happen? People build more efficient machines and waste and pollute less.

If he is wrong the ice caps melt,, Greenland melts and 100 world cities go under water, and malaria spreads to double its current infestation areas and more - plus a lot of other bad things. Irreversible bad things.

But you do realize that all scientists say he IS wrong, dont you ??

Not everyone is current with the latest global warming facts, so sometimes its difficult to argue science with uneducated people. I know several people who dont accept evolution and think the earth is only 5000 years old, and that Noah really had an ark with dinosaurs loaded on it. Try discussing global warming with them.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 8): Did you ever consider that maybe he is right?

he is not right,, that's a fact!

Quoting Cytz_pilot (Reply 28): Compare this to if we decide it's due to natural causes, and we haven't done something about it and now find out that we were wrong. It's 10 times the problem at 10 times the expense at 10 times the pain-in-the-ass factor to actually do something about it.

good post Cytz, i have to add that the current global warming is NOT natural, far from it. let's hope we just get a 3 C rise because if higher than that, let's say 5C, well then the hole planet better invest all bucks in SPACESHIPS...
Why : very simple, the methane gas reserves(bigger than all oil and gas reserves, used and left) gently sleeping in the Arctic depths. IF we get a 5C rise, the methane will come out of the ocean set into flames (methane is a much stronger gas than CO2) life on earth will NOT be possible for "natural humans". thanks to Grandpa!

earlier than most expect

It seems that 98% of the effort of environmentalists is spent targeting something that causes 2% of the problem. Even the Independent, a UK newspaper which has strongly supported environmental issues, acknowledged that sea transport is a bigger contributor to warming than aviation.

While I think MF went a bit too far, I think one can read into his comments a certain frustration with environmentalists; they are quite hard to argue with, in the sense that they see their words as gospel and do not accept any debate on them; it is hard to deal with people who are that doctrinaire and their tendency to paint any attempt to challenge their figures and proposals as corporate spin makes an open debate difficult to conduct.

I'll back up his claim,

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...om/NasaNews/2001/200112106303.html

Quoting Worldrider (Reply 35): good post Cytz, i have to add that the current global warming is NOT natural, far from it. let's hope we just get a 3 C rise because if higher than that, let's say 5C, well then the hole planet better invest all bucks in SPACESHIPS... Why : very simple, the methane gas reserves(bigger than all oil and gas reserves, used and left) gently sleeping in the Arctic depths. IF we get a 5C rise, the methane will come out of the ocean set into flames (methane is a much stronger gas than CO2) life on earth will NOT be possible for "natural humans". thanks to Grandpa! earlier than most expect

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 32): But you do realize that all scientists say he IS wrong, dont you ??

Do you actually believe that, that ALL scientists say he is wrong?

Quoting Art (Reply 18): As has been the case for centuries, there are people out there who regularly measure temperature so you don't need to subscribe to a theory. The recorded data show that global warming is occurring.

Temperatures fluctuate, but that's beside the point.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 27): Whether "global warming" exists or not, or is man-made or not, he might be advised to get used to the idea that much of the world believes it to be true.

I disagree. Global Warming is and always has been about money and power, and I think someone with the balls to point that out deserves great praise.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 27): His present attitude may give him some difficuilties negotiating in Australia, say, where climate change is accepted by all political parties, right and left.

Australia didn't ratify the Kyoto POS until the Left got into power this past election, so it seems climate change (term used since the IPCC acknowledged GW was flawed) isn't as accepted as you seem to think.

I could post many facts about the issue (like rises in temperatures precede rises in CO2 levels rather than the other way around, or that 25 of the climate models used by the IPCC to steer governments have been found to be fatally flawed, or that Global Warming is happening where neither man nor CO2 exist in appreciable quantites), but it doesn't take much time or effort to find the gaping holes in the IPCC's claims. It's easy understand why the IPCC and the "scientists" they have under them are so vocal on the subject - there's at the least BILLIONS OF DOLLARS at stake, and it's free money as long as they parrot the party line.

I'm sure a day will come when the IPCC reports will have to carry a disclaimer about inaccuracies and misrepresentations like Al Gore's movie now does, in certain parts of the world.

The earth hasn't gotten any warmer since 1998.

Quoting Art (Reply 18): The recorded data show that global warming is occurring.

Not since 1998.

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 36): it is hard to deal with people who are that doctrinaire and their tendency to paint any attempt to challenge their figures and proposals as corporate spin makes an open debate difficult to conduct.

Really? I think the people who believed the earth was flat and believed the earth was the center of the universe said the exact same thing about the "crazy liberal" renaissance scientists with their doctrinaire views.

But of course, Aviation isnt the biggest problem in global warming, and in fact its very small compared to automobiles and powerplants - especially coal fired powerplants which are the worst.

Its one thing to understand global warming will destroy cities and kill millions all over the earth while creating less healthy living conditions and droughts / crop failures for the rest of us; and then try to find the best solution.

