RIXrat
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:20 am

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:37 am

Many so-called learned professors from major universities around the world bank their pay checks on the theory that the world is going to hell in a hand basket. If they said everything was going to nature's plan, they would be out of a job quick time.

Remember those same learned professors who said in the 70s that by 2002, due to the population explosion, there would not be enough to eat worldwide and everyone would starve. I guess they are in retirement now and living off of their generous pensions, but somehow I'm still able to type this.
 
LHRBlueSkies
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:23 am

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:10 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 47):
Just how do I conduct side negotiations with potential supporters on a given document under consideration at one of those week long meetings. A "side" videoconfernece?

It's easier to not do anything and say it's someone else's problem than try to change I guess...  Yeah sure
flying is the safest form of transport - until humans get involved!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:59 am

Quoting LHRBlueSkies (Reply 51):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 47):Just how do I conduct side negotiations with potential supporters on a given document under consideration at one of those week long meetings. A "side" videoconfernece?It's easier to not do anything and say it's someone else's problem than try to change I guess..

Cute attempt at a response.

Just for the record, we use transatlantic videoconferencing when we can. But you can't negotiate a document over a video link when over 70 countries are involved.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
skyhigh
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:37 pm

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:26 am

Quoting Glom (Reply 32):
Can't I offset by funding nuclear energy projects?

Obviously you have not done your research. It would take over 10 000 large scale nuclear energy stations to produce the worlds current energy needs. Even if this was possible it would use up all of the worlds uranium in approximately one year. In some cases it is a band aid solution but certainly not long term or on a large scale.

I am just astounded by the amount of people on this forum that do not believe the science. Do you not read the papers (other than tabloids)? All of the worlds top scientists have gathered and are 95% in agreement that Global Warming is occurring and is due to mankind and is not a natural phenomenon. This is in contrast to the last time that they met when only 65% could agree on this. In addition to this, Major business councils and organisations have come out and said that the financial cost of not acting now will far outweigh the cost if we do. A very important paper was released in England which actually put a figure on it. Business groups including prominent figures such as Rupert Murdoch (hardly someone you would call a dirty greenie) here in Australia are lobbying the government to put a national carbon trading scheme in place.

I am sorry that the majority of you feel the way that you do. Mob mentality replies normally originate from ignorance. Maybe you could learn a thing or two from the "dirty greenies" and should swing by them on your next visit to Heathrow.

Aircraft are amongst a group of large carbon emitters, shipping is just as bad if not worse, as someone pointed out. This does not mean that we should just turn a blind eye to aircraft pollution. Aircraft emissions are set to increase significantly. Air travel has become cheaper and opened up flying to a whole new class of people that would not have considered it previously. There is a growing middle class of millions in both India and China whose can suddenly afford to fly. Add to this Low Cost Carriers and more point to point flights. With this in mind the airline industry has a responsibility, just like the automotive industry, to reduce carbon emissions considerably and to do so more than that of the 787 or A380.

You don't have to stop loving aircraft and air travel to gain a conscience about the way we are treating the world.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:14 am

Quoting Skyhigh (Reply 53):
Air travel has become cheaper and opened up flying to a whole new class of people that would not have considered it previously. There is a growing middle class of millions in both India and China whose can suddenly afford to fly.

In other words, you want the lower classes removed from the sky, so that only the rich and privileged can enjoy flight?

Environmental elitism. Don't you love it!
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5193
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:18 pm

If I thought that most of the first dozen posts on this thread were depressing I can't find words for what came thereafter. Some sensible voices can be heard here but the majority of posts are ill-informed, willfully ignorant and offensive.

I'm not even sure where to begin. Let's keep in simple.

Most air travel is unnecessary. Much of it is frivolous. Here's just one example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6926569.stm

Prague has become (perhaps reluctantly) a top destination in Europe for British 'hens' and 'stags' to go and get drunk. They fly there. On aeroplanes. I question whether this is "necessary" or "essential". I suspect the people protesting at Heathrow today feel the same way.

Yes, there are and always will be legitimate and justifiable reasons for people to fly around the globe but the majority - yes, the majority - of air journeys are discretionary. There are almost always alternatives. The most obvious alternative is not to travel.

Is the world heating up? Well, some of you can wait until the very last scientist signs up to that theory but you'll probably find that by then it's too late. Any way you look at it, the clear majority of scientists now accept the premise that Global Warming is a fact and that human activity is, at least, a significant cause.

