The Forum > Article Comments > Flying high on greenhouse gas > Comments
Flying high on greenhouse gas : Comments
By Andrew Macintosh and Christian Downie, published 4/6/2007If nothing is done to curb aviation emissions, we won’t be able to meet the targets that are necessary to deal with global warming.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by bigmal, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 10:19:38 PM
| |
"Obviously it is you who are having difficulties with the logic and language" -simply clash of mentalities. Stupidity of so-called "Australian way of science" needs no comment from not belonging to UK=bonded minders.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 8 June 2007 1:27:03 AM
| |
Who wants to fly in a coal fired aircraft ?
Even if Branson gets his biodiesal jet to fly we will not be able to grow enough crops to feed it let alone feed ourselves. Look face it, the airlines are on borrowed time. QANTAS will NEVER pay for the 20 380 super jumbos it has ordered. Think about it, if we have in fact arrived at peak oil now what do you think will happen to liquid fuel prices including gas ? The highest monthly peak of oil production was May 2005. It has not risen above that level since. When the price goes up, some extra production will become economical but these known sources are small and will barely cope, let alone make up for increased demand. The increase in demand in the last couple of years was covered by a decrease in demand in poorer countries due to the raised prices. How long do you think that can continue ? Global Warming is not a problem people can solve. Read this; http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5933 Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 16 June 2007 10:15:18 AM
| |
“Global warming”, “climate change” etc are simply issues of the Earth ageing.
Usual “burden of a white man”, that is a simple self-convincing in own biological superiority of so-called “Australian scientists” to a great extent only inherited their posts at local degree-selling seemingly education enterprises, does not allow them make even elementarily right conclusion on interlinked complexity data collected presents. A fuss of oncoming “Sydney protocol” is a next doll for illiteral rednecks to rip them off during next term in Kiribati. Posted by MichaelK., Saturday, 16 June 2007 11:06:38 AM
| |
MichaelK, I think you need to attend a "local degree-selling seemingly education enterprises" and learn to write a sentence in english.
Posted by alzo, Monday, 18 June 2007 10:48:46 AM
| |
I write in perfectly understandable worldwide English, be sure alzo, and, unlike you, I did attend both universities and local money-sucking racist “higher educative” places called “Australian universities” to understand a difference between education and cheating an “Australian education system” mostly is.
However, this system is still too good for an Anglo-colony stacked in the Dark Ages of feudalism anyway. Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 18 June 2007 7:36:19 PM
|
Obviously it is you who are having difficulties with the logic and language. If the current rate of increase of the sea level is not accelerating then that says something about what is not happening now. I was in fact also responding to the repeated claims from your pals, the alarmists, that the physical evidence for GW is contradictory.There is plenty of it, in fact.
I well understood the calculation that even if the ice was melting it would take ages to disappear.But that is not what is being claimed. The claim is that it is happening now.I thought that was obvious.
One only has to read the claims from the British Antarctic Survey BAS group to appreciate the extent of the exaggerations
The corn belt example is but another despite your nonsensical response. The alarmists dont mind using an example from one area and extrapolating to the principal to justify their case, and in fact the IPCC documents and other reports are full of it.
The alarmists and Gore in particular are quite adept at using individual examples to justify their case when closer examanination reveals that it is just not so. Dare I mention Kilimanjaro etc etc .
If I do not use the usual words and phraseology of the science shonks thats because I can read, assess and think for myself.ie I am not parrot. Hopefully if more people did it they may come the same conclusion, namely what a beat up it is.
It is true that co2 has a heating effect but its impact is what is in dispute.If that makes me a denier, then so be it.
I also note with some interest the range of points that are not responded to.
Sleep well Davsab, secure in the knowledge that you and your ilk have done your damage, and you have got your funding for your next frolic at our expense.