But the problem with the Emirates boss is that he denies reality. He's just whining because CO2 limits will hurt his business. He cant complain that that global warming will eat into his profits, so he does the only thing he can do, deny global warming exists.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 40): Australia didn't ratify the Kyoto POS until the Left got into power this past election, so it seems climate change (term used since the IPCC acknowledged GW was flawed) isn't as accepted as you seem to think.

The (new) leader of the opposition (right) supported the ratification:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22842843-661,00.html

"Dr Nelson said the opposition would support Australia's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol."

  

mariner

I agree with what he said. The global warming thing is all rubbish and airlines are getting a bad wrap. Airlines will always look at lowering expenses and with fuel being one of their highest costs they will naturally look at reducing that expense item by buying fuel-efficient aircraft.

The "global warming" believers can stuff their arguments up their "you know where". It's about time some people started telling the truth. Global Warming = Y2K. remember Y2K?

Quoting Mariner (Reply 43): The (new) leader of the opposition (right) supported the ratification: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22842843-661,00.html "Dr Nelson said the opposition would support Australia's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol." confused

Um, from the article - "In his first press conference after a surprise 45-42 vote victory over rival Malcolm Turnbull, Dr Nelson said his Liberal opposition would accept the new Rudd government's right to implement policy."

Okay, they support the leader's right to implement policy. IOW, won't stand in the way. (what would the alternative be - I'm truly interested)

As to your quote, Dr. Nelson went on to say, "Whatever some critics of the Kyoto Protocol might think, it's symbolically important to Australians and I think the most important thing for us as the alternative government is to see that Mr Rudd gets it right," Mr Nelson said.

Symbolically??????????? Well if that doesn't just sum things up rather nicely, eh?

Okay, but I have to ask - since Rudd has been an open and enthusiastic supporter of Kyoto, how on earth could Mr. Rudd get it wrong? Are they making sure he can spell his name or something?

And, oddly enough, I seem to recall that Australia recently completely bucked the GW trend, measurement-wise. Had you heard about that?  

Quoting Alespesl (Reply 21): Al Gore is just a puppet...

He may be is a puppet but you can't ignore that he poses true questions.
The problem is : a lot of people agree about global warming and they agree to the actions to be taken.....but only by the neighbours!

Quoting FlyTUITravel (Reply 6): I know people will probably flame me for this but I totally agree with this guy - and I'm part of the next generation of people & don't buy any of this global warming/climate change stuff!

You are not alone. There was a recent paper signed by prominent scientists (about 100) at the Bali Conference that said Global Warming is a natural cycle with negligent human impact. They recommended to the UN that they spend their resources on stuff they can do something about.

Without making a conclusive statement like these scientists did here are a few thoughts

1) These 100 scientists are by no means alone. There are many prominent scientists in Canada, the US (including MIT) that see no evidence of global warming due to man made causes. There is a myth, propogated by the media and Gore and others that there is overwhelming concensus on the role of man in climate change. There is not. This is not disputable. Whether you agree with one side or the other to portray this as a scientific concensus is disingenuous.

2) Here are some obvious questions that should put some reason for consideration to any person of logic.
- The martian ice caps are receding also, just like ours. There is no industrialization on Mars (or if there is, it is veeerrrrrryyyyyy smaaallllllllll.........).
- The ratio of percentage of temperture increase (absolute, degrees Kelvin) to percentage of CO2 increase this century is the hundreds. The bespeaks a geometric/exponential relationship between CO2 and global warming. You would need an extremely complicated model to descirbe this effect, and at some point very complicated models take on a life of their own. This I know because my job in a former life was to model chemical reactors. This particular ratio is particularly disturbing to me because to ignore it basically takes us an extreme distance from an ideal gas behavior for mixture properties (which is how gases tend to behave at human temperatures and atmospheric pressure) including insulation, reflectivity, etc moving to a new equilibrium. A big mouthful for non engineers, but suffice to say, it raises questions about whether these climate change modelers are confusing themselves in their highly complex models. It can happen and scientists frequently make mass errors of concensus. If anyone has seen any data detailing how a ratio of mix change to temperature rise in the hundreds of percent is possible at atmospheric conditions, I'd like to see it. I'll be some of the 100 Bali scientists would like to see it to.

3) Another (I am a chemical process control engineer by training) aspect that intrigues me is Gore's chart in an inconvenient truth relating CO2 levels to earth temp over the past 500,000 years. Gore's statement (I am paraphrasing, but the text is pretty close from my recollection) "Look at this chart...temperture has bee tracking CO2 for 500,000 years...there has to be a relationship." If that is the case, Gore is essentially saying CO2 has been the sole driver of temperature variation for the last 500,000 years. No accounting for Solar flares, winds, geothermal phenomena, orbital or axis shifts of the earth, nothing. This causes a problem in the manipulated variable to dependent variable relationships because if thse other elements were at any time principal drivers of earth temperature, we would see a disconnect in the tracking. So shifts in CO2 are by implication driving Ice ages, extended warming spells etc. It begs the question of whether the relationship is in reverse. If CO2 concentration is driven by temperature rather than the other way around, then all the possibilities synch up. The CO2 concentration tracks temperature exactly as other phenomena like those listed drive global temperatures.

I am not an expert in climate change, but I am familiar with identifying variable relationships as a control engineer and all three of these things are obvious questions to someone with my background. Perhaps these questions are all addressed in the models or explained away. If anyone has a reference to something that does I'd like to see it. As proved by the Bali resolution, there is still legitimate doubt (more than a little) and I think there is more clarity required for the average person as to who these conclusions are being reached. If in an inconvenient truth is the standard of scientific communication for a massive global response effort, it falls far short of what is necessary. Something this important needs to drive a concensus and there are a LOT of skilled scientists, with no ax to grind, that aren't on board with this.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 45): Symbolically??????????? Well if that doesn't just sum things up rather nicely, eh?

It doesn't sum up why you have suddenly swtiched arguments. You claimed that the ratification by a "left wing" govenrment did not indicate widespread approval.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...tory/0,25197,22933614-7583,00.html

"BRENDAN Nelson is in receipt of two very clear messages on climate change. The first was delivered by the Rudd Government's new global force, Penny Wong, in Bali.

The second comes via newly released research showing how important the issue was in winning Labor government, and to dispatching John Howard personally in Bennelong."

So the attitude towards climate change by the previous (right wing) PM cost him not only government but also his own seat.

All the parties represented in the Australian parliament supported the ratifcation of Kyoto. How does this indicate that there is not "widespread approval"?

Specifically in the case of Dr. Nelson, you are saying that he has supported (his word) something with which he does not agree.

I shrug.

mariner

How do they know what the climate was like let's say in the 14th Century or at any other time during the planet's history?

How can they prove that this climate change/global warming is new and created by the industrial/post industrial way of living (us)? Cars, airplanes, factories... detergents... etc.?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 41): The earth hasn't gotten any warmer since 1998. Quoting Art (Reply 18): The recorded data show that global warming is occurring. Not since 1998.

tell that to the arctic ice pack. i'd hurry though, it might not be around much longer.

I didn't read all of the posts, so someone may have already said this, but the issue is not that global warming is occurring, but what is driving the change? Al Gore wants to blame man's activity and restrict human development. This denies all third world economies the chance to catch up with the rest of us. It would also send the developed world three steps backwards. The fact is that the earth is still emerging from the last ice age: it's always in the state of either warming or cooling. The earth's temperature is never static. That man may have added to the pace of warming during this current cycle is what the debate should be about. Some scientists even feel that CO2 is a lagging indicator of climate change, rather than a leading agent of change. The media is so taken with this issue that they have declared the debate closed, and all who offer a dissenting view are labeled as minions of Exxon/Mobil or some other economic entity with a vested interest in burning hydrocarbons. The earth's atmosphere is a very complex system that makes it even difficult to predict tomorrow's weather, not to mention conditions that might exist in 25 or 50 years. To say that one component of the atmosphere, CO2, has an overriding effect on our climatic conditions without taking into consideration simple inputs like solar activity and increased reflectivity due to deforestation does not give me confidence about the current media clamor declaring this an established fact. Darwin's theory of evolution and Einstein's theory of relativity are still just theories after all of these years. Although there have been many challenges to both, they seem to hold up under scrutiny. But that's the point: there are facts that at first don't seem to fit the theory, and after research and the gathering of much data, many inconsistencies seem to be resolved. Anyone who dares challenge Global Warming is shot down like a bug with a big squirt of pesticide. There is still room for legitimate dissent in this debate, just as there is room for alternate suggestions about how we should deal with the effects of warming. The airlines all have a responsibility here.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 39): Do you actually believe that, that ALL scientists say he is wrong?

There is a consensus in the scientific community that

a) global warming is a natural thing

but

b) the actual amount of air temperature change since 1950 is higher than it should be given the fact that stadials and intrastadials needed between 1000 and more than 100 k years to change from one to another.
In addition to that there is a correlation between the increase of greenhouse gases (by far not only CO2) / aerosols and the unbelievable high temperature change in this timeframe of about 60 years. All in all, it's all about radiative forcing.

For all of you that are interested in climate change:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf (summary for policy makers)

Some scientist don't believe in human forced climate change, but globaly collected data show something different.

I think that CEOs should admit that the airline industry is partly responsible for the increase of greenhouse gases and aerosols but say that air traffic is necessary in our times and that the industry does everything possible to save fuel and to reduce emissions. The choice to use an aircraft or the train or a bike or whatever is up to the passengers... if you know what I'm trying to say.




Edit for typo

[Edited 2007-12-19 13:48:51]

Somebody may not have read a book called: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth