Well at least you are consistent with most of the other hypocrites who claim gw is our greatest moral challenge as they rack up frequent flyer points. Thankfully there is an election coming up in Australia so the 'true believers' have gone into hiding as most States have had far more rainfall than the doomsdayers predicted they ever would.

“Flying dwarfs ---.” Yes, that is the trouble, too many of them; and of flying giants, too – and of all those other people in between; even now.

What will it be like if all those others - from the back-blocks of Ethiopia, Nigeria, India, China ever get the opportunity? Or is the world going to persist forever with the present apartheid of developed/undeveloped, increasingly-festering, disparity between world citizens? And can the future generation (maybe an extra 3 billion of them by 2050), get a fair crack at elevated express travel, equitably?

It is all pie-in-the sky, especially at the present rate of human breeding.

Cutting down on waste-production, be it via air travel or otherwise, will only prolong the inevitable in the absence of stabilizing human numbers. It is necessary to do both – urgently. We have already dug ourselves into a hole of trouble via ponzi-scheme economics which require us to grow forever – in consumption/waste, and breeding. It is this economics paradigm which underlies excess CO2 & equivalent emissions, and air transport is but a component of that. There are viable alternatives, but the economists promoting them do not win Nobel Prizes.

Dear Elizabeth, for people like yourself who cannot admit you were had by the “carbon emissions” phenomena, life must be quite a challenge. Like so many, your personal credibility went out the window when Professor Phil Jones declared “there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995”

The panel that extracted this admission was appointed by The Royal Society who recently made this statement in The Times;

“Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by 43 members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures”. It said: “Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect”.

This is significant for a number of reasons; academia is developing the “embarrassment gene” over the scientific shambles of the IPCC and CRU assessments, which they have now reviewed and seriously questioned for the first time. It also acknowledges that there is no reliable scientific data to support global warming, that there is no link to carbon emissions and that science has been hijacked by politics.

Politicians attending Copenhagen were well aware of the absence of science for a treaty and baulked. They likewise cannot admit they were “had” and are more inclined to let the whole thing fade away as their exit strategy to save face.

This phenomenon has been a colossal waste of money, HSBC estimates $74bn dollars globally over ten years and it has driven western governments into wasteful and ineffective “green energy” initiatives. These have inhibited political decisions to invest in carbon based energy production; as a result we face reduced production capacity against rising demand and higher costs.

You seek to perpetuate the false premise of carbon pollution in order to avoid acknowledging you were wrong. Increasingly the commentariat will have to accept its culpability in this scam as basis for it crumbles.

I would like to see the “warming lobby” held accountable for the incalculable damage inflicted upon our social and economic prospects. Fortunately for people sharing your ideological obsessions, the best we can hope for is public humiliation for your lack of common sense.

I cannot see how "flying dwarfs any other individual activity in terms of carbon emissions" when "according to various estimates, emissions from aviation currently represent 2 to 3 per cent of CO2 emissions." Even if they do "double or triple by 2050", it still doesn't seem like all that much.

Since when is a paperless office more environmentally friendly than a "paper" one? Paper made from wood fibre is environmentally positive using a much under rated source.

Imagine this design assignment: Design something that makes oxygen, sequesters carbon, fixes nitrogen, distills water, accrues solar energy as fuel, makes complex sugars and food, creates microclimates, changes colors with the seasons and self-replicates. Well, why don't we knock that down and write on it? Of course I am talking about trees - the fibre of which is used to make products such as paper. We should be promoting more use of products made from trees because of its environmental value.

I advocate that all businesses place at the bottom of their outgoing e-mails the following to promote the use of paper:

"Please consider our environment... as paper is a permanent store of atmospheric carbon print multiple copies, single sided, doubled spaced ... and save the planet."

"Please don't feel bad about printing this email as the pulp and paper industry is an important sector in making plantation forestry viable. This allows the forestry and wood products industry to provide sustainable building materials (with much less CO2 emissions than competing materials such as concrete and steel), carbon sequestration and carbon-neutral wood fuel. Go ahead - press print"

spindoc, you said;

>> ... The Royal Society (who) recently made this statement in The Times;

“Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by 43 members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures”.

The Royal Society said nothing of the sort.

What they said was this;

http://royalsociety.org/Royal-Society-to-publish-new-guide-to-the-science-of-climate-change/

You say that The Royal Society (or any institution in academia for that matter) acknowledges

>> that there is no reliable scientific data to support global warming, that there is no link to carbon emissions <<

Is that spin, a lie, or your own deliberate distortion of the truth? If none of the above, can you clarify by providing a link to where this has been acknowledged.

We ALL know science has been hijacked by politics, where have you been? No need to answer, this power point presentation puts the politics of 'denial' into perspective:

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

As to the "science is settled" crap - you know as well as any science undergraduate that science is never settled. It's spindoctors like yourself that have taken that statement out of context and spun it for their own agenda.