Is air travel one of the human activities that contributes to carbon emission? Yes.
Do we have the power to do something about it? Yes.
Are we "doing something about it"? Yes.
Could we do more? Yes.
Is it the only source of carbon emission? Of course not.
Should all sources of greenhouse gasses be examined and reductions made where possible? Yes.

I don't know who these people at Heathrow are or what ulterior motives a few of them may or may not have. (And nor do most of the posters here.) But citizens in a free country have a democratic right to protest if they believe that an issue needs to be publicised. If they climb over the fence, run across runways and lob paint bombs at taxiing airliners then of course they must be restrained, arrested and charged. But if they are attending a lawful demonstration, talking to the media, wearing silly clothes, eating lentils and naming their children Rainbow and Waterfall, then good luck to them. I fail to see why outraged and splenetic posters above are calling (I hope only rhetorically) for them to be beaten up, chased away or even killed.

I repeat, I'm a member of A.Net because I like airliners. I like looking at them. I like flying on them. I like reading about them. They have given me great pleasure for over forty years.

I also like driving my car. I like eating vegetables out of season that have been flown half-way round the world. I like the a/c in my bedroom that keeps me cool during a Japanese summer. But all of these things come at a price. The best guess at present is that the price is measured in increasingly unusual and violent weather patterns, rising sea levels, spreading desertification, and the prospect of human life being unsustainable in a century or two.

The problem may not exist. But I think it does and so do most educated people with eyes to see. The solution, if there is one, will be complex and, more than likely, painful. Part of the pain is likely to be (some would say, "should be") a more sensible attitude to discretionary air travel. It won't 'solve' the problem because no single action will. But it will help.

If that is the message that the protesters at Heathrow are trying to get across then I agree with them.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:34 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 55):
Most air travel is unnecessary. Much of it is frivolous. Here's just one example:

Wow. So now we have one example, and that means virtually all air travel is frivolous, in your opinion.

Quoting PM (Reply 55):
Yes, there are and always will be legitimate and justifiable reasons for people to fly around the globe but the majority - yes, the majority - of air journeys are discretionary. There are almost always alternatives. The most obvious alternative is not to travel.

Who died and left you in charge of what is and is not appropriate behavior for the rest of us?

Just curious.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
kellmark
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 12:05 pm

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:09 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 55):
Most air travel is unnecessary. Much of it is frivolous

This is a ridiculous statement on its face. People travel for three basic reasons. For business, which is very important. It keeps our economy going and standard of living at a higher level as commerce is the engine that makes it that way.

Also, for visiting family and friends. That is also important for most of us, as family members are often in different geographic places of work, college or because of marriage. I happen to want to see my family.Its important. And I don't want to have to drive 13 hours, when I can fly in 1.5 hours.

And, for leisure/vacation. I happen to think that this is very beneficial as well. To be able to visit new countries and areas is a life enriching experience. Not to just to get "drunk" like you say.

Quoting PM (Reply 55):
Is the world heating up? Well, some of you can wait until the very last scientist signs up to that theory but you'll probably find that by then it's too late. Any way you look at it, the clear majority of scientists now accept the premise that Global Warming is a fact and that human activity is, at least, a significant cause.

Again, this is a refusal to acknowledge the obvious. It is the refrain of "it is certain and you better not disagree with it". Well, plenty of scientists disagree with it. In fact this week, NASA had to admit that their numbers for 1998 being the warmest year were no good, and they admited that it was 1934 which was warmer. If you can believe that. Also, the IPCC, which is what all of the environmentalists quote, has also had to reduce its estimates, as its calulations statistically turned out to be flawed. The bottom line is that climatology is a very complex and difficult science, with a lot that is not even known. Another problem with the IPCC was they didn't even consider the effect of water moisture in the atmosphere. Gee, one of the most common elements found there.

It is a fact that the earth was warmer in the past, long before the industrial age. Dinosaurs have been found in Norway, for God's sake. They are cold blooded and could not survive in a cold climate. Vinyards were common in England in the Middle Ages before the little Ice Age.

The way to fight global warming is simple. Move the Earth further away from the Sun. But you may not like the result.

Now, no doubt you will disagree with me. But to be honest I don't care what you believe about global warming or climate change. You have the right to believe whatever you want. Climate change is a fact as it always has been. The Earth is never static, but is constantly changing. The problem is when people believe that global warming is caused by humans as if it was a religion and believe it to be absolute truth, which it is not. And then they want to force everyone in society to bend to their will, even when many of them themselves are not willing to make the change they say is necessary. Yet those who disagree are treated like heretics.

You can believe in global warming all you want, and you can do anything you personally want to about it except for one thing. Do not try to force your beliefs on others, especially when the science simply doesn't support it.
 
Glom
Topic Author
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:24 pm

Quoting Skyhigh (Reply 53):
Obviously you have not done your research. It would take over 10 000 large scale nuclear energy stations to produce the worlds current energy needs. Even if this was possible it would use up all of the worlds uranium in approximately one year. In some cases it is a band aid solution but certainly not long term or on a large scale.

Neither have you. Installed capacity globally of nuclear power stations is just over 300GWe and that represents 16% of electricity generation. To replace the rest, we would need another 1500GWe. The Areva EPR has a rated capacity of around 1500MWe. That means we need 1,000 of those to meet demand. Even with the smaller AP-1000, we're still talking 1,500 of them. And no-one is seriously suggesting replacing all generating capacity with nuclear fission reactors.

Even if you were assuming primary energy, then nuclear electricity provides 7% of that. Which means to displace all of it would require 4000GWe of installed capacity. That translates to 3,000 EPRs (around 4,000 AP-1000s). You're simply plucking numbers from the Greenpeace Random Number Generator™.

There is presently 200 years of estimated available uranium from various sources for use in the once-through open cycle. Even increasing capacity 14 times still leaves around 20 years of worth of uranium. That's still a small mercy you might say, but if we were to get the Full Monty with nuclear fission, I would bloody well hope we'd move beyond the current arrangement and close the cycle with fast breeder reactors, which would extend the supply 100 fold. That's 2000 years of energy. And then of course, that's a short term fix until we develop a successful thorium cycle, which will add another 6000 years on top of that.

I think that gives us enough time to either extinct ourselves as we have so often been predicted to do, or to find alternative energy sources such as fusion.

Your straw man scenario is far more plausible than you'd like to admit.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18547
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:17 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 56):
Wow. So now we have one example, and that means virtually all air travel is frivolous, in your opinion.

You seem to be seeing things in pure black and white, when the reality is that there are many shades of grey.

I haven't seen anyone suggesting that all air travel is frivolous, and we can all see that some is essential. However, many of us do see that a significant % (possibly the majority) of air travel is non-essential. I fly a lot on business and vacations, none of my flying is life-threateningly essential (although my wife might kill me if we don't go on vacation!)

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 56):
Who died and left you in charge of what is and is not appropriate behavior for the rest of us?

Something of an over-reaction! I don't see where PM is telling anyone what they can and can't do.

Why don't you tell us what proportion of flying you think is essential vs discretionary? I suspect one man's essential is another man's discretionary (and v.v.)
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
cornish
Posts: 7651
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:05 pm

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:49 pm

Rather than target the airports and the travellers, where is the desire to force manufacturers to produce even more fuel efficent and less C02 emitting aircraft/engines ??

The manufacturers have the technology to do this should the really need to, but they don't have the incentives. compare this with the automotive industry where we have the EU pushing through measures that will provide an overall average C02 figure that their model ranges must not exceed. In places such as California, other tougher measures are coming into play. As a result the manufacturers are having to invest in new technology and build cleaner cars to meet these legislative demands.

Yes we have some noise and emissions regs in aviation - but why not make them much more stringent in the future so that the manufacturers are forced to build better aircraft to meet today's and tomorrow's climate issues? Of course we'll never get global agreement, so the likes of GE and Rolls et al don't need to put in the serious investment needed - only enough to power the aircraft demanded by the market as fuel efficiently as possible - but no more than that.

Maybe the costs will slow down the aircraft sales market - lets hope so as its ridiculously high at the moment. this may then slow down such airline expansion and reduce the glut of capacity out there that is as much a problem as anything else. I have no problem with people getting on a plane and flying - its the empty seats about the place that gets me more annoyed, not to mention parked up aircraft that have plenty of useful life left in them.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with flying - but perhaps we need to fly more efficiently rather than fly less.
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
 
Glom
Topic Author
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:58 pm

Quoting Cornish (Reply 60):
The manufacturers have the technology to do this should the really need to, but they don't have the incentives.

