Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Does Flying Harm the Planet?
time.com — Commercial air travel is currently responsible for a relatively tiny part of the global carbon footprint —just 3.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions. But the unique chemistry of high-altitude jet emissions may produce an additional warming effect, while the explosive growth in air travel makes it one of the fastest-growing sources of carbon gases.
1carmen- 393 diggs
- digg it
- scamerica, on 10/10/2007, -41/+11Global-Warming propaganda = selling the sheeple then need to have anti-life (CO2) tax.
Any climatologists who don't have a deep understanding on how the SUN works (and most of them don't) have zero credibility on claims about the future of earth climate.
(99% of the population have no idea how big the sun is compared to the earth.)
The SUN is the CAUSE of global WARMING
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566&q=swindle+climate+duration%3Along&total=30&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=2
The film showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are sceptical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Publicity for the programme states that global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times."- Mejogid, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you're a complete idiot. Despite the fact that the vast majority of scientific con census states that global warming is a real threat, and despite the fact that CO2 levels have empirically been shown to have risen dramatically, people like you cling to the assurance that we're not damaging the planet.
How the hell do you think one video is more credible than the vast majority of reports, papers and models? Even if you assume there's a 50% chance we're causing global warming (and any sane person will place the figure higher than that), does it make more sense to suffer a little inconvenience or to permanently damage the atmosphere and risk the lives of billions of people?
There's no way I plan to spend an hour watching that video, but in your list of septics I can't see a single group that is necessarily even remotely qualified to pass judgment. Do you get some warm fuzzy feeling from denying logic, or are you just unable to see the facts?- CiXeL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1china is the cause of global warming
http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/images/2006_ozone_china.jpg
look at that cesspool of pollution and it developed practically overnight in geological terms.
do you think the planet can cope with that much pollution that quickly? you can see it on a ***** sattelite image for godssake. the country basically looks like its burning.
clamp down on china's pollution and end your global warming. we'll see who's right as soon as the dollar collapses.- acl123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That's nonsense and you know it. I don't even need to bother providing references here, but google for things like "list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions" - notice the US ranked number 11 per capita and China at 99. Notice that China has 4 times the population of the US but the US still emits more.
- CiXeL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1which one can you see from space? numbers lie more than pictures.
- acl123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That's nonsense and you know it. I don't even need to bother providing references here, but google for things like "list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions" - notice the US ranked number 11 per capita and China at 99. Notice that China has 4 times the population of the US but the US still emits more.
- p51d007, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Hey brain-e-ak...........the output from the sun has INCREASED......dumbass......turn up the heat and guess what......the
earth warms up. You MAN MADE global warming idiots just crack me up. You are nothing but an anticapitalist, communist idiot
who thinks the world would be better off had "white man" never set foot upon the North American continent.
Do the world a favor....if you think that man is so bad for the planet, off yourself and do the world a favor! - chaoshauk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Since when has science ever been dictated by "con census"? At one point in time, the scientific consensus was that the earth was the center of the universe... and the people that said otherwise were the wack jobs.
On top of that, we can't predict weather accurately a few days in advance, let alone what it will be like in 100 years. The earth has been in a warming period since the last ice age. Other planets in the solar system are showing signs of "global warming" as well, must be lots of SUV's on those planets. During the great depression when emissions were cut by 30%, the rise in temperature remained constant, it wasn't even phased by the change in emissions. CO2 isn't the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases anyway, water vapor is. The earth goes through different climate periods, to think that our climate should stay static no matter what is just plain ignorance.
Global warming or global climate change is a religion, and it seems like everyone is buying into it without thinking critically.
- CiXeL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1china is the cause of global warming
- TFGeditor, on 10/10/2007, -15/+6Gullible children modded you down, but what else can you expect.
- Mowall, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Sorry but I'm going to side with with scientific consensus over a group of "scientists" (possibly just trying to buck the trend, or maybe even paid off) ", economists, politicians, writers, and others". Scientists generally don't have any political or financial motivation for their claims. Politicians obviously do, as do economists and writers. It's worth watching the BBC Horizon documentary about global dimming which examined the dramatic change in climate after 9/11 when flights were grounded for several days... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml
- ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5So you're saying we should destroy the sun?
- unibomber999, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4No, we should erect a giant umbrella over the earth.
- duccodude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Thats what she said! wait... what?
- unibomber999, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4No, we should erect a giant umbrella over the earth.
- BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Does Global Warming model incorporate Hubbert's Peak Theory? Why are we so concerned with eliminating CO2 emissions when we've got only few years worth of affordable oil? Air travel will be the first industry to go bankrupt. Cars can go electric. Even inefficient fuel cells aren't so bad, but keeping in mind that hydrogen's energy density is 1:9 compared to chemical energy of oil, there are no market-ready airplane propulsion technology. So, do we ground our flights right now or wait till they're going to become thing of the past in a few years? I say, if there's one cigarette left in the pack, and you've got the last pack in the world, let's smoke it, before quitting. No point wasting money on nicotine patches at that point. Instead of introducing a new tax, let's cure malaria, or provide clean water to third world counties. Costs fraction of what we're planning to spend on fighting a self-resolving problem.
- unibomber999, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1we'll get the electricity from burning coal in many cases, unless we plan on opening up a whole lot more nuclear reactors. Natural gas we also be popular as energy costs skyrocket.
- sanman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Does flying harm the planet?
Does Warp Propulsion harm the spacetime continuum?
Let's ban it all! - 11Heather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Outraged by scamerica's comment? As an environmentalist I was. So with a huge dose of scepticism I watched the video link - all 73 mins of it.
Watch the video before criticise the poster. It's eye-opening stuff. I now need to do more research, things are not as they seemed.
Also, c'mon diggers, why persecute the messenger? Is that what Digg's about?
- Mejogid, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you're a complete idiot. Despite the fact that the vast majority of scientific con census states that global warming is a real threat, and despite the fact that CO2 levels have empirically been shown to have risen dramatically, people like you cling to the assurance that we're not damaging the planet.
- jogleby, on 10/10/2007, -14/+11@scamerica
How can the sun be causing global warming if it is going through a period of cooling?
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3No sun = no heat = no global warming.
- mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Then why is Mars getting warmer too?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece- forteller, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Only parts of Mars is getting warmer. Regional warming is not the same as global warming
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 - hambend, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Did you even read the article you linked to? Mars is getting warmer because of winds that create dust storms that trap heat in the atmosphere that causes more winds that cause more dust storms. These storms can grow to engulf most of the planet's surface. Just because the two planets are warming at the same time, doesn't mean the two phenomena are related.
Broadly speaking though, Mars' warming is not caused by the sun, but by changes in the composition of its atmosphere. You could say the same about Earth, only with pollution instead of dust.
- forteller, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Only parts of Mars is getting warmer. Regional warming is not the same as global warming
- sealhands, on 10/10/2007, -11/+17@scamerica.
what do those who claim global warming to be a reality have to gain for it to be considered a scam?
worse case scenario they're wrong and we survive in a less polluted world.
if you're wrong, we die.
simple.- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7To be fair, it's easier for a scientist to get funding for his global warming research, and it's a political platform for many people. However you can also look at the many cases of oil companies paying scientists lots of money to throw some confusion into the issue. I'm just saying that neither side is innocent.
- SillyRabbits, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3No, worst case scenario is that they get useless legislation passed that cripples businesses and causes cost of living (electricity, gas, food, housing, etc.) to skyrocket.....throwing the world into a completely artificial recession that takes decades or longer to recover from. Quality of life significantly decreases throughout the world for a generation or more. Just because some tree-hugger fudges the data to enact laws that he/she thinks are a good idea.
- foofightrs777, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You really have no idea how science works do you?
Climate change based upon CO emissions is the best model that people who are much more knowledgeable about the issue than you or myself have come up with. This model will continually be challenged and/or affirmed by peer review and updated when new data and revelations are collected.
Stop with the FUD and name calling. You don't impress anyone.
- foofightrs777, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You really have no idea how science works do you?
- thatsmyaibo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I believe global warming is happening but I don't think we are the primary cause. Cows produce more methane than humans, Mexico pollutes more than the US, ice caps are melting on Mars, glaciers have been melting since the ice age, it's happening faster now because the ice is in small amounts and so forth...
Global warming is a business that gets Al Gore DVD and concert ticket sales and scientists government funding. When catastrophe is discussed it brings out the business aspect. It's just like the duct tape fiasco a few years back. Weather patterns can hardly be predicted for this week so I won;t worry about it 100 years from now. This is the coolest summer CA has had so why should I believe the future is grim?- canandaiguan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2global warming or not, changing the composition of the atmosphere and oceans will have effects. while it is (maybe?) irresponsible to overstate this case, the effects of global industrialization should be regulated by more than supply and demand.... neoclassical economic theory is very clear that when you have a "tragedy of the commons," taxes are the usually the appropriate solution. even state of fear author and global warming skeptic michael crichton says he is in favor of a carbon tax.
- acl123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I know that you probably spent all morning researching your post, but I'm sorry - you're wrong.
I like how you separate "Mexico" from "we", as though the world ceases to exist outside America - could you get any more stereotypical?
Mexico is not a bigger polluter than the US, at least in terms of green house gases.
Ice caps melting on Mars are not related to global warming. Mars has its own problems.
Glaciers melting since the ice age... ice in small amounts... sorry, I don't get it....
Mainstream science predicts that as the climate changes, many parts of the world will experience more extreme cold weather although overall the world's temperature will rise.- thatsmyaibo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2For instance, if you put an ice cube on a hot sidewalk next to a 3 foot by 3 foot block of ice, the ice cube will melt faster not only because of the size differential but because it has a lower core temperature. The Earth's ice will continue to melt faster and faster as time goes on.
As far as Mexico does, don't try to bring in stereotypes. I was using the reference because global warming is being hyped here when the real countries causing the damage don't really care. If you really believed in the cause you would have done you research.
Google "mexico pollution" and your eyes will be open to the fact that Mexico City is one of the highest pollutants in the world. I'm sure your digg brigade will bury this but apparently that's what happens to facts on digg that don't agree with user opinion. - sealhands, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0cows produce more methane than humans? obviously, why are there so many cows? oh yeah because of humans. cows are effectively a result of humans. also, im confused what you mean by "we". "global warming is happening but i dont think we are the primary cause." does that mean humans? if it does than youre wrong because humans put so many cows everywhere and mexicans are definitely people. oil companies have made a trillion times more than any scientist has made from govt funding, its insane to think otherwise.
- thatsmyaibo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2For instance, if you put an ice cube on a hot sidewalk next to a 3 foot by 3 foot block of ice, the ice cube will melt faster not only because of the size differential but because it has a lower core temperature. The Earth's ice will continue to melt faster and faster as time goes on.
- nobodyreal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Greenpeace et al use Global Warming as a boogeyman to promote their own anti-corporate, anti-globalization agendas.
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Global warming is real. It is a natural cycle of our planet, and some other planets that we know of. However, human activity is accelerating the amount of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. I do not know if it can be reversed, but I am pretty certain that it can be slowed if we actually quit relying on oil so much.
- ForkySpoony, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1It can be reversed, but it takes millions of years to re-stabilize the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Humans can do relatively little when it comes to CO2 to actually "harm" the planet permanently. The oceans will take the CO2 out of the air through microorganisms and then those microorganisms will die and fall to the bottom of the ocean which will then move under tectonic plates. Its a cycle that even recovered from one of the biggest volcanoes ever (Yellowstone). If we can live until that cycle completes is the question though.
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You're a microorganism.
- bobcrotch, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4I'm pretty certain that you are full of *****.
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Good impersonation of a Youtube member.
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Oil is dead plants. So is coal. Plants store CO2, especially when they're fossilized HYDROCARBONS.
What we're doing is burning dead plants and putting carbon that was trapped underground back into the air. This essentially sending the atmosphere back into a period when it was much warmer.
Really, this isn't that hard to figure out. We're not going to get warmer than earth has ever been, but we're certainly ***** with the timeline.
- ForkySpoony, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1It can be reversed, but it takes millions of years to re-stabilize the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Humans can do relatively little when it comes to CO2 to actually "harm" the planet permanently. The oceans will take the CO2 out of the air through microorganisms and then those microorganisms will die and fall to the bottom of the ocean which will then move under tectonic plates. Its a cycle that even recovered from one of the biggest volcanoes ever (Yellowstone). If we can live until that cycle completes is the question though.
- djrisc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1so then what the hell is this bbc global dimming ***** then?
- catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -6/+103.5% is not small.
- ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3but 3.5" is.
- catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Not in Japan
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well, it kinda is. Remember, those planes get people across oceans, transport all sorts of stuff very quickly, and so when you look at the benefits compared to the amount of greenhouse gases, it looks pretty good. At least to me it does.
- ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3but 3.5" is.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3It's extremely and ridiculously difficult to fly a plane on anything other than the fuels we have, while keeping prices reasonable and transporting a lot of people. Compare that to ground transport, where are a number of much easier to implement alternatives that just wouldn't work for air travel. I think it's obvious which one we should worry about more.
- acl123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How about flying less, buying goods produced locally, and watching your grammar?
- bobbydiamondz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Crap! I thought plastic water bottles were the new thing to blame for causing a problem. Please tell me which to believe, and quick, so I can join the hysteria!
- CBTF, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I was originally not even going to reply to your comment, but I hit the back button simply because the stupidity of what you said compelled me to do so.
The two are both bad for the environment. You know that. Plastic watter bottles aren't the best (water is shipped all around using fuel, not to mention the production that had to take place to make the bottles in the first place.) Where do you think the bottles end up? In bottle heaven? No. Landfills, oceans, and at best are recycled. I drink bottled water and im not innocent when it comes to this, but let's not be ignorant- It's also obvious that airplanes burn fuel and expel exhaust into the skies.- Charlie180, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Don't forget cows, they are really bad, particularly when it comes to methane another global warming gas that simply doesn't get the same amount of coverage as CO2. Then of course there are people, they breathe out CO2 with every breath. 60% of CO2 emission each year are people breathing, just 0.01% is planes. I really think that you should get things in perspective and not worry about the negligible amount of fuel used to produce and transport products, particularly as while you're worrying about it you are breathing faster and thus damaging the environment.
- bobbydiamondz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"what you said compelled me to do so"
So you're saying that I'm compelling. Complement accepted.
- CBTF, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I was originally not even going to reply to your comment, but I hit the back button simply because the stupidity of what you said compelled me to do so.
- Threlly, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I say yes.
(my two penneth in this we're-not-sure-as-one-scientist-says-one-thing-and-another-says-another-but-as-its-burning-fossil-fuel-it-has-to-be-bad-right-
and-I-think-lots-of-people-should-stop-flying-or-driving-cars-....-well-except-me-cos-I-REALLY-need-mine-otherwise-how-would-I-get-about-as-public-
transport-is-so-poor-and-can-you-imagine-trying-to-bring-all-that-shopping-back-on-a-bus-it-would-do-you-in-wouldn't-it type debate) - ptsuk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2no such thing as "damaging the planet" as the planet was fine before we got here, and will be fine after we're gone. However damaging an environment that we can live in" is more accurate. I wish people would stop using "save the planet" or "protect mother earth" as this ball of rock floating through space is good up until our sun expands into a red giant and even the the planet or mother earth will still be here..............
but yes it's getting hot in here......so take off all your clothes............;) - Easty, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Solution: AIRSHIPS.
End of discussion.- TheTruth1, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Airships? What the hell is that?
- sirlancelot88, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I personally would LOVE to fly in an airship, but they fly so low that its impossible to cross mountains. The Rockies would become a giant barrier, restricting cross-country flights. If you start in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, or Northern California, you'd need to connect all the way down to San Diego before going east.
- schwit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Airships only work if you don't mind traveling at 30mph.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"NO TICKET!"
- Indiana Jones - TheUngod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Great thinkin' captain Cid.
- kcap122, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"High-Flying Guilt Trip"
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why don't people save themselves the effort and go read the last repeat of this same flame war?
- bobcrotch, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5HAY GUISE FOSILE FUELZ R BAD EVEN IN JETPLANES
- evilelf2407, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1o here we go, another something that we'll have to reduce and worry about. another something for celebrities to get attention from by saying that they "care" and want change. w/e
- Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10... there is also evidence that high altitude aircraft particulate emissions cause the formation of cirrus clouds, and indirectly lead to global Dimming. This theory is backed up by the fact that during the few days after 9/11 while aircraft were grounded, there was a NATIONAL increase in temperatures by a few degrees, which dropped again swiftly after air travel resumed. The consequences are potentially very serious, to the point of affecting the evaporation rates of water around the globe. So not only could aircraft be causing warming, they could also be causing cooling - the longer both conditions continue, the worse it will be when we stop. It's like seeing the kettle about to boil over and jamming the lid down tighter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming- laplacian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2pilot, i was just about to quote that. amazing that the TIME article doesnt even mention this research.
- almostspastic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0We know that's not true, otherwise they'd just cancel each other out!
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2During the few days after 9/11, human activity everywhere was diminished. It was eerie how quiet it was. No cars, no planes, etc.
- thatsmyaibo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Either way, I'm sure airplanes pollute less than the amount of cars it would take to get the same amount of people said airplane is carrying to that destination.
- marathonguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The temperature change after 9/11 is an urban legend. You can't correlate any type of national temperature change with a single statistic. It was warmer yesterday, then it cooled off today - maybe we solved global warming....
- seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2wrong. Documentary on TLC. Peace.
- Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1averages, sir. All over the country, all at once, by a relatively large difference. That doesn't happen. Not ever.
- RationalXubrnce, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1 What was the temperature going to be on 9/12-14? How can anyone say?
- aflaks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1breathing harms the planet. We can all just kill each other and the planet would be fine. If you want to live under a rock, not travel, not drive a car, not eat anything that was housed in plastic, then just add this to the rest of the list of things you wont be doing anymore. Im going for a drive.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Even if one poo-poos the environmental impacts (or lack thereof) from flying, you've got to marvel at a mode of travel that is so essential yet so amazingly unprofitable when looked at from an investment perspective. You'd think an alternative to either the transportation itself or the means by which it's managed/executed would have surfaced by now.
- TheTruth1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Global warming is leftist propoganda aimed at bringing down capitalist intrests and increasing government dependence.
- restlessdesign, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Global warming is caused by the Catholic Church. There, I said it.
- DaleoftheUK, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13.5%? last I heard on the news it counted for like a quarter. Ah w/e just as long as I get more sun and warmer weather then I'm fine.
- cfd339, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Not if you fly on US Airways. On that airline -- especially flying out of Philly -- they're a very good likelihood that you won't be doing any harm to the sky as you're never going to get off the ground.
- schwit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Unfortunately most tarmac delays include engines running.
- Charlie180, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0This is laughable, the 'carbon footprint' caused by all the protesters arriving at the airport with all their belongings and equipment, their wood/gas burners and all the police and resources going into guarding them is actually bigger than that of all the jets that have flown over them since they have been there.
They aren't exactly setting a good example are they? These people don't really care about global warming, many of them are actually 'full time protesters' which means that they are too dim or too lazy to get a real job. They need the fuss over incidents like this to justify their existence. - Brian48216, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I'm sure flying doesn't help, but it sure as hell isn't as much as all the SUVs that suburban moms like to drive around in.
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Which you concluded from exhaustive research into the root causes of global warming? Awesome. Let's tax "suburban moms" and their SUVs!
- Charlie180, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0He's actually right, air travel contributes to just 2% of man made CO2 emission annually. Whereas cars account for around a quarter. To put that in perspective though, just 0.5% of global CO2 emission are man made, the other 99.5% is natural.
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Which you concluded from exhaustive research into the root causes of global warming? Awesome. Let's tax "suburban moms" and their SUVs!
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Meanwhile, in NY it's the coldest august day in over a century.
- canandaiguan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2operative term: "climate CHANGE." overall warming, but increase extreme variations. unpredictable climate change caused by the overall warming. get it?
- rodii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why the hell is it so hard for people to grasp the difference between climate and weather? One cool day, or a hundred, is irrelevant to the fact (or not) that there's an overall TREND of warming. And a cool day in Yokeltown, NY is irrelevant to the fact (or not) of GLOBAL warming. This is like hearing that humans have been getting progressively taller since the Middle Ages (true fact) and saying "Meanwhile, my Uncle Morty is the shortest man in Yokeltown."
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Meanwhile, when it's a record hot day, anywhere, the Church of Global Warming Crazies scream "SEE GLOBAL WARMING!"
- MarkusGarvey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2i have contemplated this for years...it sure makes sense. i also wonder about we effect Earth's EMF,with all our power lines around the planet...
- nobodyreal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0EMF? Do you even know what that means?
- defektiv, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1with the way the airlines have been running things (or rather NOT running things) since Fear911, i'd say flying is becoming a waste of time, global warming or not. just my $0.02, though. america could use a corporate level restructure to start.
- ropers, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Does flying harm the planet?
Oh really?
Does smoking cause cancer?
Does booze kill brain cells?
Does eating make you fat?
Cue the pundits! - Smeed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1What doesnt harm the planet would be a faster question to answer....
- Charles07v, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1If people are the only cause of global warming, then why is Mars experiencing it?
- jennamalia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There was a recent NOVA special on contrails and their effect on the environment.
Dimming the Sun: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/contrail.html
a cool contrail picture: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/cont-01.html- schwit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1PBS is not exactly known for an open mind.
- chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3The benefits of aviation far outweigh those of saving 3.5% of CO2.
- Charlie180, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I agree, how else can 400+ people travel to the other side of the world in one go? Ships have a far bigger carbon footprint and are obviously much slower. Maybe these people are advocating everyone taking the family car on holiday in future.
- levintofu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0This brings up an interesting point. I often tell people that represent the message that "Big Environment" touts that they seem forget why we have plastics, and air travel, etc. Plastics help offset the use of more rare and costly natural recourses like wood and metal. Plastic also makes thing lighter and easier to pack saving fuel. Plastics have in effect; democratize the purchasing process for the consumer. And Air travel made commuting more efficient, safer, and cost effective. Unless we go back to living in caves I don't think they will ever be satisfied.
- btsr7414, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I thought there was no debate about the extent about global warming among serious scientists? Didn't you know there is a consensus? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id=
- levintofu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If you look at the CO2 figures after 9/11 you will notice NO difference in the CO2 level. It is still increasing at the same rate. Don't you think if Air travel is contributing close to 4% of the total “Warming” problem that you would have noticed even a small dip in the CO2 levels between September and Dec of 2001?? Since there was no dip then ether Air travel doesn’t contribute the 4% the IPCC claims or CO2 isn’t as big a problem they would lead you to believe. Also keep in mind that the climate modes are “fluid dynamic” models not “heat transfer” models. There is a huge difference is both physics and mathematics of those two models.
- posneg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I don't give a ***** if planes are "harming" the planet. Boohoo. Dugg down.
- drgruney, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Why don't we construct intercontinental zip lines?
- crazywarthog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Funny how the national media is not reporting the coldest day ever in
August in New York City. This report is from a local news station in
NYC.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm ... I wonder why ? Don't drink Al Gore's global warming kool aid !
NYC Sets Record For Coldest Day
High Of 59 Degrees Ties Chilliest August High Set In 1911
NEW YORK Don't forget to bundle up if you're headed out in New York
City today. After all, it is August 21.
The city along with the rest of the tri-state region is feeling the
chilly effect of a cold front sweeping through the region, accompanied
by cool rain showers.
Tuesday's high temperature in Central Park was just 59 degrees. The
normal high for today is 82 degrees. The normal low is 67. - SPThom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Is air travel exploding? I thought the airlines were constantly in dire straits about not making enough profits, having to cut corners & such because they couldn't keep seats filled. And I know several people who've sworn off flying for one reason for another. I thought it had leveled off at best.
- DeathGod321, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Global warming is screwed up. It's not harming the planet, it's harming us. The planet doesn't care about us. There have been mass extinctions on this planet before, I don't see why the possible extinction of the human race would have a different effect on the planet's ability to continue supporting life.
- climateHeretic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0All Anthropogenic Global Warming Advocates:
How would you answer the the Ultimate Global Warming question?
Post your answer there or here... http://www.theclimateheretic.com - D1s0wn3d, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Global Warming:
Hotter weather.
Girls with less clothes.
'Nuff said. - Trooti, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I am afraid most of you are uninformed. You want more CO2, more CO2 creates a more oxygen rich environment and increases bio mass which means more plants, even where the conditions may be severe to plant life, because if you increase the CO2 the amount of water and sunlight required is decreased.
- JusticeAK, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1well, park all the planes. Lets go back to the stone age.
- harry8227, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It may be 3.5% of the greenhouse gases made by man but that is still less than 1% of the greenhouse gases. co2 in its entirety makes up less than .1% of the atmosphere.
- seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0comtrails are significant contributors to global cooling. Buried for inaccuracy.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