Have you been paying attention to what's been going on these last few years? The airlines are screaming out for fuel efficient aircraft and the manufacturers are scrambling to squeeze every bit of economy they can out of their designs. The rate of progress in aero engines has left automotive engines in the dust of guzzle town.
 
cornish
Posts: 7651
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:05 pm

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:13 pm

Quoting Glom (Reply 61):
Have you been paying attention to what's been going on these last few years?

Have you been paying attention to what easyJet have been asking for recently. Any manufacturer come out and said yes we'll build this type of aircraft for you?

Quoting Glom (Reply 61):
The airlines are screaming out for fuel efficient aircraft and the manufacturers are scrambling to squeeze every bit of economy they can out of their designs.

But only as far as the cost is competitive under current market operations. You really think there isn't more technological gains to be met if they were given more stringent targets on emissions? You really think the manufacturers are making them as clean as it is possible to be? Lets be honest they'll only do it as far as the cost makes it worthwhile to their business, not as far as the technologically could if they pulled out all the stops.


My point is that while ackonwledging that the automotive industry isn't perfect by any means, in some areas it is being forced to produce much cleaner engines by legislation. Yet govts don't do this with the aircraft manufacturing industry. all they do is slap some tax on the travellers. If they really cared, rather than just saw it as a revenue gathering exercise this is what they might do.
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:28 pm

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 59):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 56):
Wow. So now we have one example, and that means virtually all air travel is frivolous, in your opinion.

You seem to be seeing things in pure black and white, when the reality is that there are many shades of grey.

Which is the point I'm trying to make with regard to the OP. Take a look at what he said in #18 - "I also know that a huge percentage of air travel is unnecessary."

he "knows" a huge percentage of air travel is unnecessary. No facts or figures to support this assertion, just an "I said it so it must be correct" attitude.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 59):
I haven't seen anyone suggesting that all air travel is frivolous, and we can all see that some is essential. However, many of us do see that a significant % (possibly the majority) of air travel is non-essential. I fly a lot on business and vacations, none of my flying is life-threateningly essential (although my wife might kill me if we don't go on vacation!)

Have you visited that "plane stupid" web site? If I'm not mistaken, they advocate the end to all short hop air travel.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 59):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 56):
Who died and left you in charge of what is and is not appropriate behavior for the rest of us?

Something of an over-reaction! I don't see where PM is telling anyone what they can and can't do.

Why don't you tell us what proportion of flying you think is essential vs discretionary? I suspect one man's essential is another man's discretionary (and v.v.)

I don't profess to know what percentage is or is not essential, because I'm no so arrogant to believe I can - by myself - decide what travel is essential and what isn't essential. That is a very complicated evaluation, one that our "stop flying" proponents seem to be at ease with. Of course, they haven't shared their basis for making these value judgments, have they?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
oly720man
Posts: 5813
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:40 pm

Quoting Cornish (Reply 60):
Rather than target the airports and the travellers, where is the desire to force manufacturers to produce even more fuel efficent and less C02 emitting aircraft/engines ??

http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER...PROJ&QUERY=1187091401348&RCN=78485

European Low Emission Combustion Technology in Aero-Engines

European companies are pooling their resources to develop commercially viable low emissions combustion systems and ELECT-AE will provide the impetus to bring together the key engine manufacturers and research establishments to enable this. The developmen t of a concerted research strategy involves many complex interactions, and the continuous improvement of the corresponding perspective and processes will finally provide significant gearing. Timescales for the development of aero-engine combustors are l ong. There is a clear vision and forecast of environmental needs. The ambitious ACARE targets, especially the demand for 80% reduction of NOx emissions from aviation, require very well focused and balanced RTD initiatives for the near future to prepare t he technology for a successful implementation of a new generation of aero-engine combustors and therefore a highly integrated research strategy platform. The proposed CA "European Low Emission Combustion Technology in Aero-Engines" is dedicated to the s upport of the implementation of the ACARE goals as formulated in their "Vision 2020" document, i.e. strengthening the competitiveness of the European jet engine manufacturers and diminution of the environmental impact of civil aviation with regard to em issions and thus generating economical and ecological benefits for European Society. Therefore targets have been developed for this CA, designed to support the establishing a research strategy in respect to actual measures and actions in the context of c ombustion technology for low emission of pollutants: · Strategy on How-To-Do technology development. · Integration & strengthening of the European Research Area. · Enhance exploitation in Europe. · Dissemination of European research results and exchan ge of information in Europe. · Search and identification of appropriate SMEs and · capable research partners in the EU and from Candidate Countries.


People are working on reducing emissions, it's just that it takes a while to get there.
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18547
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:15 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 63):
Have you visited that "plane stupid" web site? If I'm not mistaken, they advocate the end to all short hop air travel.

I was talking about posts in this thread, not the greener-than-green eco-warriors.  wink 

With respect to Plane Stupid's claim, a lot of short-haul travel in Europe could be replaced with alternatives. Would they be cheaper, quicker, more convenient? I doubt it, but they might be greener. My wife and I flew from London to Rome for a short break a couple of months ago. The tickets were cheap and we live 30 minutes from Heathrow. Could we have gone by train? Yes, but I'm sure it would have cost a lot more and taken three to four times as long. Would our carbon footprint have been smaller going by train? Probably. Even if a green tax of £50 a ticket had been applied, my preference would have still been to fly (purely for the convenience and speed).

Don't get me wrong, nobody could love travel and flying more than me. I do see that air travel is an easy target for groups like Plane Stupid. Some of their points are valid, and I have no problem with them being allowed to protest (it's their right). I just don't want them to get in my way when I take my frivolous, non-essential, long-haul flight from Heathrow on Saturday!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
georgebush
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:15 am

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:32 pm

Quoting Kellmark (Reply 57):
The way to fight global warming is simple. Move the Earth further away from the Sun. But you may not like the result.

 checkmark   checkmark 

I wonder if Al Gore would go for this solution?? Best one Ive heard of so far! I don't have to give up my car, I'm still allowed to fart, and I can use as much hairspray as I want!!
Al Gore invented global warming.
 
Glom
Topic Author
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:35 pm

Quoting Cornish (Reply 62):
You really think there isn't more technological gains to be met if they were given more stringent targets on emissions?

Airbus, Boeing, Rolls Royce, GE, Pratt & Witney are all pulling out the stops to make fuel burn ALARP because fuel burn is a major issue for economic as well as environmental reasons. The target of ALARP is recognised by regulatory authorities as prudent. They may be able to go further, but neither the market nor the regulatory agencies are going to force it. In the North Sea, we value a life at £2,500,000 and that HSE accept that. How much value do you expect the DTI to place on emissions savings? The regulatory agencies are not going to realistically force them to go further than they already are.

And still the point remains that fuel burn in aviation has dropped tremendously compared to that in motoring.
 
cornish
Posts: 7651
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:05 pm

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:14 pm

Quoting Oly720man (Reply 64):
Quoting Cornish (Reply 60):
Rather than target the airports and the travellers, where is the desire to force manufacturers to produce even more fuel efficent and less C02 emitting aircraft/engines ??

http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER...PROJ&QUERY=1187091401348&RCN=78485

European Low Emission Combustion Technology in Aero-Engines

Well that is indeed encouraging - but why the hell isn't the aviation industry pointing these things out very publicly?

This is half the problem at the moment - our industry isn't pointing out what we do right to the wider world. The green lobby is very united and very strong at putting out its message. We're damn hopeless, too busy fighting each other and not united in the slightest. Until that gets sorted out the aviation industry will always lose the PR battle here.
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
 
jimbo27L
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 9:58 pm

RE: The Usual Suspects Arrive At LHR

Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:39 am

Quoting LHRBlueSkies (Reply 44):
Yes. Aviation is bad. Not the worst. We need to taskle everything that causes these problems...and that means everything...ok, so it might cost a bit of money, and a bit more effort for everyone....are your lives so jam-packed that you don't think the benefits are worth it...??

Seriously mate, are you that full of your own importance to even start to think that you, we, or anyone on the planet can effectively slow down or speed up climate change???!!!

Go and educate yourself in FACT by studying a geography or geology degree, and then come back and let us know your revolutionary ideas to solve climate change - something which has been occuring for hundreds of billions of years.

Quoting PM (Reply 18):
But I do know that the planet is cooking and that it's a problem of our own making. I also know that the aviation industry is one of the culprits. I also know that a huge percentage of air travel is unnecessary.

Oh you do?? How?

Kellmark - Post 23.

 checkmark 

Politics indeed. Imagine the economic meltdown if someone came up with absolute proof tomorrow that man cannot effect climate change....mass unemployment from the environmental sectors and a world wide recession. This snowball has well and truly got out of control.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos