Fairford Air Tattoo

by Dog Breath Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:43

I will be there and I will enjoy it.

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolished the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

Some concensus

Where is Clive Hammond when you need him?

by kevin lister - Plane Stupid Wed Jul 09, 2008 14:35

Looks like a ready prepared piece of bullshit from a climate change denier. Dog Breath, do you work for the Tattoo by any chance?

by Jimmy Wed Jul 09, 2008 15:14

Does anyone know if the B17 Liberty Bell that has just flown accross from America and is currently at Duxford is going to be at Fairford?

Should be a really good day out and even better if the Liberty Bell will be there.

by Mell O Wed Jul 09, 2008 15:20

Boys and their noisy polluting and resource-consuming toys!

How can any thinking or caring person think such an event as this is any kind of good idea?

Are these people still living in the cloud-cuckoo land, or is it just their thinking which is out of the stone-age?

by Darce Wed Jul 09, 2008 15:56

Anyone that has a view different to your own kevin and out comes the abusive words - like "bullshit".

But with excellent data from the likes of true sceptics - see Ponder the Maunder - an excellent site from a young girl with a mind that is still able to question.

In the case of man-made GW, the ability of being falsified is hindered by the fact that simulation models use parametrization to compensate for the climate physical effects not directly simulated or when lacking enough data, and mainly because the models are calibrated to adjust for historical trends and available measurements, then, by tweaking the models, the goodness of fit for the past is guaranteed, and the reliability of the prediction might be even good for short term forecasts, but as time goes by, the models are calibrated again, so the mid and long term predictions always get adjusted.

This permanent fine tuning can be confirmed by anyone simply by looking at the evolution of the predictions in consecutive IPCC Reports for the past 17 years. A good summary is presented in Figure 1.1 of the IPPC's 2007 Report (AR4) Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Climate Change 2007) (a PDF version is available).

The first IPPC predictions from 1990 (FAR) were completely off target by 2000, and significantly overestimating what is now a historical record, even without considering the fact that mean global temperature stopped increasing since 2001 (the recent and now controversial cooling trend). Thus, when forecasts do not fit reality, climate modelers can always claim the modeling has since been significantly improved and their predictions are good for the long term, always avoiding fasifiability, just as we are witnessing today.

The second major flaw is related with attribution or establishing the most likely causes for the detected warming. As explained in detail in Section 1.3.3, Chapter 1 of the IPCC's AR4, the theory of anthropogenic global warming or climate change established this fundamental cause and effect relationship exclusively on the basis of the results obtained with climate models, through simulations with and without man-made greenhouse emissions.

So Kevin - I can assure you that this was not pre-prepared "bullshit" and I have nothing to do with the Air Show.

But people like you make people like me want to attend with our families and enjoy ourselves - because we know what a successful show indicates.

by me Wed Jul 09, 2008 16:02

A festival celabrating mankinds wonderfull ingenuity and resourcefullness in inventing powered flight is an excellent thing. It has nothing to do with the excessive use of commercial aircraft and it's climate impact is negligible. Let us all enjoy these wonderful machines that have done so much to increase our knowledge of the world and visit it's distant shores. People should contemplate these aircraft and the courage of the men who flew them to protect our liberty in times of war

Respectfully Kevin if it's a problem for you don't go, take a trip to China instead and see if you can get them to stop mining and burning coal, that might actually make a difference rather than spoiling peoples weekends over here

You're just a new incarnation of the thought police trying to tell us what to think and do, not interested or convinced, thanks very much.

by air head Wed Jul 09, 2008 16:35

I think the Liberty Bell will be there - more details at

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/preview.htm

Looking forward to it.

The Raptor will be there for the first time in the UK.

by Organiser Wed Jul 09, 2008 18:07

Thank you all for your kind interest in our show.

We hope you all have a great time and the weather improves!

Come along and have a great day.

Here is a list of all the participating aircraft and as you can see this represents a wonderful display from all over the world from Brazil to Belgium and many countries in-between.

RAF Fairford and the Royal Air Force Charitable Trust

ROYAL AIR FORCE
Typhoon F2 3 (F) Squadron RAF 90th S
Typhoon F2 XI Squadron RAF 90th S
Tornado GR4 14 Squadron RAF 90th S
VC-10 C1K 101 Squadron RAF 90th S
Sentinel R1 V (AC) Squadron RAF 90th S
Hercules C3 LTW RAF 90th S
Typhoon F2 29 (R) Squadron RAF 90th F
Tornado GR4 XIII Squadron RAF 90th S
Hawk T1 19 (F) Squadron RAF 90th S
Tornado F3 43 (F) Squadron RAF 90th S
Nimrod MR2A Kinloss RAF 90th S
Harrier GR3 The Defence Movements School RAF 90th S
King Air B200 45 (R) Squadron RAF 90th S
C-17A Globemaster 99 Squadron RAF 90th S
E-3D Sentry AEW1 8 Squadron RAF 90th S
Sea King HAR3 203 (R) Squadron RAF 90th SP
Harrier GR7 20 (R) Squadron RAF 90th S
A109E Power 32 (TR) Squadron RAF 90th S
Chinook HC2 18 (B) Squadron RAF 90th F
Merlin HC3 28 (AC) Squadron RAF 90th S
Puma HC1 33 Squadron RAF 90th S
Tornado F3 (x3) 43 (F) Squadron RAF 90th F
Tornado GR4 (x3) 31 Squadron RAF 90th F
Hawk T1 (x2) 100 Squadron RAF 90th F
E-3D Sentry AEW1 8/23 Squadron RAF 90th F
Dominie T1 55 (R) Squadron RAF 90th S
Tornado GR4 41 (R) Squadron RAF 90th S
Harrier GR9 41 (R) Squadron RAF 90th S
King Air B200 45 (R) Squadron RAF 90th F
Tristar 216 Squadron RAF 90th S
Hawk T1 (x11) The Red Arrows RAF 90th F
Lancaster B1 BBMF RAF 90th F
DC3 Dakota BBMF RAF 90th SP
Spitfire BBMF RAF 90th F
Hurricane IIC BBMF RAF 90th F
Typhoon (x2) 29 (R) Squadron RAF 90th F
Hawk T1 (x2) 208 (R) Squadron RAF 90th F
Tucano T1 (x2) 1 FTS RAF 90th F
Tutor T1 (x2) 1 EFT RAF 90th F
Vigilant (x3) 612 VGS RAF 90th S
Viking (x2) 621 VGS RAF 90th S
ARMY AIR CORPS
Skeeter HAF Global Engagement S
Squirrel HT1 660 Squadron Global Engagement S
BN2T Islander 1 Flt, 5 Regt VIP V
Beaver AL1 Historic Aircraft Flight S
Alouette II Historic Aircraft Flight S
Gazelle AH1 DAAvn Global Engagement S
Apache WAH1 673 (AHTU) Sqn, 2 Regt Global Engagement F
Lynx AH7 The Blue Eagles Global Engagement F
Lynx AH7 672 Sqn, 9 Regt Global Engagement S
Lynx AH9 672 Sqn, 9 Regt Global Engagement S
ROYAL NAVY
Merlin HM1 829 Squadron Global Engagement S
Sea King HU5 SAR HMS Gannet SAR Flight Global Engagement S
Lynx HMA8 815 NAS Global Engagement S
Jetstream T2 750 NAS Global Engagement S
Sea King ASaC7 849 NAS Global Engagement S
Merlin HM1 824 NAS Global Engagement F
Hawk T1 (x2) NFSF (FW) Global Engagement F
US MILITARY
US AIR COMBAT COMMAND
HC-130P 71st Rescue Sqn Global Engagement S
F-22A (x3) Raptor East Demo Team Global Engagement F
B-1B 7 BW Global Engagement F
B-1B 7 BW Global Engagement S
B-52H 2 BW Global Engagement S
US AIR FORCES EUROPE
C-21A 76 AS, 86 AW Global Engagement S
F-16CG (x2) 555 FS, 31 FW Global Engagement S
F-15C 48 FW Global Engagement S
F-15E (x2) 48 FW Global Engagement S
KC-135R 100 ARW Sky Tanker 08 S
USAF RESERVE COMMAND
C-130J-30 815 AS Global Engagement S
B-52H 93 BS, 917th Wing Global Engagement F
HC-130P 39 RQS, 920 RQW Global Engagement S
MC-130E Combat Talon 711 SOS, 919 SOG Global Engagement S
KC-10A 79 ARS, 349 AMW Sky Tanker 08 SP
USAF SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND
MC-130H Combat Talon II 7 SOS, 352 SOG Sky Tanker 08 S
MC-130P Combat Shadow 67 SOS, 352 SOG Sky Tanker 08 S
US NAVY
F/A-18E/F Boeing & *TBC* Global Engagement F
US AIR MOBILITY COMMAND
C-17A Globemaster 7 AS, 62 AW Global Engagement S
C-130H 39 AS, 317 Airlift Group Global Engagement S
US AIR NATIONAL GUARD
EC-130J Commando Solo II 193 SOS Global Engagement S
KC-135R 173 ARS, 155ARW Sky Tanker 08 S
C-130H 181 AS, 136 Airlift Wing Global Engagement S
UNITED STATES EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND
T-1A Jayhawk 39 FTS Global Engagement S
T-43A Gator 562 FTS Global Engagement S
OTHER MILITARY
AUSTRIAN AIR FORCES
C-130K Hercules 4 Transportstaffel Global Engagement S
BELGIAN AIR COMPONENT
Sea King MK48 B KOKS Global Engagement F
F-16AM 1 Squadron Global Engagement S
F-16AM (x2) 1 Squadron Global Engagement F
SF260M 1 Wing Global Engagement S
C-130H 15 Wing Global Engagement S

BRAZILIAN AIR FORCES
T-27 Tucano (x7) Esquadrilha da Fumaca, EDA Global Engagement F
C-130H 1o/1o GT Global Engagement SP
C-105A 1o/9o GAv Global Engagement S
CANADIAN FORCES - AIR COMMAND
CP-140 Aurora 404 Maritime Patrol Squadron Global Engagement S
CF-18 Hornet (x2) Hornet Demo Team Global Engagement F
CHILEAN AIR FORCE
Extra 300L (x5) Escuadrilla de Alta Acrobacia 'Halcones' Global Engagement F
C-130H Grupo de Aviacion No 10 Global Engagement SP
CZECH AIR FORCE
JAS-39C Gripen 211.tl, 21.zTL Global Engagement F
JAS-39C Gripen 211.tl, 21.zTL Global Engagement S
Mi-24V 231.vrl, 23.zVrl Global Engagement F
L159 ALCA 212.tl, 21zTL Global Engagement S
Mi-171Sh 232.vrl, 23.zVrl Global Engagement S
An-26 241.dsl, 24.zDL Global Engagement SP
FRENCH ARMY AIR CORPS
TBM 700 VIP V
TBM 700 (x2) EAAT Global Engagement S
FRENCH AIR FORCE
Mirage F.1 TBC Global Engagement S
Rafale B/C EC 01.007 Global Engagement S
C-160R Transall TBC Global Engagement SP
Alpha Jet E (x10) Patrouille de France Global Engagement F
Mirage 2000 (x2) *TBC* Global Engagement S
FRENCH NAVY
Falcon 50 Marine 24 Flotille Global Engagement S
N262E 28F Global Engagement S
GERMAN AIR FORCE
UH-1D LTG62 Global Engagement S
Tornado RECCE AG51 Global Engagement S
C-160D Transall TBC Global Engagement S
Airbus A-310 FIBschBMVg Global Engagement S
GERMAN ARMY AIR CORPS
CH-53G MTHR15 Global Engagement S
BO-105P1 KHR36 Global Engagement S

GERMAN NAVY
Sea King Mk41 MFG5 Global Engagement S
GREEK AIR FORCE
RF-4E Phantom 348 MTA, 110 PM Global Engagement S
HUNGARIAN AIR FORCE
JAS-39C 1. Vadaszrepulo Szazad 'Puma' Global Engagement S
MiG29 2. Vadaszrepulo Szazad 'Dongo' Global Engagement S
An-26 3. Szallito Repulo Szazad 'Teve' Global Engagement S
INDIAN AIR FORCE
HAL Dhruv x5 Sarang Helicopter Display Team Global Engagement F
IRISH AIR CORPS
CN-235M 101 Squadron Global Engagement S
ITALIAN AIR CORPS
MB-339 CD (x2) 212 Stormo, 61 Grupo Global Engagement S
Falcon 900 93 Grupo VIP V
KC-130J Reparto Sperimentale Volo SkyTanker S
Tornado IDS 6 Stormo Global Engagement S
AMX x2 32 Stormo Global Engagement S
PAKISTAN NAVY
P-3C Orion 28 Squadron Global Engagement S
PORTUGUESE AIR FORCE
Alpha Jet A Asas de Portugal Global Engagement S
Alpha Jet A (x3) Asas de Portugal Global Engagement F
C-130H Esq 501 'Bisontes' Global Engagement S
ROYAL AIR FORCE OF OMAN
BAC 1-11 4 Squadron Global Engagement S
ROYAL DANISH NAVY
Super Lynx Mk90 SHT Global Engagement S
ROYAL DANISH AIR FORCE
F-16AM (x2) *TBC* Global Engagement S
CL-604 Esk 721 Global Engagement VIP
ROYAL JORDANIAN AIR FORCE
C-130H Airlift Wing Global Engagement S
ROYAL NETHERLANDS AIR FORCE
Fokker 50 334 Squadron VIP V
F-16 MLU (x2) 323 Squadron Global Engagement S
F-16 MLU (x2) 313 Squadron Global Engagement F
F-16 MLU (x2) 312 Squadron Global Engagement S
Fokker 50 334 Squadron Global Engagement S
ROYAL NORWEGIAN AIR FORCE
F-16 MLU (x2) 332 Squadron, 132 Luftving Global Engagement S
SLOVENIAN AIR FORCE
PC-9M Swift LETS Global Engagement F
PC-9M Swift LETS Global Engagement S
SWEDISH AIR FORCE
JAS-39B Gripen F7 Wing/ETPS RAF 90th S
SWISS AIR FORCE
F-5E Tiger (x7) Patrouille Suisse Global Engagement F
Ce560XL Lufttransportdienst des Bundes Global Engagement VIP
TURKISH AIR FORCE
C-160 221 Filo Global Engagement SP
NF-5A/B (x9) 134 Akrotim Filo: 'Turkish Stars' Global Engagement F
C-130E 222 Filo Global Engagement SP

CIVILIANS / VISITORS
CIVILIANS
Gnat T.1 De Havilland Aviation RAF 90th S
Piper Warrior Graham Tribe V
Bonanza A36 Hanger 11 SP
Gulfsteam GV Lockheed Martin VIP V
Bulldog BDFA S
Grob 120A Grob Aerospace S
Grob 140TP Grob Aerospace S
AS365 Dauphin Rolls-Royce VIP V
Bell 206 Jet Ranger Rolls-Royce VIP V
Hunter T8b Hawker Hunter Aviation RAF 90th S
PA-28 RAF Marham Aero Club VIP V
PA-28 VIP V
MD500 SP
A310 MRTT EADS SkyTanker F
Premier Jet 1 Hawker Beechcraft S
King Air 350 Hawker Beechcraft S
Embraer Legacy 600 Enbraer VIP SP
A300-600 FedEx Global Engagement S
Gulfstream GV Lockheed Martin VIP V
Hunter FGA.9 Hunter Flying Club RAF 90th S
Flight Design CTSW Malcolm Titmuss S
Extra 400 Bruno Stocker S
Embraer Legacy Embraer VIP SP
PC-12 Pilatus Aircraft SP
DH Vampire T11 Vampire Preservation Group RAF 90th S
Hunter T7 (XL577) Delta Jets RAF 90th S
Hunter T7 (WV318 Delta Jets RAF 90th S
Hunter T7 (WV372) Delta Jets RAF 90th S
Folland Gnat Delta Jets RAF 90th S
Jet Provost T5A Delta Jets RAF 90th S
Piper Dakota Polly Vacher S
SE5A (x4) Great War Display Team RAF 90th F
Sopwith Pup Great War Display Team RAF 90th F
Sopwith Triplane Great War Display Team RAF 90th F
Nieuport 17 Great War Display Team RAF 90th F
Junkers CL1 (x2) Great War Display Team RAF 90th F
Fokker DR1 Great War Display Team RAF 90th F
Hawk Mk128 BAE Systems S
Falcon 20 (x2) FRA F
Piper Warrior (x2) BAE Systems Flying Club V
Spitfire MK XI Hanger 11 RAF 90th S
Twin Otter British Antarctic Survey S
Diamond Star DA-40 Cabair S
Diamond Twin Star DA-42 Cabair S
Spitfire PRXIX Rolls-Royce RAF 90th F
L-39C (x8) Breitling Jet Team Global Engagement F
R-44 Alan Smith SP
Extra 300 (x4) Royal Jordanian Falcons Global Engagement F
Jet Provost Mk3A Newcastle Jet Provost Club RAF 90th S
Aermacchi M311 Alenia Aeronautica Global Engagement S
Aermacchi M346 Alenia Aeronautica Global Engagement S
Pilatus PC-21 Pilatus Aircraft Global Engagement S
Rollason Condor Tony Maycock S
Jet Provost T.5 Bell Bespoke Interiors Ltd RAF 90th S
Strikemaster Whitehouse Retail Group S
Hunter Hawker Hawker Hunter Aviation RAF 90th F
Westland Lysander Shuttleworth Collection RAF 90th F
Hurricane 1a Peter Vacher RAF 90th S
Chipmunk Jim Wesson RAF 90th S
Cessna Citation Marshalls of Cambridge VIP V
Cessna 172 Marshalls of Cambridge VIP V
Piper Aztec Marshalls of Cambridge VIP V
CHARTERS / VISITORS
Fokker 50 VLM Airlines Charter
Fokker 50 VLM Airlines Charter
Piper Warrior PA28-161 Cabair Flying School Charter
PA32 Lance Gordon Silver Charter
Beech 200 London Executive Aviation Charter
SR22 Jon Butts Charter
EC120 Colibri Henry Beckwith Charter
TB20 Trinidad Darren Wheeler Charter
PA-28-161 Patrick Heymann Charter
PA31 Navajo Robert Jones Charter
EC120 Colibri AV8 Helicopter Ltd Charter
BE23 Sundowner Mark Bodger Charter
Diamond DA42 Twinstar Airedale M & E Ltd Charter
PA31-350 Peter Bentley Charter
S-76C++ Air Harrods Ltd Visitor
PA34 Aircraft Engineers Ltd Charter
Beech C90A ISE Aviation Flight Training Charter
DO328 Compass Holding AG Charter
ATR42-300 Avanti Air Charter
DC-3 Air Atlantique Charter
Twin Pionner Air Atlantique Charter
DH Dove Air Atlantique Charter
Dragon Rapide Air Atlantique Charter

by Daffy Duck Wed Jul 09, 2008 18:30

So what is an aeroplane?
It is a heavier than air object obviously!
How does it fly?
Firstly you have to fill it up at one end with fossil fuels, prodigious quantities of the stuff pumped into the fuel-tank.
At the other end of the thing you get global warming, which is emitted out of the exhaust-pipe/s.
Then you need some eejit in the middle of the thing to pilot it who is so insensitive that s/he does not care about the disturbance (noise) the thing makes, or about the birds it kills whilst in flight.
Also the pilot needs to be completely ignorant of the fact that precious oxygen is consumed in vast quantities along with the fuel.
But don't whatever you do tell the asthmatic sufferers and the kids with bronchial problems about that one, they might get uppity!

by kevin lister - Plane Stupid Wed Jul 09, 2008 19:04

All right, then Darce, if it offends you to use words such as B******T, (which is of course in the Oxford English Dictionary), I will steer clear of these. Whilst you are criticising me, you might want to consider that Airbus will be demonstrating the A380 and claiming it to be the most fuel efficient plane in the sky. Fuel efficient, when it is being sold as a private jet to rich Arabs, where does the word B******T now apply? It is simply a disgusting sale when we are being told to do all we can to cut our emissions.

by Kevin Lister - Plane Stupid Wed Jul 09, 2008 19:33

It's great to see the organisers taking this little protest seriously. Still with planes flying in from all over the world, it kind of proves our point that they definitely do not care about climate change. Strange really, when their business is supposedly protecting us from threat, and according to the CIA (and it is of course and American Airforce Base) our biggest threat is now climate change.

by Road Runner Wed Jul 09, 2008 19:55

What is an aeroplane?

A wonderful piece of technology that allows communication by all peoples of the world and helps us all realise that we are all human under the sun

It helps educate people about other parts of the world we would other wise be only able to read about

It transports food aid and technical help in times of disaster

It is the safest way to get from a to b

Per individual it is also the least polluting and with new technology this advantage is improving all the time.

Regional airports are coming into their own now and enabling other areas of the UK rather than just the major centres to benefit from the economic growth an airport brings - and it does bring economic benefits because if they did not they would all be contracting - not expanding

So overall - the aircraft is here to stay

To say otherwise is simply daffy.

by Py Wed Jul 09, 2008 20:23

Kevin

Emirates use them as normal commercial aircraft I do not know of anyone who would want to have a plane that size as a private jet! http://www.arabianbusiness.com/508528-first-a380-flight...ln=en And very successful they have been too! Private jets benefit from being able to fly into the smaller airports – not something you could expect an A380 to do!!

by Kevin Lister - Plane Stupid Wed Jul 09, 2008 21:41

A380, go read a few more papers, try:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1171587773136105....html

or

http://www.luxist.com/2007/02/20/more-details-on-the-fi...-380/

or

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/301644_airbus30.html

An A380 will never be environmentally friendly. A private A380 is something only for the ultimate eco-thugs of the world who care about no one and nothing other than their fragile egos.

by me again Wed Jul 09, 2008 22:03

Kevin,

Firstly I don't find your protest convincing, it's just an easy target because it's nearby and I suspect counterproductive except to your own initiates who will find it meaningful. The general public will view you and your followers as an irritant or at best an eccentric. One air show put on for entertainment will have absolutely no measurable impact on CO2 emissions and the climate. Since you must realise that I can’t see what you hope to gain by this compared to say taking your protest to Heathrow, or even Bristol airport which you could of course, assuming you are local, get to with much lower personal carbon emissions. It seems irrational and motivated by some deeper seated hatred of technology, almost luddite in fact. Do you fear the modern world.

Secondly, assuming you had your own way what exactly is it you are proposing in relation to the aeroplane, would we still have them or will they be completely banned, Plane stupid is a protest group. I have looked at their web site but whilst it is full of criticism it is not full of alternative solutions or even clear about what it wants apart from saying aeroplanes are very very bad.

So could you let me know, since your passionate enough to protest about it, what exactly is it you want for our world, would you mind having a debate here, so many people post and run and wont stay to justify themselves

by Darce Thu Jul 10, 2008 06:34

Kevin - I also think you and your protest group are a mild nuisance at best and do more harm than good at worst to the concept of saving resources.

To start writing "suicide notes" and accusing an air show organiser of "climate crimes" is surely 'plain stupid' without a doubt - because I would suggest that you compare your little band of thought police to numbers of people that will attend this fantastic event as families and friends together. Are you really saying that only you are right and all those other people are wrong?

And what would you do to and for the worlds economy if planes were banned?

"me to" suggests Luddite fear of progress and change on your part. Especially as air travel is one of the least polluting per passenger mile. The A380 that you seem to despise, and find the sale of one to an Arab head of state “disgusting”, is one of the new technology planes that is paving the way forward. In contrast your suggested option is to somehow wind back the clock.

So I agree that your thinking is Luddite - but would add that the fear of disaster, of which Global Warming is just the latest in a long line of doom laden scenarios, is a kind of fear pornography, the titilation of which, some get addicted too.

by Dennis Thu Jul 10, 2008 07:41

For those that are interested there will be a flypast over RAF Fairford on Friday afternoon at approximately 2:30pm (also on TV). The aircraft will be in 4 waves and will consist of 90 aircraft.

Full details can be found at http://www.raf.mod.uk/queenscolourparade/flypast/

Looking forward to it.

by The lunatics are running the assylum Thu Jul 10, 2008 09:34

Darce,

Even George Bush recognises that climate change is man made and is a problem. Both presidential candidates want to make an 80% cut in emissions. The US governement has put polar bears on the endangered list, so desparate has the situation in the Artic become.

This airshow is nothing other than a great advert for the aviation industry, which is the fastest growing source of green house emissions and which has done all it can to delay agreements on climate change. How can we prepare our children from a carbon free future when we take them to events such as this?

For those saying the Plane Stupid does not have any solutions, well actually the solution is not to fly. Are those who are crticising Plane Stupid, saying that we should just ignore the science and continue with business as usual, thereby condeming our children and future generations to a depleted and uninhabitable planet.

by dylan fan Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:54

see also

https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/403310.html

by EXC Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:02

It is hard to see this as anything other than War Porn - the fetishistic rituals of war and killing. We can see the shiny places and uniforms, but hidden is the real cost of this industry - people. Ten of thousands of men, women and children have been killed by these machines in Iraq and Afganistan and thanks to Depleted Uranium and Cluster Bombs, the air-genocide will continue to kill long after the bombing has stopped.

It is obscene the this event is happening.

(And Jordan??? Nice to see we can welcome a despotic regime that uses torture to parade it's arms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Jordan )

A civilain hurt by a bombing raid in Iraq

by Sy Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:33

'air travel is one of the least polluting per passenger mile. '

This is not true. Although the aviation industry has mounted a comical campaign in which they 1) Assume full occupancy of all aircrafts 2) Discount the radiative forcing which according to best scientific knowledge means that the pollution (not fuel economy) is 2.7 as damaging as releasing the same gases on the surface 3) Only give an efficiency figure for the most efficient part of the flight (once the plane is already airborne) 4) Compare comically doctored figure to a car with one occupant.

Note; when the aviation industry, rather then people on internet forums do this they do not talk about pollution, just fuel economy. This means they can ignore the additional ecological damage caused by emitting these gases at high altitude. When we look at environmental impacts however, we have to take a more rounded view which encapsulated all the damage done by aviation.

If you actually want to look at the radiative impact per passenger mile commercial planes are pretty awful. Roughly equivalent to 15-20ishmpgpp for short flights and 20-25mpgpp for longer flights. The disparity between short and long flights is primarily because taking off requires so much extra fuel.

When compared to small 4x4 like a freelander (37mpg combined) with a four people in it (giving 148mpgpp) we find that the 4x4 is about 7 times as efficient. A small diesel like a peugeot 206 (65mpgpp) with four people in it going from london to manchester will be about one fourteenth of the ecological impact of those people flying.

Planes are worse per passenger mile than pretty much every other form of transport. The only exceptions i can think of would be something like a Buggatti Veyron sportscar. However even the 2mpg of a Veyron is made to look efficient by the prospect of a privately owned a380.

We are constantly reminded by the government that we can make green consumer choices, switching to energy saving lightbulbs, more efficient cars, turning down central heating, recycling, etc... The little savings we can make as individuals are more than reversed by increased air traffic. For example... http://mediaecologies.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/from-rus...inal/
When a group of wealthy people having fun for a few days has a greater ecological impact than a nation of 10 million something seems quite wrong to me.

Equally, when a group of people get together to celebrate a massively inefficient method of transport, and will watch numerous aircraft whose fuel economy makes the commercial airliners look greener than a green leaf on an evergreen tree being viewed by a woman with green tinted sunglasses. A commercial airliner may be massively inefficient compared to most forms of transport but at it doesn't have the capacity to engage afterburners for supersonic dogfighting. While these planes are a jawdropping feat of human ingenuity and design expertise, they are environmental disasters, and so long as we live in a culture whereby these instruments destruction to both social and ecological systems are celebrated, serious action on both climate change and creating world without war seems a far off dream.

In a peaceful world there is no place for a supersonic jet fighter/bomber.
In an ecologically sustainable world there is no place for a supersonic fighter/bomber.

Other than maybe in a museum, preserved as a reminder of past follies. Imagine the confusion on the children's faces as their grandparents explain that these machines were used to fly halfway round the world to blow people up and steal their oil. That kind of thing just doesn't happen in a civilised world.

by Morgan Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:57

Anyone with half a brain would accept that climate change has arrived. The increase in CO2 emissions is speeding the effects of global warming. Unfortunately those with less than half a brain may not understand what is occurring world wide and will not have seen the devastating consequence that global warming is already having on the world in the turbulent weather patterns being experienced and effects that this has produced in flooding, and draughts, even in the USA and Russia where production of wheat has fallen in the last few consecutive years. It is time for everyone to recognise that we cannot continue as we have in the past. It is time to call a halt to unnecessary CO2 emissions. Although I am fascinated to see and hear the roar of performance planes this useless waste of fuels and damage to the environment has to stop.

by Mell O Thu Jul 10, 2008 13:26

What we are up against with fans of flying is the ultimate petrol-heads, or jet-fuel-heads, or kerosene-heads, or whatever it is they burn along with OUR precious and diminishing oxygen.

They play with seriously powerful, big, noisy and dangerous toys, so essentially it is about THEIR freedom to have fun with "big boys toys" versus "life on earth"................. and their threat to it as the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) terms it.

These people will continue to play with their toys at our expense just as long as they can block the effects of their environmental damage out of their limited consciousness, and for as long as they can keep the general public ignorant and / or confused.

The longer they can deny the connection between their activities and man-made climate-change, the longer they can enjoy their 'hobby' at all of life on earths expense.

.

by me again Thu Jul 10, 2008 13:32

All very interesting , but according to the statistics UK air travel accounts for 0.01% of the worlds CO2 output. So what exactly would be the point in stopping flying here and specifically what would be the point in objecting to Fairford on enviromental grounds since it quite clearly hasn't got the remotest significance in terms of it's CO2 output.

Shouldn't you be paying more attention to the other 99.99%, you would be better of hoping on a plane and flying to China and objecting to their energy gobbling which is much more significant

What is the logic of saying you shouldn't be flying, all of the benefits, and they are enormous, are lost but nothing is gained except the most paltry of reductions, even the whole of the EU is only just 3.5% of the total. I just can't see the logic of the argument, there isn't any sound reason to simply abandon aviation, it's a completely irrational viewpoint. It's got everything to do with faith and prejudice and nothing to do with logic.

Advertising it may be but that ignores the fact that people buy tickets and go because they like aeroplanes so what exactly would the target market be, you're preaching to the converted, a bit like most posts here.

by R's Thu Jul 10, 2008 13:38

Sadly for you doomongers what comes around goes around. It was fashionable to believe in Global warming and predict the end of man, but now thankfully a new generation is coming through and asking questions not just accepting what the politicians say about what is going on.

I ask you!........... as someone who is an activist myself in environmental terms, I totally despair at you now stating that because George Bush and the CIA say that Global warming is a problem – then hey!!!!! – it must be true.

Have you lost your minds?

You rely on the CIA and Bush now!!!

I suggest you take a leaf out of Kristen Byrnes book and start asking questions of yourselves before you well and truly become part of the “establishment”

Links below to show you the way. If you still have no doubts at all – then there is no hope for you.

http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog/2007/05/30/kri...-end/

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html

http://newsbusters.org/node/12968

by maunder Thu Jul 10, 2008 13:45

I think you are the one that is confused Sy --- "Imagine the confusion on the children's faces as their grandparents explain that these machines were used to fly halfway round the world to blow people up and steal their oil"

Then in an adjacent sentence you site how awful it is that someone who is filthy rich by selling oil has enough money to by an A380. Bit of a contradiction there it seems - but no doubt you will have an answer.

Now that is a steal.

by ........... Thu Jul 10, 2008 14:02

No offence but what are you on about, there's a problem with CO2 but no one is suggesting there's some kind of an oxygen shortage caused by aeroplanes. At least try and get the basic scientific facts right.

Also please could you stop posting abusively. The fact that people don't agree with you and have a different lifestyle doesn't give you the right to adopt such an obnoxious moralising tone, that's your own business it doesn't contribute or persuade anyone, it's not debate, it's trolling. Alll that happens is a row starts and the facts get lost in the argument

I seem to remember you were one of the complainants on the subject of respect recently, perhaps you could try leading by example.

by eco Thu Jul 10, 2008 14:02

As reported by the Associated Press " Al Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last month for his work on climate change, joins Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers as it and dozens of other venture firms expand into so-called ‘clean-tech' investments worldwide."

Kleiner Perkins partner John Doerr announced he's joining the advisory board of “Generation Investment Management” (GIM), the $1 billion investment firm that Gore founded with David Blood, who previously managed $325 billion in assets out of Goldman Sachs' London office. Doerr is one of Silicon Valley's most outspoken clean-tech advocates.
Al Gore's GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that's almost everyone -- to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes.
And that moves Al Gore front and center.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/12/g...group

S’truth that’s inconvenient!!!!

by Mell O Thu Jul 10, 2008 14:14

Clive, I did not say "oxygen shortage caused by aeroplanes" and you bloody well know it!

Can you not persist with putting words into other peoples mouths and them slagging them off for what you imagined they said please?

by Sy Thu Jul 10, 2008 14:20

Maunder I'm afraid i don't understand... Why is there a contradiction in decrying the use of aeroplanes to bomb people and privatise their natural resources (transferring their wealth from the people of a nation who haven't had bombs land on them to the shareholders of multinational corporations) and also decrying tyrannical undemocratic leaders who invest in massively uneconomical forms of transport?

Do I have to support the US/UK military or the Royal House of Saud? What a strange choice you want people to make... Its quite funny... I thought the Saudi royal family and the UK/US military/arms industry got along quite well... So well in fact that we keep selling them more aeroplanes... And giving them bribes to buy more military equipment... And then dropping any investigation into the bribes...

Personally I'm not a fan of either, and I will continue to oppose the social and environmental damage done by both organizations. I'm sorry if that upsets your somewhat bizarre world view.

by Sy Thu Jul 10, 2008 14:52

'there isn't any sound reason to simply abandon aviation, it's a completely irrational viewpoint. It's got everything to do with faith and prejudice and nothing to do with logic.'

This I would agree with. In fact it's very similar to what I have to say in the blog post I linked to. Flying aid out to countries like Burma and China following their recent natural disasters is the fastest way to get help where it is needed, and thus is the most effective way to reduce the immense amount of suffering which goes on in the wake of disasters. Saying that we should let these people suffer and die because flying is bad for the environment and will likely make people suffer and die in the future is not a convincing argument.

This however is a world away from saying that there is a point to burning loads of fossil fuels in Fairford so that some war-junkies have a nice day out. The point of a B1 bomber is to blow things up. This is not what I consider to be a socially useful device. In fact the only social use beyond killing people that I can think of is intimidation with the threat of force - again hardly civil behavior. Whereas an armed soldier can be deployed as a peacekeeper, protecting a group of unarmed civilians from militias the same cannot be said of a B1 bomber. It is a socially destructive instrument, which additionally causes environmental damage. If the B1 bomber brought medical aid to people, the environmental damage it causes may be justified by the social good it does. However this is clearly not the case.

Similarly rich people in the 1st world having five holidays by flying to exotic locations around the world means that their impact on the environment is similar to that of a large town in the poorer nations, where the effects of their behavior are in some places beginning to have hugely negative ecological and social effects, is not a desirable social phenomena in a civilized and democratic world.

Equally your argument that individually, or even as a nation we are only a small percentage of the world and therefore of global co2 emissions (and I notice that you still only mention co2 rather than ecological impact or radiative forcing) is null and void. If everyone said to themselves 'well i'm only 1/6billionth of the global population, therefore nothing that I do is very important' then clearly no action on ACC will be taken. On the other hand if all those statistically insignificant people decide to say 'I realise that I exist as part of a series of social and ecological systems, and that everyone's behavior effects those systems' then we can collectively begin to reduce our ecological impact as a species.

I notice that you're quick to palm the blame off to China (how convenient) and tell people to go fly there... Perhaps you fail to realise that by flying to China and back you would have more of an environmental impact in two days of flying than the average Chinese citizen has in a year. But then your borderline racist argument suggests that the problem isn't people in the west emitting 20 tonnes of co2 equivalent a year (US average without international flights) or even 10 tonnes co2 equivalent a year (UK average without international flights) but Chinese citizens who's per capita figure is closer to 4 tonnes. Why do you think it is acceptable for us to have several times as much of an impact on global climate per person? Why should their development and emissions (much of which is manufacturing consumer goods for us anyway) be restricted to a fraction of ours per person. Why do you think people in other countries should have fewer opportunities to people in ours?

To cap things at a per capita level in China an equal demand would be for the UK to immediately lower its ecological impact by 60% and the US to do so by 80%. Until we - that is the people who've essentially cuased the problem over the last 100 odd years - agree to these kinds of tough measures I see no point in telling people across the world who have not enjoyed the material benefits of industrialisation what they ought to be doing, when their current impact is a fraction of ours. Yet funnily enough that is exactly what people like yourself and George Bush have been doing. Why is it that those in rich nations who have most vehemently opposed any action on ACC now want to lay the blame at the feet of other, poorer nations.

by ........... or me again Thu Jul 10, 2008 15:03

I can absolutely assure you I am not Clive Hammond, he may well be posting here and I suspect he is but he is nothing to do with me. If he had any sense he would stop to avoid the risk of BIM making his ban permanent.

I have an opinion that is not the same as yours and would like to have a hopefully polite and well reasoned debate with out being subjected to moralising which is not the same as a discussion and do not want to argue with you or anyone else

However this is what you said:

"What we are up against with fans of flying is the ultimate petrol-heads, or jet-fuel-heads, or kerosene-heads, or whatever it is they burn along with OUR precious and diminishing oxygen".

So do you think there is an oxygen supply problem caused by fossil fuel burning or not and on what basis is the oxygen YOURS as opposed to MINE. Forgive me if I seem suprised but I thought the global warming debate was about temperature increase not oxygen shortage.

I like all of the things that humankind has invented, I think we are a remarkable and inventive species and I would like to preserve our technology if it is possible. The way to do that is to debate the issues rationally and not throw our toys out of our prams when we encounter someone with different opinions and lifestyles. It's called tolerance or respect, whichever you prefer.

by Mell O Thu Jul 10, 2008 15:13

Fairford Air Tattoo.

Thats the topic.

.

by O2 Thu Jul 10, 2008 18:54

Mell O,

Doesn't matter if it is an oxygen shortage, or build up of CO2. Either way the planets atmosphere is becoming too toxic to sustain life. Mell O, I hope you appreciate that this means your life and the life of our children

by My Penis is not the world's smallest - Organisation of small penises Thu Jul 10, 2008 21:53

Why would an Arab Prince want to have an A380 as a private jet ? It is obvious - he must have the world''s smallest penis.

Is this the same for all Arab Princes? If you are an Arab Prince coming to Fairford and you read this thread, then please do send in your measurements and the type of private plane you use so we can see the correlation. We want to see if it is true, the bigger your plane, the smaller your tackle.

by Echo Fri Jul 11, 2008 09:20

The bigger the lie (GW) the smaller the brain power.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels (29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945)

by Mell O Fri Jul 11, 2008 09:40

And the deniers and denialists are always those who make the most money out of 'business as usual'

by Sy Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:43

'I like all of the things that humankind has invented, I think we are a remarkable and inventive species and I would like to preserve our technology'

I do not like cluster bombs. Or gas chambers. Likewise landmines, nuclear weaponry or B1 bombers. Neither do i revere the ingenuity of medieval torture chambers or contemporary US terror detention facilities... I would rather not preserve the strains of anthrax, sarin and other chemical and biological weapons designed and created by our remarkable and inventive species.

I would prefer to live in a world where these inventions were firmly consigned to the dustbin of history, filed under bad ideas not to be repeated. I'm more than a little surprised that anyone finds the things on the list above likeable and worth preserving.

by Woops Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:54

S'truth!

by eco Thu Jul 10, 2008 15:02

As reported by the Associated Press " Al Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last month for his work on climate change, joins Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers as it and dozens of other venture firms expand into so-called ‘clean-tech' investments worldwide."

Kleiner Perkins partner John Doerr announced he's joining the advisory board of “Generation Investment Management” (GIM), the $1 billion investment firm that Gore founded with David Blood, who previously managed $325 billion in assets out of Goldman Sachs' London office. Doerr is one of Silicon Valley's most outspoken clean-tech advocates.
Al Gore's GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that's almost everyone -- to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes.
And that moves Al Gore front and center.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/12/g...group

S’truth that’s inconvenient!!!!

by me again Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:57

Sorry Sy love to have a discussion about all of that, including the flying stuff, but just don't have the time today

by The Happy Denialer Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:25

Not many people are taken in by this chorus of poverty stricken activists trumpeting climate change as the means to the end of capitalism, wealth redistribution and a brave new sustainable world governed by carey sharey community types.

Too many people = too much consumption = resource demand = climate change.

Deal with the root cause and get off your class war soap box. You cannot solve this problem by limiting the flight of planes or the consumption of the rich because in 25 years the growth in world population will have offset any gains 20 fold. Try limiting the birth rate for everyone; what say you to one child per couple for the next 1000 years?

If that is untenable, give up, move to accept the inevitable consequences of unfettered population growth; get used to famine and flood and be easy about the prospect of nature doing for itself what we will not do for ourselves.

Without mankind the planet will get on just fine. But in the meantime im off to Fairford with my family to enjoy the party while it lasts. Chin Chin!

by Captain Capitool Fri Jul 11, 2008 13:17

All the first world CC deniers here seem to be using their usual blinkered vision so beloved of the ignorant everywhere in order to justify their polluting - consumer lifestyles.

Not many people were taken in by the captain of the Titanic either as I recall, or were they?

by Anarchist606 Fri Jul 11, 2008 16:48

I quote;

"Here's the simplest truth of air power, then or now. No matter how technologically "smart" our bombs or missiles, they will always be ordered into action by us dumb humans; and if, in addition, they are released into villages filled with civilians going about their lives, or heavily populated urban neighbourhoods where insurgents mix with city dwellers (who may or may not support them), these weapons will, by the nature of things, by policy decision, kill noncombatants. If an AC-130 or an Apache helicopter strafes an urban block or a village street where people below are running, some carrying weapons and believed to be "suspected insurgents," it will kill civilians. The disadvantage of "distant war" is that you normally have no way of knowing why someone is running, or why they are carrying a weapon, or usually who they really are."

by XO Fri Jul 11, 2008 17:27

There was a military recruitment thing at St Pauls Carnival until a group of protesters made them feel unwelcome and they left.

Same needed here?

by concernedresident Fri Jul 11, 2008 19:19

What has been missed is that the spy plane wont even land - or at least it hasnt for the last two years - all they do is fly it across from the usa (reputedly) do a fly by and then fly back - only to come back the next day.

THEN, we have all the aeroplanes coming from across the globe for what is a really unnecessary national exhibtion, and finally a few thousand cars are then trying to get into an air field which is ONLY fed via country lanes that have historically carried one track.

This farce must stop, aircraft technology doesnt move forward so fast that a show is required every year. + there is always farnborough and youtube. go record it tomorrow and never go back.

Funny how greenpeace or friends of the earth havent got hold of this issue - especially when you see the noise they make about 4x4 and aeroplane usage generally.

Lets hope they jump on this display of national arrogance and put a stop to it once and for all.

Shame on all you who attend, but hopefully the environment will make it a washout with torrential rain - hope you can all swim.

by Elated Sat Jul 12, 2008 05:57

Yeehaa !!! serve the warmongering b'stards right !!!

http://soglos.com/sport-outdoor/28333/Air-Tattoo-cancel...-rain

by me Sat Jul 12, 2008 07:22

Great news for life on Mother Earth.

by mothernature Sat Jul 12, 2008 08:38

As mothernature, I can only wash them out so they cancel. You the people need to go to the official air tattoo website and click on 'contact us', and send them a message explaining your concerns at the damage to the environment they are causing (ironically Fairford was the worst affected area of the costwolds flooding last year).

You should insist that they cancel this public display of environmental damage in the name of entertainment.

DO IT NOW - AND DONT FORGET TO PREY FOR RAIN TONIGHT SO THEY CANCEL TOMORROW AND FEEL THE PAIN IN THEIR POCKETS - MAYBE THEN THEY WILL WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

by flypast Mon Jul 14, 2008 06:28

And of course it never rained in the UK before the invention of the ICE

Still we airheads will just move onto Farnborough and Duxford. 80,000 visitors expected at Farnborough when it opens to the public this coming w/e. And the business done this week when it is trade only! - makes your heart sing.

Funny how the said on the news today how important the aviation industry is to GB. So not everyone believes the lies about the only way forward being backwards.

And they confirmed that the A380 produces less CO2 per passenger mile than most cars, in fact if it was a car it would be exempt from the LCC. Funny that. As is the plane on display that runs on a fuel cell.

Oh and please do not try to damn the A380, this wonderful feat of human technology by quoting the rather rich Saudi Prince who buys one as a plaything - after all you is just spending back with us some of that money we paid Saudi for supposedly "stealing" their oil.

Spin Spin Spin Spin Spin Spin Spin Spin

by trolls for supper Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:36

"The plane on display that runs on a fuel cell".
How does the fuel cell work in aplane flypast?
What goes into the manufacture of that Fuel-cell?

by Kevin Lister - Plane Stupid Mon Jul 14, 2008 13:19

The following email has been posted on the Air Tattoo web site, http://www.airtattoo.com/airtattoo/details/contactus
for the attention of Tim Prince, the RIAT Director.

Dear Tim Prince

Well done on arranging for 300 planes to be flown around the world to demonstrate the irony of your position on climate change. The none airshow that you organised is wonderful demonstration that the worlds most powerful military hardware is powerless against climate change. It vindicates the CIA’s position that climate change is our biggest threat.

Your event may make your supporters, who are wilfully uneducated and illiterate on climate change, realise that staying ignorant is no defence against climate change.

Extreme rain events are occurring around the world with increasing frequency and severity. They are causing immense hardship, as you and your supporters are now experiencing. These events cannot be dismissed as “weather,” as some of your supporters try; see the links below.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20021028/

http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/12/global-warming-ca...eing/

Wherever you decide to hold your event next year, we will target it. We will target it at every opportunity and we will target it with every passion in our bodies. We will not give you the opportunity to dismiss and discredit the science of climate change and to brain wash our children with your monstrously anachronistic event when we are making sacrifices to our lives. Let battle commence.

by Agenda driven Mon Jul 14, 2008 14:43

Naw

Just wait a couple of years and the lunacy of the "science" of GW will be the laughing stock of the public in general - not just those scientists who despair at the hijacking of science by idiots with an agenda.

Just google GW or CC "nonsense" "hoax" or "b*ll^cks" and it comes out for all to see.

The desperation of your actions shows your concern.

The admittance by the "consensus" that GW stopped in 1998 and won't start again until about 2015 because the reality does not fit the models gives you about 7 years of "hope".

I feel sorry for you.

by Bovverred Bangladeshi Mon Jul 14, 2008 15:33

Just google "GW or CC Denial nonsense" - "GW CC Denial hoax" or "GW CC Denial bollocks" and all will be revealed.

.

by nav light Mon Jul 14, 2008 16:59

Kevin.

You said;

"your supporters, who are wilfully uneducated and illiterate on climate change"

Don't you feel that's just a little arrogant, about 150,000 normally visit Fairford each day, but you Kevin self appointed expert are in a position to say that all of them are deliberately being stupid about climate change.

Chances are that they've taken heed of the facts, which as someone else said here is that UK aviation accounts for a tiny fraction of one percent of global output and decided to have a day out with their families. People just do not like hectoring self righteous little tits who think they know better than anyone else. Shame for them it rained or as you might put it "an extreme precipitation event" occurred.

In other words Kevin what happens at Fairford is in global terms completely IRRELEVANT to global warming , just like your silly little protest

Incidentally it didn't ground the planes, the incredible technology they use makes them able to fly in all weathers at any time of day or night. The car park got waterlogged and the "elfnsafety" brigade got their knickers in a twist in case someone got muddy.

Any way I'm sure your e mail has them shaking in their boots about next year, LOL "let battle be joined" you twerp

by trolls for supper Mon Jul 14, 2008 17:38

How about we start a new fundraising campaign or effort to send all trolls to areas affected by climate-change / global-warming, so that they can see the damage that they and the current 'business as usual' greedy capitalist idiots are doing to CC / GW affected areas?

If they get sent to work in impacted places and not allowed to leave for at least ten years they might realise the error of their ways?

I'll get the ball rolling by throwing in a tenner.

£20 to get CH on his way!

by Tony Mon Jul 14, 2008 18:09

Nobody can deny that the aeroplane is a remarkable and fascinating feat of human ingenuity, but most of the displays at Fairford are of weaponry.

And out of respect for the five million victims in Iraq, victims of cluster bombs and depleted uranium, dropped by bombers that took off from Fairford for Iraq after 19th March 2003.

Victims of our illegal invasion of a sovereign country on a lie, a criminal invasion so successfully covered up, a cover-up which continues, by the BBC, or Blood Bath Cover-up.

And out of respect for those heroes of February 2003, among whom were Monica Margaret Jones, Paul Milling, Toby Olditch, Phillip Pritchard and Josh Richards who, at Fairford, valliantly attempted to prevent this carnage, our eternal shame.

Any decent moral thinking human-being would shun Fairford and all it stands for in order to display our utter distain for such cowardly activities as carpet bombing innocent poor people from 30,000 feet.

Shame on all you criminal cowardly strutting uniformed butchers, and that goes for you too Maam.

And before some one queries the five million victims statistic, would you not consider yourself to be a victim if you were forced to flee your home, all your possessions, your country? And see your family violently decimated before your very eyes?

Anyone who supported the two million protest against the illegal invasion of Iraq, in London on 15th February 2003, should not patronise Fairford, it was wrong then and it's wrong now.

by boost gauge Mon Jul 14, 2008 21:17

The threads about global warming Tony. Post another article if you want to moralise about war. We have been fighting since the dawn of time, no amount of indignant moralising will make it stop.

If you want to avoid things that have been misused at some point by humanity to do something immoral somewhere at some time to someone else, stay in bed with your eyes shut. Military helicopters and transports are used to deliver aid as well as missiles, think Berlin airlift, Asian Tsunami to name just two, if they hadn't been developed for war they wouldn't be any use for aid, in other words they are dual use, just like the bullets that killed Adolf Hitler or Martin Luther King, they can end a nightmare or kill a dream. it's whose pulling the trigger that counts. You can love these things and hate them in equal measure.

I can admire a Hercules transport for the skill of the pilot who landed it in an African famine as much as for it's strength and the pilots courage under fire in Iraq, the only place to get up close is air shows like Fairford or Duxford. If you don't like it no one's making you go, just don't judge the rest of us by your beliefs and try to tell us what we should be doing or thinking.

As for heroes well, you choose yours and i'll chose mine.

by Tony Mon Jul 14, 2008 22:23

May I suggest that you read the article again, madam/sir, instead of dancing on the head of a pin.

From the first paragraph of this article :-

"to make the business of bombing more family friendly than the business of climate change".

by jbac;mnsdv Mon Jul 14, 2008 23:07

I have read it again, it's posted by plane stupid and it's about global warming and I still think you're off topic, but I don't actually care and feel I was being a bit sarcastic so don't feel you have to make something out of it. You could answer my comment which would be more interesting, then we could both be off topic.

by Tony Tue Jul 15, 2008 06:56

which I replied to.

The examples you quote are indeed, good coming out of evil. But does this really justify the original evil?

And to attempt to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq, an invasion universally regarded as bereft of truth or morals (except by the US-UK of course), by quoting examples of good coming from justifiable wars does not afford us any moral advantage.

WW2 was a justifiable stand against naziism, and the Battle of Britain pilots were indeed our heroes. But to annihilate a disproportionate number of civilians in the Middle East, which is what Fairford pilots did after 19th March 2003, (but we only pushed the bomb button because we were ordered to, sir), from a great height is abject cowardice. A projection of the Bush/Blair bullying.

We have, and continue to, justifiably earned the contempt of the world in so doing. Five million victims of our illegal invasion to be written into the perpetuity of history - getting dangerously close to the six million figure.

The illegal invasion of Iraq was fought for profit with no consideration for the rule of law, we used the UN when it suited us and in so doing weakened it, instead of strengthening it and holding it as a benchmark for international law and justice.

And when our government sets the example that might - not morals, is right, that there are rewards to be gained by mugging the weak, then look no further than our burgeoning violent youth to see the results.

Our government in trying to preach against knife crime hasn't got a moral leg to stand on.

Surely it is the duty of all to make a stand against illegal slaughter at every and any opportunity - otherwise our moral values will continue down the slippery slope.

Fairford is one of those opportunities.

by wing Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:28

I too feel that the second Gulf War was started on a lie. One day hopefully the truth will come out – but with the likes of Blair and Campbell and the death of good men like Dr Kelly – it may not be for some time.

But to target a show like Fairford is like arguing with a signpost that someone has deliberately pointed in the wrong direction.

The sign post is still that same as it ever was, but due to a malicious act it now is pointing in the wrong direction. Even senior military personnel are stating that we should get out. With the dodgy dossiers of 45min WMD’s now in the open I agree. It is politicians that you should be targeting – not an Airshow or the RAF.

It was Bush senior that did not allow the extraordinarily evil Saddam Hussein to be brought to book for the killing of the Marsh Arabs and the gassing of Men Women and Children in Halabja. So again a politician makes a bad decision and one that the military did not agree with at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Saddam was allowed to continue killing and murdering people – but you that protest about what “our side” do/did always conveniently forget that. But the Iraqi people supported the democratic process – some even risking death from extremists in order to vote.

But we need to get out now and the end does not justify the means Blair and Bush used to take us to war. I hope recorded history reflects that.

So is it sensible to target a celebration of the RAF’s 90 years? Or to allow people to appreciate the wonder of mans ability?

No of course it is not. Without “the few” I doubt we would have the freedom to post virtually anything we want on here or anywhere else. In WW2 we had an ill prepared military fighting an initially technically superior and numerically superior foe. Winston Churchill’s words say it all.

It was the RAF that helped distributed much of Band Aids food and supplies. There are many many other examples of how excellent work has been done by the RAF and the other services.

So having an “argument with a signpost” is what those that advocate targeting the likes of Fairford are doing. You might as well bay at the moon for all the good it will do. Or shout at the brick some prat has thrown through your window.

Because that brick when used properly can support a great structure – but should we ban all bricks because someone lobbed one in the wrong direction……..?

Or would it be better to tackle the issue of who and why the brick was thrown.

by Kevin Lister - Plane Stupid Tue Jul 15, 2008 18:00

Thank you for your comment on arguing with a signpost. You are right to say that we must praise the rescue work of the military and pay homage to the sacrifices of past airmen who have given their lives for our freedom and the freedom of others.

However, just as we addressed the horrific threat of the Nazis in the 1940s, then we must recognise the horrific threat of climate change. Just as in the 1930s, many people tried to pretend that the Nazis would not become a threat; as of today, many people still pretend that climate change will not become a threat.

We must treat this emerging threat seriously. Not to do so, means that the sacrifices of our airmen and military in the past will be in vain.

As the organisers pointed out, this airshow had 300 planes coming from Belgium to Brazil, plus 100,000 people coming from all over Europe. I have not worked out how much CO2 and other green house gases this equates to, but it will be in the many thousands of tonnes. Likewise, Farnborough will be on this week, and there will be a series of other shows on around the country. So, a couple of thousand tonnes of greenhouse gases here and there, and you are quickly talking about an awful lot.

The plane lovers will quickly point out that the emissions from the airshow are less than the Drax power station, or less than the M25, or what ever else, but this is not the point. Worse than the total emissions from these events, is the message it sends. Basically, if we are not prepared to do so something as simple a stop an airshow, what chance have we got of making the huge cuts in CO2 emissions that the science makes clear that we need to.

Just as in the 1930s, we had to prepare our children and society for military service to defeat the Nazis, then as now, we need to prepare our children and society for a zero carbon future. Holding airshows to impress with mass fossil fuel burning demonstrations, simply brainwashes everyone into thinking climate change is either not serious, can easily be dealt with, or is so daunting as to not be worthwhile trying.

Many thousands of people have made cuts in their lifestyles to cut the CO2 emissions that they cause. This one airshow will negate the savings of tens of thousands of people.

There is no question; this airshow is a signpost. It is a also a massive free advert for the aviation industry as it attempts to impress people into supporting it, and is freely assisted by both the BBC and ITV in these efforts. It is also another media platform were the industry can spout its lies such as saying that an Airbus A380 is environmentally friendly.

Finally back to your point about paying homage to the pilots of the Second World War and other campaigns - their planes, along with other fantastic examples of technology such as the Vulcan bomber are best kept in museums. Our respect for the brave people that flew these planes is better done by teaching history in school.

by benyboy Thu Jul 17, 2008 23:19

Do you realise that if these people were not flying these aircraft and the armed forces in general were not doing the amazing job they do, it is unlikely that you would have the freedom of speech to talk such utter dribble. Go and find something usefull to do.

by Frank Fri Jul 18, 2008 21:23

I don't live in Britain, and am thankful not to have to deal with organisation of your type here.

I however noticed that your senseless actions, always contain one sort or the other of perturbation or degradation. In this case, damaging someone else's property, namely spraying paint on banners.

By this, you commited an unlawful act, and I sure hope that you will be fined, and obliged to pay for the damages done. Protesting is one thing, but I hope that you at least assume your acts.

But I have my doubts...

I'm sorry, but such actions don't give you or your message much credibility.

With all due respect.

by nightbird Fri Jul 18, 2008 21:25

Firstly, let's get some facts straight in order to raise your credibility.

The 90 aircraft flypast was NOT in honour of the Queen - regardless of what you seem to think of her. The flypast was for the 90th Annivsersary of the formation of the Royal Air Force. An organisation for which we should all be grateful as without them we might now all be under the Nazi jackboot.

Further, before publishing an article in which you aim to raise such things as this, the least you could do is first check your spelling and grammar. The fact that you obviously haven't lowers your attempt to nothing more than kindergarden level.

by Fast Jet Jockey Fri Jul 18, 2008 22:00

"In a peaceful world there is no place for a supersonic jet fighter/bomber.
In an ecologically sustainable world there is no place for a supersonic fighter/bomber."

Right, ok. However, the fact is, we do not live in a 'peaceful world'. This is where your argument falls apart; the RAF and air arms all around the world are there to protect the freedom that our ancestors have fought and died for. The RAF has a number of these "supersonic jet fighter/bombers", namely the Tornado F3 and Typhoon FGR4 on Quick Reaction Alert to respond to, for example, hijacked airliners. If the world were your idealistic 'peaceful world' then indeed, these aircraft and their operators would be out of a job, but I'm a afraid that you are so narrow minded that you cannot see that your arguments are completely ridiculous.
I assume that you are British? Do you not feel a certain sense of pride that comes from seeing these aircraft defending our country? Defending the sacrifices made throughout history so that you can have the green land of England that you keep going on about? I suggest you get yourself along to Farnborough this weekend to see some of the most impressive and exciting advances in technology the world has ever seen. How can you not say that you are not moved by seeing the Battle of Britain memorial flight representing those killed for the sake of freedom? Do you look up at these fantastic machines and only care about the grass that it runs over? Seriously, learn to respect the fantastic job that our servicemen are doing around the world.

Fast Jet Jockey

by Mangoman Fri Jul 18, 2008 22:29

Well, what would you do without the armed forces? Be dead. Then you wouldn't be able to have your pathetic hissy fits about something that won't even affect you. Good one.

by Gene Police Fri Jul 18, 2008 23:19

Do you not feel a certain sense of pride that comes from seeing these aircraft defending our country?

Yeah, I feel so proud when I see advanced jet fighters going up against poorly armed villagers, little kids and wedding ceremonies.

WOW. I mean, it's so great to know that Freedom® is being defended from some medieval culture halfway across the world. Geee, where would we be if we couldn't plant a massive heap of bombs on a bunch of poverty-stricken goat herders and religious fanatics? Probably all be speaking foreign by now, and being killed for not praying to Allah, rather than being killed for not looking both ways when we cross the road, which is so much more wholesome.

Yes, we must never forget the sacrifice that our armed forces make - in becoming a bunch of murderers they save us from having to make economies at home. They steal the worlds resources and kill people so we don't have to. Hip hip, hoooray!

Oh no - is that a wedding party I see before me? IT IS! RATATAATAATATATATATATA! KABOOOM!!1

(Well, ok, maybe there is a need for an army and weapons, although the Swiss seem to get along fine, I don't know. But there sure ain't a need to glorify the death and destruction that war brings. I am highly offended by the billboards for air tatoos given the sort of mayhem our airforce has been dealing out in the last few years and I think we should be ashamed, not proud of what they do, whether we think it is "neccesary" or not).

by Gene Police Sat Jul 19, 2008 01:54

...that wedding party was guilty of looking at us funny. It threatened our Freedom™. We'd all be speaking Iraqi right now if it wasn't for multi-million pound fighter planes and cluster bombs and cruise missiles and Gatling guns, what kinda commies are you? It makes me sick to think of the people who stood up and fought for Freedom™ and how people standing up and disagreeing with the military-industrial complex tarnish their sacrifice by using that very Freedom™ in ways I don't agree with.

So shut up, don't use the Freedoms™ our ancestors fought and died for, and be glad that we are now the ones bringing death and destruction to innocent civilians, er, I mean evil, insurgent fundamentalist weddings.

by Rob Sat Jul 19, 2008 07:41

Unfortunately this page has been linked through to some geeky plane spotter forums that i had the displeasure of stumbling across. I mean I like the looks of a spitfire as much as the next man and appreciate what they did for us, but i don't get wet at the thought of it. Expect old men posting pap quotes from pap sources here that completely rubbish global warming, simply because they've just read the evidence/news stories that back up their own thoughts to support their agenda, and read nothing to challenge or question their thoughts ie. the Daily Mail & and the equally simple ones that read the Daily Express. Await an influx of plane spotting/phototaking imbicilies. Infact Daily Mail reading plane spotting/photographing imbiciles - Is there anyone lower in life?

by Blind Idiot - FOE Sat Jul 19, 2008 07:47 ms21042 at aol dot com 39 leamon court, brandon suffolk 07987 935333

So all these notice boards and comments from people concerned about global warming/climate change/carbon footprint/El Ninio (or whatever it's called this week).
What's the carbon footprint of all your computers whilst you're sitting there bashing away at your keyboard telling other people how bad they are for contributing towards whatever it's called this week? All that filthy CO2 being pumped out by nasty power stations powering the lights in your house, powering the very computer you are sitting there indignantly hammering away at the keyboard at!

Stop posting comments, save the planet!

by Kev Sat Jul 19, 2008 07:59

That's what we like to see, a nice balanced view of the world. By writing tosh like that all you do is become a laughing stock. Climate change is a serious issue but there is a balance that can and should be achieved, you do that cause no good whatsoever with your poor spelling/grammar and obvious agenda. With idiots like you the cause you claim to uphold has no chance as most right-thinking people simply write you all off as nutters.

by Half a brain, still Sat Jul 19, 2008 08:51

If you disagree with the war in Iraq, then take it up with the politicians and not the Armed Forces. They have no choice as to what warzones they're put into, and they're just doing the job they're told to do. But of course, take one incident that's sensationalised or heavily covered in the media, and you'll latch onto that to 'prove' your ridiculous ideologies. Unfortunately, in the heat of battle, mistakes are made, and not everything will go completely smoothly. I'm not entirely familiar with this wedding incident, I'll grant you, but I'd be willing to bet this wasn't just killing for the sake of killing. I guess by the same token, the recent friendly fire incident with the Apache attack helicopter was perpetrated by evil pilots who wanted to kill their own men? Of course not, and it's absolutely no different with innocent Iraqi (or Afghan) civilians.

And besides, this is totally straying from the point, seeing as the original article was about global warming, but I guess discussions about war are inevitible when the military are involved with anything, and we have people like you around, waiting to pounce on their every move.

by Kevin Lister - Plane Stupid Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:24

Benyboy, does it not occur to you that the people who courageously and unselfishly gave their lives must be turning in their graves at what is happening today.

We have the taxpayers supporting the aviation industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds per year, we have the BBC, which the tax payer funds, giving free advertising space to the industry. Not once in any BBC report leading up to Fairford was the environmental impact of the show discussed. Not one political party is questioning the support that the aviation industry is getting when science is clearly saying that we must eliminate CO2 emissions to avoid the runaway climate change that will unquestionably destroy our civilisation. All this because we do not have the same courageous and selfless attitudes that the brave servicemen had in the past. It is a travesty to see that the freedoms our servicemen died for being so unquestioningly abused.

To continue ignoring the evidence of climate change, as you propose, to allow yourself to taken in by the propaganda of the aviation industry, to wilfully ignore the science, to close your eyes to the rising sea levels, melting ice caps and extreme weather events around the world, has uncanny parallels with the German people who did not question where the Jews were going as they herded on to trains and who accepted the Gestapo’s lies that the Jews were simply being resettled for their own good.

As you maybe aware, the German people ended up in war which caused them horrendous suffering and loss. There is surely a lesson here. You can sit by idly and watch horrors unfolding in front of you and do nothing and hope for the best, but only for so long. Eventually, by your own inactions, the horrors you witness to others will soon become your horrors.

For latest unquestioning £100m of tax payers support to the aviation industry , see

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/...8.xml

by Mell O Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:11

I wonder if any of the fans of Climate Change and military hardware have any children?

What are the likely or probable effects going to be on their children in the future of Climate Change going to be?

Do they even care about their own childrens future?

It does not appear so.

What kind of people do not care about their own children, or future generations even?

by J79 Sat Jul 19, 2008 13:47

"Not once in any BBC report leading up to Fairford was the environmental impact of the show discussed."

Because the impact is extremely low. Completely immeasurable.

Thousands of commerical flights take place 24/7, 365 days a year. The 300 or so for the show aren't even comparible to the rest of the aviation industry (who, by the way, are doing their damndest to make air travel as clean and efficient as possible - just look at the previously mentioned A380 . More efficient engines, carrying more people per flight).

I can understand your concerns about commercial flights causing an impact on the environment (believe it or not), but to vent your frustrations on an airshow which has a relatively miniscule impact is down right ridiculous. Let people attend the show, as it's their decision as to what they do with their lives. And no, they're not all sons of Beelzebub himself. These are just normal people who would actually like to enjoy themselves from time to time, without having to look over their shoulder and feel extremely guilty for playing a part in something which might upset a few environmentalists. Why can't you people understand and accept that?

by imcvol Sat Jul 19, 2008 15:54

A lot of people participating in this thread seem to be unaware of the guidelines for use of this site. In particular we have a respect guideline:

"Bristol indymedia is intended to represent the world we are striving to create, rather than the world we live in. A cornerstone of this principle is respect for others, therefore articles or comments that are abusive rather than relying on force of argument are not acceptable." (more details are here).

Please conform to the respect guideline. It doesn't matter what side of the debate you are on, if you are abusive then your comments will be hidden. In any case abuse is very ineffective if you're trying to get your point across - a sober, reasoned position is much more likely to affect other people's point of view.

If that doesn't convince you then maybe you should think of the poor Bristol Indymedia volunteers who have to spend their week-ends hiding posts from people who lack basic manners.

by Kevin Lister - Plane Stupid Sat Jul 19, 2008 20:52

To Mell O: The effect of climate change on our children:

Mell O; put simply, the effect of climate change is that the majority of todays children across the world will not live out their natural lives. The IPCC reports show a significantly likelihood of a 6 deg C rise in temperature by 2050 if we carry on going the way we are. Just some of the events that a temperature increase of this magnitude will lead to are wide scale crop failure, collapse of the food chains in the oceans, collapse of the Amazon, melting of the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps and catastrophic heat waves. The effects will be mass starvation and widespread migration due to flooding and other environmental disasters. This has already started today.

To put things into even clearer perspective, the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is now increasing, despite all the good talk of more efficient planes and cars. So not only are things getting bad, but they are getting bad quicker.

As for the military, if we want to continue with business as usual; the military will no longer be used for noble aims such as supporting our freedoms as they did in the past as many supporters of the air show have pointed out on this page. Instead, they will be used to seize the resources that we need to survive, and to stop others less fortunate than us from coming here. Put simply, in times of resource shortages, you either go to the back of the queue and die, or you get to the front the by killing those in your way. It is far more sensible to recognise the enormity of the situation facing us and to develop polices that do not get us in to disastrous environmental predicaments and resource shortages in the first place.

In answer to your question about children, I have two children. I am deeply pessimistic about the future that we will leave for them, and determined that when I die I can look them in the eye and say, “I did my best.” I am sure that military parents will have much the same feelings.

To J79 – you say that the emissions from an airshow is completely immeasurable.

Well so is an individual coal fired power station in China, so is an individual car journey to work in this country. You have merely pointed out the obvious; that is each persons individual actions are immeasurable, but taken together the cumulative effect is destroying our planet.

It is now totally clear that we need a massive cut in our CO2 emissions. The IPCC report makes the point that we effectively need a cut of more than 100% to avoid to runaway climate change. That means we have no choice; we need to completely eliminate CO2 emissions and then start sequestrating CO2 from the atmosphere. In this environment, what do you want to cut first? The heating in your home, the essential car trips that you must make, the food on your table, or an air show?

More important than the emissions from this air show, and others like it, are the things it stands for. These air shows are platforms for the aviation industry and their continual attempts to distort the evidence to meet their aims. They specialise in brainwashing our children and much of the population into thinking that the climate change is a trivial problem that can be easily dealt with. The Air Tattoo web page spouting the usual nonsense that an A380 is environmentally friendly is merely one typical example. Fundamentally, the hard truth is that flying 800 people to Australia or wherever else an A380 goes, will never be environmentally friendly, and should not be tolerated.

Link attached to the IPCC report.

by Gene Police Sat Jul 19, 2008 22:34

They have no choice as to what warzones they're put into, and they're just doing the job they're told to do.

Indeed. So you'd say that they were... only following orders, huh?

by ion Sun Jul 20, 2008 06:33

The IPCC produces reports from second rate scientists and then sexes up their dubious science with a summary worded by politicians.

And we have our own little bit of SPIN in the post above

Plane stoopid writes - "Mell O; put simply, the effect of climate change is that the majority of todays children across the world will not live out their natural lives. The IPCC reports show a significantly likelihood of a 6 deg C rise in temperature by 2050 if we carry on going the way we are."

When in fact the IPCC 4th Assessment report ACTUALLY says something very different:-

Surface air warming in the 21st century:
Best estimate for a "low scenario"[6] is 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Best estimate for a "high scenario"[7] is 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)

So the 6 deg C quoted by Plane stoopid is the very highest end of highest scenario - but to read what he says to Mell O you would think that this 6 deg C rise is a virtual certainty! As for “children not living out their natural lives” – what about puppy dogs and kittens? - they tug at the emotional heartstrings as well.

Such statements re “children” are emotional spin that have no place in a sensible debate. I hope those that read this will see how the facts are twisted by those on a mission.

And then EVEN BETTER! - is the fact that whilst the 4th IPCC Ass Rep states that temp will rise "A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios." – when in actual fact temperatures have not risen since 1998 and now the IPCC agrees that no warming will take place until 2015.

The models the IPCC uses are deeply flawed and so the 4th Ass Rep is deeply flawed - current data indicates a negative feedback loop between CO2 and Water vapour - NOT the positive feedback loop all the IPCC models have as one of their inherent "assumptions". An assumption that even the IPCC now admits it got wrong - hence the admittance that warming stopped in 1998.

Now more and more question the benefit of the gravy train that is the IPCC.

This from Wiki:-

"Critics contend that the IPCC is an unusual organisation in that the evidence is supplied by scientists, but the summaries of its reports are agreed between scientists and representatives of governments.[8]

In January 2005, Dr. Chris Landsea who was already an author on the 2001 report (TAR), withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report claiming that the portion of the IPCC to which he contributed had become "politicized" and that the IPCC leadership simply dismissed his concerns. He published an open letter explaining why he was resigning and to "bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process"[9].

The conflict centres around Dr. Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to "recent hurricane activity", which Landsea described as a "misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC". He has stated that the process of producing the Fourth Assessment Report is "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and "scientifically unsound".[9]

Landsea writes that "the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author."

It is time we all made our own minds up and stopped being fooled by individuals who are using the "green agenda" for whatever it is that they have an issue with.

......................

No animals or plant life was hurt or damaged in the posting of this message but several million electrons were severely inconvenienced.

by J79 Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:47

"To J79 – you say that the emissions from an airshow is completely immeasurable.

Well so is an individual coal fired power station in China, so is an individual car journey to work in this country. You have merely pointed out the obvious; that is each persons individual actions are immeasurable, but taken together the cumulative effect is destroying our planet."

Obviously, but the point is, if we banned airshows, it still collectively would make very, very little difference, and millions (yes, it's into the millions) would be left without one of the pleasures in life.

What we really should be doing is cutting down on the things that'll actually make a difference. Use high-MPG cars, turning off unused electrical appliances (in the home, the workplace, or wherever), use energy saving appliances, etc etc. It'd make a hell of a more noticeable difference (although, still not globally), and you wouldn't have to completely p*ss people off in the process. Believe me, it does your arguement NO favours if signs like these are vandalised with "CO2" tags, and then sensationalising it on a website such as this (or indeed any website). Nobody will take vandalism seriously, apart from those who've already been converted. You won't really win yourself much support when you simply want to take things away from people, either. Cutting down on certain things is one thing, but simply depriving people of something is another.

I do have a love for aircraft, so this, in particular, is an emotive subject for me. I couldn't describe how irate I'd be if the world's biggest and best military airshow was wiped off the map because it didn't conform to the views of 'green people' or environmentalists. And really, that wouldn't just apply to airshows. By all means, I'd feel strongest about those, but there are plenty of other shows and events, that have an impact on CO2 levels, however insignificant, that have the potential to be banned in the name of global warming. But I honestly think the damage you'd do to your cause would far outweigh the benefits, due to people simply not wanting to go green if they feel it is dictating and taking away their lives. If you want people to see it from your point of view, you've got to show them the immediate and practical benefits of changing their lifestyles (rather than simply banning this and banning that) - the big one being saving money. You're obviously going to save money if you have a more fuel efficient car, or you wash your clothes at a lower temperature, so there's a little incentive for people to get off their backsides and do something about it. Whether you like it or not, for a lot of people, trying to limit the problems of future generations isn't enough of an incentive for people to change their comfortable lifestyles. "It's not going to happen to me, so why should I care?" Selfish? Yes. But still a view held by many.

Just please take into consideration that people do actually have free will, and they have a right to choose how they live their lives. If they want to organise/attend 'Earth-killing war festivals', then by all means they should be able to, even if that annoys you to the nth degree. On the flip side, if you are really against such events, then simply don't go.

by Kevin Lister - Plane Stupid Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:54

Ion,

Read the IPCC report carefully. The worst-case scenario is A1F1. That is continued economic growth driven by fossil fuels. That is the most likely scenario that we are likely to face, and the one that all the worlds politicians are striving towards. Reference Gordon Brown’s recent pleading to the Saudi’s to increase oil production and Bush’s continuous attempts to start drilling in the Arctic regions and off the coast of the US. The situation will be aggravated by other factors such as the dash to biofuels, which is destroying the planets lungs, and the attempted conversion of coal to petroleum and jet fuel.

The IPCC is careful not to state which of the scenarios are most likely. It is left to the users common sense. The best case scenarios are clearly impossible with our current global policies and world leaders.

The IPCC also cautions that the estimates are likely to be underestimates, as many positive feedback loops, such as methane releases, Amazonian die back and CO2 saturation of the oceans have not been taken into account.

You make the point about a negative feedback between water vapour and CO2. This is simply plain wrong. If you increase the CO2 in the atmosphere you warm the atmosphere; that is basic science. If you warm the atmosphere, you increase the amount of water vapour that the atmosphere can hold, that to is basic science. The water molecules in the atmosphere then act as green house gases themselves, further aggravating the process and contributing to the runaway climate change that we now face. There is no safe lower limit on CO2 emissions. That is a simple fact.

You contention that climate change stopped in 1998 is also plain wrong. 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, due to the most powerful El Nino on record, causing a significant spike above the existing rising temperature trend. Any readings for the next couple of years were bound to be lower, until the average temperature then rises back above this single peak. The spike in 1998, should be considered as an extreme warning for the dangers of global warming, not an event for its dismissal. El Nino strengths are increasing and becoming more frequent. More worryingly; during 1998 we had the biggest annual increase ever in atmospheric CO2 levels as the warmer surface of the Pacific Ocean was unable to absorb CO2.

See the link below about selecting the start date for your analysis.

I enclose two pictures. One is the trend is the long term trend in CO2 and the other is the rate of increase of CO2. In the second picture, if the line is horizontal, it means that the atmospheric CO2 in increasing steadily. If it is rising, as it is, it means that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing faster and faster. You can clearly see the effect of the El Nino event in the late 1998 which is the start point that you refer to.

With this rate of increase, by 2032 we will be above 450 ppm of CO2 which is widely concidered to be the tripping point, for runaway climate change.

CO2 trend since 1958

The year on year increase, is increasing

by ion Sun Jul 20, 2008 14:01

Kevin - You conveniently ignore the truth of the evidence of your cherry picking data - but then that is what most alarmists do - select the facts that fit your preferred scenario. It was ever thus. But please do not try to bluff and bluster your way out of it with yet more dubious selected data because those of us that have read the report are more than capable of seeing it for what it is.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) in 2007 claimed that there was a 90% to 95%probability that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide were having a significant influence on climate. Thisclaim was widely accepted by the public and many governments made both political and financialcommitments on the basis of its statements.But did anybody actually read the report in detail and check the evidence on which the claim was made? Atthe time this would have been extremely difficult because the Summary for Policy Makers was released wellin advance of the detailed document on which it was based, but prudence would have dictated waiting forthat evidence before accepting that pivotal claim.When the Working Group I report was finally released in May 2007 anyone who reviewed the principalfinding, that mankind was responsible for the increase in temperature, should have been appalled by theabsence of concrete evidence.

The IPCC's claim is detailed in section 9.7 of the Working Group I report and rests on four pillars:(a)The world is warming and the temperature increase is widespread(b)The temperature increase cannot be explained by internal variability or heat moving from oneclimate component to another(c)The distribution of warming is not consistent with models(d)Climate models need to include an anthropogenic (i.e. "human") component in order for the output tomatch the observed surface temperatures,The so-called evidence is a nothing more than pastiche of dubious assertions and false assumptions, and ifthese are the best arguments that the IPCC could advance then its future should be reconsidered.

The IPCC claims that global average surface temperatures have increased in relatively consistent fashionsince the mid 1970s. This is based on the data reported by 3 agencies, Britain's Climatic Research Unit(CRU) and the two US agencies GISS and USHCN. Recent investigations in the USA by http://www.surfacestations.org have indicated that an estimated 25% of observations stations are positioned in such a way that they will be directly impacted by their proximity tothe man-made environment (e.g. buildings, paved roadways, discharge from air-conditioning units). In themajority of circumstances these influences will cause an increase in temperature in the immediate vicinity ofthe observation stations and give false impressions of the extent of temperature change. Whether this is true in other developed or developing countries is unknown but investigations seem warranted.

And if anyone wishes to see photographic evidence of where these are sited in the US - then go to the ponder the maunder website of another sceptic who has researched and photographed these data sampling sites and has posted the findings - it is little wonder that the US data shows the US "warming" more than the data from other academic centres.

As well as the problem of station positioning there is the question of the impact of man-made changes to thelocal environment. These changes include both urban areas (e.g. buildings, roads, local heat generation) andrural land-use changes where vegetation has altered over time. Any local heat output or changes to the localnatural heat cycle can easily distort the local temperature record. The apparently widespread temperature increase might be largely an artefact of the proximity of recording instruments to man-made environments,and of course this corruption will extend into average temperatures on a global and hemispheric basis. Britain's CRU claims that it does not know which observation stations supplied the data used in its monthly and annual calculations, but it does tell us that the data coverage if the Earth's surface varies each month. This variable number of unknown weather stations makes it impossible to properly audit the data to checkfor possible contamination by man-made changes to the local environment.

The "Climate Audit" website (http://www.climateaudit.org) has recently attempted to audit some of the datafrom the USA and has reported both errors and inconsistencies in the data. One such error forced NASA torecalculate certain temperatures and this resulted in the 1930s being declared the warmest decade on record,not the 1990s as was previously claimed.

None of the three agencies has allowed an independent audit of its data and methods so we cannot beconfident that these issues are properly addressed.

The only published papers that discuss the accuracy of themethods for calculating the average temperatures are those written by the respective organisationsthemselves, a situation that would be deplored in most other fields. Many scientists believe that the satellite-based measurements of lower tropospheric temperature are morereliable and comprehensive than surface temperatures measured by thermometer. The IPCC rejects this byciting a publication that claimed a similarity in the trends of the surface and lower tropospheric temperatures.

That publication has never been peer reviewed and the authors have failed to disclose whether those trendscontinue to match after a very substantial natural event, the 1998 El Niño, is removed. The data for the lower tropospheric temperature is available only since 1979 and it shows oscillations about amid-point, a peak during the 1998 El Niño, a substantial drop immediately afterwards and then an oscillationabout a slightly higher mid point since that time. It suggests step-wise changes with periods that vary abouta certain level.

This is in sharp contrast to the surface temperatures that show a near-continuous increasesince 1977. The IPCC claims the latter is correct but provides no evidence to show that the observed symptoms ofwarming could not have been caused by a step-wise increment rather than the consistent increase reportedlyin surface temperatures. Even if the widespread warming is not entirely due to data corruption by man-made changes to the environment there is no good reason to automatically associate it with man-made emissions of carbondioxide as the IPCC have done. Incomplete knowledge about factors described as "internal variability" The IPCC claims that "internal variability" cannot account for the supposed temperature increase but this is asuspicious statement because climate scientists often use the term "internal variability" for situations that arepoorly understood, and the IPCC admits to plenty of those.

The term implies that the observed phenomena are not driven by any external forcing, but that's a very premature claim until the phenomenon can beexplained in complete detail.One example of this is the description of El Niño conditions as an "internal variable". The exact process thatcauses an El Niño to form is not known nor are the determinants of its strength. Certain aspects of El Niñoevents have been shown to correlate with solar emissions and activities suggesting that this "internalvariable" may have a substantial "external" component. But what about changes to cloud cover? Is it an internal variable that is a consequence of climatic conditionsor should it be designated as an external variable because it modifies the amount of sunlight reaching the earth? The decrease in low-level cloud outside the tropical regions since 1998 may well have contributed to warming in the mid-latitudes but the IPCC WG I report fails to mention that this occurred. It only refers to the entire cloud cover dataset in passing during discussion of various fine particles in the atmosphere thatmight influence cloud formation.

The report also mentions changes in albedo that result from a change incloud cover but the more fundamental issue of changes in the amount of solar radiation striking the earth isglossed over.Incomplete knowledge of many climate factorsThe IPCC bases much of its claims on issues that suffer from fundamental uncertainties.

The problems with temperature data have already been discussed but the IPCC report is replete with wordslike "understanding", "estimate", "reconstruction", "simulation" and "model". All of these terms refer to elements of unknown accuracy and validity, and the numerous uncertainties are further compounded whenone estimate is subtracted from another or when the output of models is compared to other uncertain data.Models and simulations are critical to the IPCC's case for man-made warming but in its Third AssessmentReport (TAR) the IPCC admitted that the level of scientific understanding (LSU) of 7 of 11 climate factorswas "very low" and that for another the LSU was "low" .

A similar table was absent from theFourth Assessment Report - would it be an admission that science had advanced very little? - but a table of various radiative forcings did appear and again many factors were poorly understood. It beggars belief that the IPCC can put such faith in understandings, estimates, reconstructions, simulationsand models when it has already acknowledged that scientists lack detailed knowledge of many factors. It is folly to assume that understandings, estimates and reconstructions will be accurate and is totally illogical tosuppose that accurate simulations and models can be developed.

By the same token, if so much knowledge is uncertain then how can the IPCC possibly claim that themismatch between the known circulation patterns and the distribution of warming mean that humans haveinfluenced climate?

The transfer of tropical heat to the polar regions is a highly contentious issue among scientists. For many years it has been claimed that the Ferrel Cell circulation moves surface air from the mid latitudes to the Arctic where it rises and returns to its starting point. This circulation is described in most climate science literature but recently many scientists have pointed to a lack of solid evidence for its existence and questioned whether such circulation even exists. Some scientists have also estimated that the transfer of heatfrom the tropics to northern mid-latitudes can be as much as 5 petawatts (5 x 1015watts) but other scientists reject such claims out of hand.

If the circulation system is poorly understood then it follows that the modelling of heat distribution is very likely to be inaccurate and that the IPCC's claim that surface temperature changes do not match distributionmodels rests on very weak ground.The claim that climate models can only match the observed surface temperatures if a "human component" isincluded is frankly risible. As noted above, there are good reasons to doubt the accuracy of that temperaturedata, so one might suggest that the inclusion of a "human influence" in climate models has been madenecessary by human activities corrupting the temperature record.

Numerous studies also report that climatemodels should be viewed with extreme scepticism because they incorporate many assumptions, as if we suspect that already from the incomplete knowledge of the climate system. Claims by the IPCC that the output from various models is close to observational data are irrelevant becauseit fails to prove that the internal workings of the models are both accurate and complete. The IPCC doesn't base its assertion of man-made warming on the output from just one model but attempts to use a consensus of models. This is nonsense because each climate model is different and at most just onemodel could ever be an accurate simulation of all climate factors. Any collation of the output from multiplemodels will therefore contain, at the very most, accurate output from one model merged with the output of anumber of inaccurate models. The notion that the averaging of the results a collection of inaccurate modelswill somehow produce a correct or even meaningful answer is utterly farcical.

Section 9.7 of the IPCC Working Group I report concludes:"...The consistency across different lines of evidence makes a strong case for a significanthuman influence on observed warming at the surface. The observed rates of surface temperatureand ocean heat content change are consistent with the understanding of the likely range ofclimate sensitivity and net climate forcings. Only with a net positive forcing, consistent withobservational and model estimates of the likely net forcing of the climate system ... is itpossible to explain the large increase in heat content of the climate system that has been observed."

Not one sentence in this extract is supported by any incontrovertible evidence.

The consistency across different lines of evidence is nothing more than evidence of some warming, but whether it is a sustained upward step in temperature or a continuous increase is not clear. The IPCC acknowledges that climatefactors are poorly understood but conveniently forgets this when making assertions about understanding,estimating and modelling. Even then a "net positive forcing" (i.e. warming) is not irrefutable evidence of ahuman influence but only that heat from some source has been added to the climate system, assuming ofcourse that the temperature data is accurate.Confidence in the IPCC's claims should be zero Three of the IPCC's four pillars of evidence rest on uncertain temperature and climate models that are based on incomplete knowledge.

The fourth, that the temperature increase cannot be explained by internal variability or heat moving from one climate component to another, assumes that the temperature data iscorrect and that factors described as "internal variables" are well understood. It is true that anecdotal evidence of glacier and sea ice retraction is indicative of warming but these have happened in the past without human influence and in some cases what we see now started in the nineteenthcentury, so to attribute these to recent human activities is both to ignore historical climatic influences and to act prematurely while so much remains unknown about climate.

The IPCC's claim of a 90% to 95% probability of human influence is more than just wishful thinking; it is selective bias that ignores the uncertainty of the data and the low level of climate knowledge on which the claim rests.

Perhaps the situation is best expressed by using percentage probabilities as the IPCC have done. A reasonable estimate of the probability that the unverified surface temperatures are correct is 20% and that's based on the notion that corruption of the record just might balance and have no net effect. The probability that the climate system's energy distribution is thoroughly understood seems to be less again and we have aprobability of around 0% that climate models are accurate despite the acknowledged lack of knowledge.

Given the doubts over the quality of the temperature record I am not sure that the IPCC has even proven any recent increase in temperatures let alone produced any credible evidence that humans are having a substantial impact on temperature.

And the lack of substantive real data within the IPCC report plus the new evidence is getting "air time" - more and more observers are picking up the flaws in the alarmists analysis and the new data is certainly giving everyone food for thought.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/climate-change-confirmed-g...elled

by Emma Sun Jul 20, 2008 18:21

"Unfortunately, as I come from Bangladesh, I do not have to envisage the horror of what is to come because climate change has already arrived in Bangladesh. I must simply describe what I see before me: the sight of fresh water turning to salt, leaving the paddy fields yellow and withered; the rivers eroding at lightning speed; the water slowly gnawing away at the land, so that people can point to the sea and say, "When I was a child, our village was over there." In a few weeks, I will be travelling to Bangladesh to stay with families who have had to build their homes on plinths to stop them being washed away. I will return to dry land and write about them, and hope to fire the imagination: to frighten people into believing that this may someday happen to them."

by Mell O Sun Jul 20, 2008 18:50

Thanks for that Emma, I am sometimes sickened to my stomach by the first-world CC / GW deniers who like to argue that scientists and satellites can 'prove' that there is no problem, while all over the world poor people are suffering already and having to move off their ancestral lands, in order to survive, if they are lucky!

Well done girl!

by ion Sun Jul 20, 2008 19:47

Czech Republic’s President Václav Klaus

Alleges green lobby bigger threat to freedom and democracy than communism.

..................

Concerning mankind’s contribution to climate change and in keeping with obligations towards the welfare of our citizens: what, in your view, should policymakers consider when addressing climate change?
.
.
.
The – so called – climate change and especially man-made climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public policies in the whole world.

My ambition is not to bring additional arguments to the scientific climatological debate about this phenomenon. I am convinced, however, that up to now this scientific debate has not been deep and serious enough and has not provided sufficient basis for the policymakers’ reaction. What I am really concerned about is the way the environmental topics have been misused by certain political pressure groups to attack fundamental principles underlying free society. It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment but a clash of views about human freedom.

As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism. This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of the whole world.

The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making. To use the words of Friedrich Hayek, they try to stop free, spontaneous human action and replace it by their own, very doubtful human design.

The environmentalist paradigm of thinking is absolutely static. They neglect the fact that both nature and human society are in a process of permanent change, that there is and has been no ideal state of the world as regards natural conditions, climate, distribution of species on earth, etc. They neglect the fact that the climate has been changing fundamentally throughout the existence of our planet and that there are proofs of substantial climate fluctuations even in known and documented history. Their reasoning is based on historically short and incomplete observations and data series which cannot justify the catastrophic conclusions they draw. They neglect the complexity of factors that determine the evolution of the climate and blame contemporary mankind and the whole industrial civilization for being the decisive factors responsible for climate change and other environmental risks.

By concentrating on the human contribution to the climate change the environmentalists ask for immediate political action based on limiting economic growth, consumption, or human behavior they consider hazardous. They do not believe in the future economic expansion of the society, they ignore the technological progress the future generations will enjoy, and they ignore the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society is, the higher is the quality of the environment.

The policymakers are pushed to follow this media-driven hysteria based on speculative and hard evidence lacking theories, and to adopt enormously costly programs which would waste scarce resources in order to stop the probably unstoppable climate changes, caused not by human behavior but by various exogenous and endogenous natural processes (such as fluctuating solar activity).

My answer to your first question, i.e. what should policymakers consider when addressing climate change, is that policymakers should under all circumstances stick to the principles free society is based on, that they should not transfer the right to choose and decide from the people to any advocacy group claiming that it knows better than the rest of the people what is good for them. Policymakers should protect taxpayers’ money and avoid wasting it on doubtful projects which cannot bring positive results.

................

How should policies address the rate and consequences of climate change and to what extent should regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases be a focus of any such policies?
.
.
.
Policies should realistically evaluate the potential our civilization has, as compared with the power of natural forces influencing climate. It is an evident waste of society’s resources to try to combat an increase of solar activity or the movement of ocean currents. No government action can stop the world and nature from changing. Therefore, I disagree with plans such as the Kyoto Protocol or similar initiatives, which set arbitrary targets requiring enormous costs without realistic prospects for the success of these measures.

If we accept global warming as a real phenomenon, I believe we should address it in an absolutely different way. Instead of hopeless attempts to fight it, we should prepare ourselves for its consequences. If the atmosphere warms up, the effects do not have to be predominantly negative. While some deserts may get larger and some ocean shores flooded, enormous parts of the earth – up until now empty because of their severe, cold climate – may become fertile areas able to accommodate millions of people. It is also important to realize that no planetary change comes overnight.

Therefore, I warn against adopting regulations based on the so- called precautionary principle which the environmentalists use to justify their recommendations, the clear benefit of which they are not able to prove. Responsible politics should take into account the opportunity costs of such proposals and be aware of the fact that the wasteful environmentalist policies are adopted to the detriment of other policies, thus neglecting many other important needs of millions of people all over the world. Each policy measure must be based on a cost- benefit analysis.

Mankind has already accumulated tragic experience with one very proud intellectual stream that claimed that it knew how to manage society better that spontaneous market forces. It was communism and it failed, leaving behind millions of victims. Now, a new -ism has emerged that claims to be able to manage even nature and, through it, people. This excessive human pride – just as the previous attempts – cannot but fail. The world is a complex and complicated system that cannot be organized according to an environmentalist human design, without repeating the tragic experience of wasting resources, suppressing people’s freedom, and destroying the prosperity of the whole human society.

My recommendation, therefore, is to pay attention to the thousands of small things that negatively influence the quality of the environment. And to protect and foster fundamental systemic factors without which the economy and society cannot operate efficiently – i.e. to guarantee human freedom and basic economic principles such as the free market, a functioning price system and clearly defined ownership rights. They motivate economic agents to behave rationally. Without them, no policies can protect either the citizens or the environment.

Policymakers should resist environmentalist calls for new policies because there are too many uncertainties in scientific debates on climate change. It is impossible to control natural factors causing climate change. The negative impact of the proposed regulation on economic growth is to the detriment of all other possible risks, including the environmental ones.

......................

What will be the effect on national economies, consumer well-being, job creation, and future innovation under various climate change policy scenarios that have come to your attention?
.
.
.
.
If the policymakers accept the maximalistic environmental demands, the effects on national economies will be devastating. It would stimulate some, very small parts of the economy while leaving a bigger part of it choked by artificial limits, regulations, and restrictions. The rate of growth would decline and the competitiveness of the firms on international markets would be seriously affected. It would have a negative impact on employment and job creation. Only rational policies, making spontaneous adjustments possible, can justify government intervention.

........................

What impact and effectiveness will so-called cap-and-trade policies have upon the reduction of climate change threats and our ability to address these threats in the future?
.
.
.
.
Cap-and-trade policies are a technical tool to achieve pollution reduction goals by more market compatible means. They can help if the general idea behind the scheme is rational. I do not believe the whole idea to combat climate change by emission limits is rational and I, therefore, consider the technicalities of its eventual implementation to be of secondary importance.
..........................

What is the moral obligation of developed countries to the developing countries of the world? Should developed countries embark on large emissions reduction schemes while developing countries are allowed to continue to increase emissions unabated?
.
.
.
.
The moral obligation of developed countries to the developing countries is to create such an environment which guarantees free exchange of goods, services, and capital flows, enables utilization of comparative advantages of individual countries and thus stimulates economic development of the less developed countries. Artificial administrative barriers, limits and regulations imposed by developed countries discriminate the developing world, affect its economic growth, and prolong poverty and underdevelopment. The environmentalist proposals are an exact example of such illiberal policies that are so harmful for the developing countries. They will not be able to cope with the limits and standards imposed on the world by irrational environmental policies, they will not be able to absorb new technological standards required by the anti-greenhouse religion, their products will have difficult access to the developed markets, and as a result the gap between them and the developed world will widen.

It is an illusion to believe that severe anti-climate change policies could be limited to developed countries only. If the policies of the environmentalists are adopted by developed countries, sooner or later their ambitions to control and manage the whole planet will spread the emissions reduction requirements worldwide. The developing countries will be forced to accept irrational targets and limitations because “earth is first” and their needs are secondary. The environmentalist argumentation gives ammunition to protectionists of all colors who try to eliminate competition coming from newly industrialized countries. Therefore, the moral obligation of the developed countries is not to introduce large emissions reduction schemes.

Václav Klaus, March 19th, 2007

So Emma - If you wish to believe that Bangledesh only flooded recently then I can not stop you believing that - even though it has flooded regularly for milenia when cyclones hit.

Closer to home England and the Netherlands in 1099 was devistated when high tides and storm waves submerged the English coast, killing 100,000.

Then in China in September - October, 1887, the Huang He, or Yellow River, flooded 50,000 square miles, taking out 300 villages. 900,000 drowned in the river waters, and another 2 million were dislocated. Although an accurate death toll is unknown, some experts say as many as 6 million died. It was the most devastating flood in recorded history. The flood was caused by heavy rains in late summer, which broke through 70-foot-high man-made levees.

And in trhe US the Ohio River in 1913 on March 26, heavy rains and early snowmelts flooded the valley, killing as many as 700 people. The $100 million damage led to development of a $30 million plan to control floods, as well as a commission to investigate flood prevention. These were the first programs of their kind in the nation.

No doubt these disasters would be grasped with glee by the alamists of today as pure evidence of the truth of Global Warming.

But sadly the truth is that "Mother Nature" far from being a benign disneyesk cartoon type character is in reality a real Mother ......

She always has been - the alarmists are just using disasters to try to convince others that they are correct - but the evidence is stacking up - should be an interesting next couple of years.

by capitool Sun Jul 20, 2008 20:17

Capitalism is by far and away the biggest threat to the environment AND to freedom already.

by bliss Sun Jul 20, 2008 21:47

Because the free market successfully relegates you to an also ran?

You cannot lie or deceive or bully your way to acceptance and success - - you have to earn it.

A lesson many dictators failed to learn.

by Gene Police Mon Jul 21, 2008 02:30

You cannot lie or deceive or bully your way to acceptance and success - - you have to earn it.
A lesson many dictators failed to learn.

What, you think our own pre-eminence in world affairs is down to hard work and thrift? Sorry to dissilusion you, but it's down to having the ability to wipe out all life on earth, even our own esteemed leaders admit that much. "Trident allows the UK to punch above its' weight", they say. Never mind that having an economy based on bulls**t and bombs is the reason we're so weedy in the first place... and dictators everywhere know the value of lying, bullying and deceit. Just ask Dubya!

by Cap fits Mon Jul 21, 2008 06:52

For all that I dislike Bush he was at least elected via a democratic process.

Dictators grab power and keep it for the family - Saddam was one classic example. as is North Korea where the son has now taken over,

Cuba was another good example with Castro stepping down and his brother taking over.

The silly response to all of your perceived ills of society of "it is capitalism that is to blame" just does not hold up to any form of logical scrutiny. Unless you are politically myopic in the extreme

Bush may be a prat but he is not a dictator - he will be forced to step down by the US constitution after just two terms. Nuclear Weapons are here - I would rather they be in the hands of a society that cares about individual freedom and not just the excesses of its dictator's "first family".

A test of any political system is how popular it is. So why is it that the western free market democracies have people desperately trying to get in? I see no economic migrants queuing up to get into North Korea or Cuba. The very opposite in fact. Strange that an economic system you seem to despise is just so damn popular.

by yf22 Mon Jul 21, 2008 07:55

You are not right about anything as usual.

In 2000, a clear majority of Americans voted for Al Gore. But the winner is determined by the Electoral College, so the winner in each state must be considered. The vote in Florida was so close that it took a month to declare a winner. Before Florida was declared, Gore led in the Electoral College with 266 votes to Bush's 246 votes. When Bush was declared the winner of Florida by 537 votes, he picked up 25 Electoral College votes which gave him the Presidency.

But Bush only won Florida because of poorly designed butterfly ballots that stole votes from Gore, and because his Florida campaign manager Republican Secretary of State Kathleen Harris and Governor Jeb Bush illegally removed 57,700 voters from the rolls. It is estimated that 90% of them were Democratic. So this represent thousands of votes stolen from Al Gore. If this crime had not been commited then Gore would be President.

And we all know where Al Gore stands on Climate Change don't we.

by droptank Mon Jul 21, 2008 08:27

Your ridiculous assertion that nukes are safe in the hands of global bullies is beneath contempt.
If democracy is so popular how come so many people living in democracies do not vote?
Open your mind and decondition yourself, unless of course you like having a mind permanently closed by your own conservative self-interests.
There is so much more to becoming aware about the true state of the world than anybody can ever hope to gain by reading the Express, or the Mail, or the Telegraph and conservative or pro-denial blogs.

by Bing Mon Jul 21, 2008 09:17

But it is at least a process. And he easily won a second term (mores the pity)

Postal votes in the UK are subject to abuse and the gerrymandering by way of tenants is well known.

But the fundamental difference you conveniently ignore is that there is a process - a democratic process - not a sham with just one party to vote for as in the old communist states.

I agree that Florida was a flaw - but it was a procedural flaw - not a dictators sham election.

But how typical that the bigger issue is ignored - i.e. why is it that the Western Free Market states are so popular with economic migrants? and instead you pick on a procedural flaw in a democratic process whereby your preferred candidate lost out.

My word - what on earth would you do in a dictatorship like Zimbabwe where the loosing candidate in a viciously flawed election gets their eyes scooped out with a spoon by the “War Veterans” who support the dictator Mugabe.

Western democracy has its problems - but please spare us from your glorious one party state alternative.

by Weapons grade aluminium. Mon Jul 21, 2008 09:20

"Dictators grab power" ............ oh really?

Please can you enlighten us as to the name of any dictator in the middle east oil rich countries that "grabbed power" ?

They were all installed and are supported by either European states wanting their oil, or by BIG-OIL / US / CIA or first world 'national interests' generally.

Ditch your assumptions and opinions. and do some research if you are not too lazy.

by wot the **** Mon Jul 21, 2008 09:36

i have been reading BIM since it began years ago and I have never ever read of anybody advocating or even writing about the "one party state alternative" that you are chuffing about!

by good grief Mon Jul 21, 2008 09:59

yeah yeah yeah

Nukes are not safe full stop - but seeing as we have them who would you prefer to have them?

Mugabe or perhaps "Iwannabeadinnerjacket" of the wall extremists in Iran?

But the question above does require an answer and all your displacement righteous indignation about comments that were never said and only appeared in your head giving you a self inflicted attack of the "beyond contempt’s" ;0) is just what we have come to expect. "I can not answer that question so I will make up some tosh about it being beyond contempt or my having some "principle" or other that allows me not to answer awkward questions that display for all to see the holes in mylogic".

So - once again the question is - if Western free market economies are so awful - how come they are so popular?

As for voting - sadly when you are given something as a right - for free - you do not have to fight for it - some people do not value it. But ask the average person existing under a dictatorship, either right or left, about voting.

Just because some choose to abstain does not mean that one man one vote is a redundant ideal.

But to get back on topic - people vote with their feet and Air shows are a wonderful example of people voting quite literally with there feet and attending these shows. Duxford was a great success - as was Farnborough.

Those that vote thus marginalise your extremist views.

by Kevin Lister - Plane Stupid Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:33

"I see no economic migrants queuing up to get into North Korea or Cuba" - however you do see millions of environmental migrants already fighting to get out of lands that are either degraded of flooded,

see Tuvalu - sea level rise - http://www.tuvaluislands.com/warming.htm

see Darfur - the first climate change war - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/apr/28/sudan...hange

etc, etc, etc

Do not mistake people trying to come here as being a vote of confidence in our market economy. They are trying to get here because their own homelands have been so destroyed the climate change that we have caused.

by Bong Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:01

You try so desperately at the “put down” – but just make yourselves look silly and out of touch with reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud

And then we have Saddam

http://www.int-review.org/terr37a.html

An extract for you:-
“Saddam soon became chief of internal security and deputy chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, where he would play a major and bloody role in General al-Bakr's 1968 coup. During the next ten years Saddam was extremely effective, spying on, threatening or killing anyone who might challenge his cousin al-Bakr. Saddam also used that decade to build and extend his own power by the same bloody methods.
Saddam is quoted as having said that among his proudest accomplishments is his 1978 campaign. He says that he ordered the liquidation of 7,000 people on charges of being "communists." It was in 1978 when Saddam began to undermine the ailing president of Iraq. His first step was to convince his older cousin to resign. And in a rare moment of kindness, Saddam allowed the old general to announce that he was retiring due to bad health.
Once this was accomplished, six days later, Saddam called upon the party leadership to decide on the successor of al-Bakr as president of Iraq. But of course, Saddam had already decided who the next president would be.
The meeting of the Revolutionary Command Council on July 22, 1979, started with Saddam Hussein reading a list of enemies of the state. There was a stunned silence at the Command Council, as many of the men present were listed as enemies of the state. Included were trade union leaders and religious leaders who had actually helped to consolidate the Ba'ath power. As names were read from the list, each were arrested and taken away from the council meeting. Within mere hours 21 of the men that Saddam named were dead. Not only did Saddam order the executions, but he also personally participated in the murders.”
.
.
.

However flawed our elections and for that matter our politicians as well! – I think I still prefer having a Free Market Democratic economy to what others put up with. Now what the stupid US did in supporting Saddam in their spat against IRAN is frankly beyond belief.

But then they allowed Bush Jnr to become President. US foreign policy is a huge joke and I cringe that Blair became a poodle for Bush.

But that does not make me wish to chuck the baby out with the bathwater. Your critiscm of the democratic process is like saying to a starving man you cannot eat that apple because a slug has destroyed a bit of it. You seem to concentrate on the slug not the whole apple.

And whilst “one bad apple” can turn the whole lot – at least with democracy you have the chance to vote out the bad apple. Not so with the one party state scenario as those in Zimbabwe, Cuba and North Korea would no doubt confirm. If you have a mind to listen that is.

If anyone needs to broaden their horizons re the world at large – I respectfully, as someone who has travelled and worked extensively throughout the world, suggest that some others should get out and about a bit to see the world for themselves.

by Kevin Lister - Plane Stupid Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:16

Good Grief: You mixing a biased sample with an election. You say “people vote with their feet and Air shows are a wonderful example of people voting quite literally with there feet and attending these shows.” Alright, so 100,000 people were planning to go to Fairford. By your reasoning, that means out of a population of nearly 70 million in this country, most are staying away. Seems like to a good reason to stop it.

by Voter Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:24

.
how many people do not go to these stupid fests might be a better way to look at it, what percentage of the population do not attend?
.

by dances with trolls Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:27

I thought hammond had been banned form this space?

He is here for one reason only, purely to wind others up!

by Matt B Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:33

Clive Hammond, or his altered-egos are active on these pages again I see, he is the blind trying to blind others, why is he still permitted to post here?

by cap fits Mon Jul 21, 2008 13:00

Is anyone going to stay on topic?

The point is Airshows are popular, this countries way of life is popular

Those that want to change this had better come up with something better not just a childish concept of banning everything because they don't like it.

by duh! Mon Jul 21, 2008 13:14

This countries environmentally destructive way of life may be popular, but thats because most people most of the time get bad info from the mass media which is biased towards .......... guess what?
When the people are ignorant and lied to constantly, and misguided, its hardly surprising that the 'easy' way of life be popular is it ........... great for the greedy capitalists fukkwits that know how to make a quick buck or two out of ignorant and lied to 'consumers' .......... but not so good for the planet or future generations.

by Trolls yummy Mon Jul 21, 2008 13:34

.
A fairer cleaner greener peacefull planet may not be 'popular' in a capitalist system.

Polluting the planet and fighting wars is 'popular' in a capitalist system.

Turning a blind eye to misery for millions or a billion or two is 'popular' in the capitalist system.

Living the lifestyle at least partly responsible for climate change is 'popular'

Public executions used to be 'popular', does that mean we should bring it back even for trolls?

by good grief Mon Jul 21, 2008 16:25

Not one original thought - not one

Just a vomit of politically correct left wing clichés that impress your tiny mutual admiration society

Meanwhile the rest of us sceptics will carry on and save the planet while you try to find an emotional Tardis so you can turn the clock back.

Banning this and banning that just will not work - You would love "capitalism" to be the problem - but it isn't - it is part of the answer. And that is what hacks you off the most.

Accept it

If you had a sensible alternative I am sure most of us would be glad to hear it - but all you want is to destroy.

And that is what marginalises you so that nobody of any note takes you seriously.

Calling someone a Fuckwit is hardly more than a schoolboy tantrum.

A lot of growing up is required by some on here.

by Captain Troll. Mon Jul 21, 2008 16:56

Yeah like we would ever share anything like solutions with 4 x 4 driving capitalist trolls!

by dances with trolls Mon Jul 21, 2008 17:27

~

Capitalists cannot be a part of the Climate Change solution as long as their conditioning remains.

"Calling someone a Fuckwit is hardly more than a schoolboy tantrum"

Why schoolboy?

Why not schoolgirl?

Sexism is conditioned ............. and you do not even know when you are manifesting it do you?

You are the victim of many kinds of conditioning, not just sexist.

Your conditioning is showing you up for what you are every time you post here.

You cannot begin to imagine how deep your conditioning goes, or the damage you do even if you do think you are being a part of the solution.

Whatever you think you do for the common good is counterproductive as long as your conditioning dictates how you relate to others.

We recognise that dealing with attitudes is a part of the solution, your attitude always was and always will be a part of the problem.

Unless you learn how to de-condition yourself you can only do harm.

Wake up and smell your own bullshit.

by oh was that you! Mon Jul 21, 2008 18:43

Millions of people doing it all over the world, how can it possibly be a secret duh!
Take your nose out of the Telegraph and take a real look at whats happening globally.

by Sy Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:48

'people do actually have free will, and they have a right to choose how they live their lives. If they want to organise/attend 'Earth-killing war festivals', then by all means they should be able to, even if that annoys you to the nth degree. On the flip side, if you are really against such events, then simply don't go.'

People don't have free will. Most of your life is not chosen by your ego. Your genetics, the time and place of your birth, the economic and political conditions you grow up in etc etc none of these things are down to your choices... Free will is a philosophical doctrine which is largely attributable in Western culture to Christian dualisms, whereby unlike animals, humans possess a soul which means they do not occupy the same ontological status. If you do not believe in the Christian afterlife and mind/body dualism then free will is a redundant argument.

However to suggest that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, no matter how damaging the consequences seems rather odd. Should we also say that if people want to commit murder, rape or genocide that we should allow them to 'even if it annoys us to the nth degree.' I would suggest not. If someone, or a group of people's actions are having detrimental effects on the lives of others - as is the case with both war and environmental damage - then actions ought to be constrained in a way to protect the victims of these actions. In this case, both the victims of UK military aggression and the climate change largely caused by industrialized nations behaviours, are unable to defend themselves and so social justice movements campaign on their behalf.

'I think I still prefer having a Free Market Democratic economy'

This is a rather odd statement. I assume from your other comments that you come from the UK. If that is the case we clearly do not have a free market economy. We have socialized health care. Socialized schooling. Socialized universities. A socialized fire service. A subsidy based agricultural industry. Socialized pensions. Social security for the unemployed, the physically and mentally impaired, and many other non market based economic strategies... Perhaps you are unaware of what a free market is, but having socialized services means that we do not have one.

Secondly democracy and the free market are not very compatible social strategies. Democracy means rule of the people. In democracies people choose how to live their lives, and participate in the political systems which govern them on an equal basis. I have one vote, as do you, as does everyone else. In the free market, nothing is supposed to interfere with the financial market - including democracy. Consequently the ability of actors to participate in a society dominated by the free market is dependent on their wealth, if I make 100K a year while you only make 10K then my say is ten times larger than yours. In a democratic society everyone has an equal say in life, rather than a voice proportional to their wealth. These two options for social rule; democracy and financial oligarchy are obviously incompatible.

Consequently in 'free market democracies' democracy is all but invisible. People here have mentioned that George Bush had less votes than Al Gore, and indeed needed his brother to help rig an election to bring him to power. What hasn't been mentioned is the enormous wealth that is required to become US president. Unlike a genuine democracy, in the US you need to be a multi-millionaire to even contemplate running for president. You also require an unfathomably large sum of money to finance your campaign, which is usually obtained from corporate donors, ensuring that all candidates are in the pockets of the corporations who permit them to be in power. This system excludes the vast majority of the people from engaging directly in the political process. By creating a hierarchical system where there is a class who will rule and a class who will be ruled the free market acts in a way that is diametrically opposed to the ideals of democracy.

The history of the free market is not of one of peace and democracy. The first nations to implement Milton Friedman's free market policies were of course Pinochet in Chile and Suharto in Indonesia. Both were fascistic dictators who overthrew popular democratically elected leaders with military force (backed by the UK and US) and set about slaughtering their own people while implementing economic reforms which made the poor poorer and the rich richer. While numerous regimes which ostensibly torture and murder dissidents have since donned the mantle adopted by Pinochet and Suharto, since the 1980's the US and UK have found a more peaceful way of promoting the free market... By adding conditions to IMF and World Bank loans which require poor nations to sell of national wealth (resources such as oil, tin, copper) and removing subsidies from staple goods (which previously allowed poor people to buy basic foods and water) in order to receive desperately needed loans, the rich nations have found a way of tying the hands of the developing world and ensuring that their global dominance is maintained. This was clearly the case in countries such as South Africa and Poland, where following the collapse of the despotic regimes, the ANC and Solidarity signed economic agreements to allow loans to provide aid, which essentially prevented both partied from enacting the economic reforms their successful election manifestos have promised.

Interestingly, in many of the places in South America where the free market was pioneered, recent political events have seen vehemently anti-free market leaders elected. Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia, Ortega in Nicaragua... Even Brazil, which is considered a moderate Latin American state is ruled by the leader of the Workers Party. It would seem that in many of the places where 30-odd years ago the free market was forced upon peoples at US financed gunpoints are today evidencing a wholesale rejection of the free market as a imperialist tool which seeks to steal the wealth of nations and harshen the lives of the poor while lining the pockets of a few multinational corporations and a handful of local leaders.

I believe in democracy - the notion that people should rule themselves and have an equal say in society. Consequently, like most of the world's peoples I do not support the free market. While the sham democracy we inhabit, whereby once every several years people can choose which well funded political party to vote for, is preferable to living under a fascist dictator (like many free market economies), I believe it is possible to create a more equal and more just society then the one we currently inhabit. A society which is far more democratic than the one we live in today.

As I said earlier... Supersonic fighter bombers do not belong in that, or any other peaceful society. Someone responded that if it were not for the RAF then I would not have the limited freedoms I enjoy. This also struck me as rather odd. In my lifetime the RAF has only ever been used as an offensive weapon against other countries. In my parents lifetimes the RAF has never been used to defend the UK against an invading force. It has however been used to destroy other peoples and their homes, their families and their lives. I see no reason why this is about to change. Plenty of other European countries get by fine without an air force. They spend that money on socially useful things like better schools, hospitals and transport systems. Why should the UK be any different?

by Bliss Tue Jul 22, 2008 13:20

Sy writes

In my lifetime the RAF has only ever been used as an offensive weapon against other countries

This is truly ignorance at its best.

All the defensive sorties carried out by the RAF against the regular probing by the Soviet airforce over the north sea and North Atlantic went on day after day after day.

To say that the RAF has only ever been used as an offensive weapon is typically biased.

The RAF is used on Rescue missions via its fleet of Helicopters and Nimrods Air Sea rescue is just one example. It distributes aid in times of natural disaster.

Sy - if you really believe that then you are truly ignorant of the true facts - I mean no personal disrespect in saying that to you but you really should think a little more before writing such drivel.

by Syd Tue Jul 22, 2008 14:12

I believe those that just see the RAF as an aggressive organiasation should look at the facts more.

A good starting point would be http://www.operations.mod.uk/garron/index.htm

This happened just 8 years ago Sy - so unless you are aged 7 or less - you need a bit of a rethink

"Royal Air Force aircraft continue to deliver humanitarian aid and support equipment to Indonesia. Hundreds of tonnes of equipment and aid has now been flown into the disaster area by the RAF C-17, Tristar and Hercules aircraft. A pair of Army Air Corps Bell 212 helicopters, normally based in Brunei, are operational in northern Sumatra. Despite their relatively small size, they have moved some 12,000lbs of humanitarian aid, as well as providing vital airmobility to aid workers.

Royal Navy engineers from RFA Diligence continue to work in the Maldives, repairing 28 generators to restore electrical power."

much more info via the link.

The BBC coverred it as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4142237.stm

The RAF also dsitributed much of the supplies donated by us all via Band Aid.

by balance Tue Jul 22, 2008 15:12

throughout its history.
how many lives have the RAF saved?
how many lives have they destroyed?

by Air head Tue Jul 22, 2008 16:08

"Plenty of other European countries get by fine without an air force"

Name one please

by duh Tue Jul 22, 2008 16:13

Luxembourg does not have an air-force, neither does Andorra.
Thats more than one.

by Crown Prince Tue Jul 22, 2008 16:18

Monaco has no Air Force.

by Kevin Tue Jul 22, 2008 16:48

I do not doubt that the RAF does great work in disasters. However, look at the list of planes coming to the this airshow that the organisers kindly provided.

How much use was an A380 in the tsunami, how much use was the Brazilian airforce, or a Hungarian MIG 29, or most of the other planes at the show?

Actually, most were of no use at all.

by Country Tue Jul 22, 2008 20:21

Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy, not a country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg

But even so NATO AWACS aircraft carry Luxembourg civil registrations to conform to international legal requirements. NATO AEW force created 1980, and first aircraft delivered 1982.

Monaco is a Principality

As is Andorra

So the question remains to be answered as niether are a country

Name one COUNTRY in the EU that does not have an airforce PLEASE - I am all a quiver with anticipation at what spin you guys will try next.

by Bliss Tue Jul 22, 2008 20:38

Do you actually read anything Kevin?

"I do not doubt that the RAF does great work in disasters. However, look at the list of planes coming to the this airshow that the organisers kindly provided.

How much use was an A380 in the tsunami, how much use was the Brazilian airforce, or a Hungarian MIG 29, or most of the other planes at the show?

Actually, most were of no use at all."

Nobody ever said that a plane not actually off the production line and flying at the time was able to help. (The A380)

As for Brazil I am sure it contributed to the aid effort but surely even you can see the sense in using aircraft closer to the event is more sensible.

As for a Mig 29 - Hungarian or other wise - that aircraft is designed for a diferent role - one that you no doubt disaprove off but then I disaprove of you and other Thought Police talking the crap that you do and making up facts to suit your agenda.

And just to prove you totally wrong the large capacity transports and helecopters of the RAF that were represented at the Show did sterling service both during the aftermath of the Tsunami and are still doing so when called upon.

by Air head Tue Jul 22, 2008 21:59

I read the above with a sense of disbelief and ever growing guffaws of laughter!!

Andora as a country?????

Monaco as a country?????

No disrespect intended at all (especially to Andora as I bought my DVD and TV from there - being a Principality it can have very low tax laws and as such benefits nicely from the free market capitalist greed and twisted morals of 90% of the european populace who just love to journey up both sides of the Pyranees to get a bargan)

Luxembourg is the closest but even that is a Grand Duchy and therefore not a true country. Does anyone actually study geography these days??

It is a bit like answering the sensible question to Sy of - Name one? - (ref Countries that do not have an Air Force) and replying:-
.
.
.
.
Cornwall.

You could not make you lot up - you really could not

Thanks for a great laugh

You have been more than entertainment you have been an education - a somewhat negative aspect of education - but an education never the less.

I thank you.

by Air head Wed Jul 23, 2008 07:05

Fantastic link this

http://www.militaryairshows.co.uk/listing.htm

Each show then has a link to obtain more info on the shows.

See you there!!!!!

Also if you want info on EU Countries AirForces - this link is a bit out of date now (2003) but it does give some good info on which Country has what.

http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/surveys/pdf/JULY03SURVE...Y.PDF

Enjoy

by Historian Wed Jul 23, 2008 08:33

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z7SDOxidP5EC&pg=PA16...esult

Air power has been used successfully to help prevent genocide. The above is an interesting dissertation on this subject and puts the role of air power into perspective. It is not a panacea but air power bought the Serbs to the negotiating table in the Bosnian war and halted further genocide of Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre

Thankfully Radovan Karadzic is now in custody. I think those that wish to ban airpower should reflect on what happened in the Bosnian War - in particular the huge success of NATO's use of air power to halt the genocide happening in that country and indeed other conflict areas.

by Tony Wed Jul 23, 2008 09:31

For our geo-political advantage - sounds familiar?

Yankee and UK (Clinton and Blair) go in and stir up domestic strife, then bomb the civilians to hell and claim to be the heroes of the piece.

Of course it's wrong the things done by Radovan Karadzic, but never forget that we bear a large part of the responsibility for de-stablisation in the region. And guess what, now there is a pro-western government in Serbia.

Point is, little consideration is given to massive civilian losses when air forces glory in "Shock and Awe".

In these global capitalist neocon economic wars for resources, truth and democracy are victims.

But, along with environmental considerations, air power is very bad news for poor people, the vast majority of the world's populus.

by air head Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:30

The Serbs have had a vendetta running for decades - well before our current political numpties were even born. Once again that is a fact you conveniently ignore.

What you dismiss as "pro western" is a new government prepared to be part of the EU. Which from the peace dividend has got to be a good thing. But I doubt you would see it that way, determined as you are to slag of just about anything and everything. The pro nationalist previous government protected Karadzic, a person suspected of some of the most hideous genocide ever seen. Can you not see the benefit of having a government that can see Karadzic should be tried for his actions and that if they want the economic security of the EU then they have to adhere to our international standards of justice and behaviour.

But again I doubt that you will see it that way.

Does it not get boring telling everyone that you and only you have all the answers and that everyone else is wrong and only you are right?

So another question - With the Serbian military slaughtering Muslims - what would you have done without air power to protect the innocent Muslim men women and children?

Because air power was crucial in maintaining corridors of safety for these poor people without our having to put in huge numbers of ground troops .

by Bliss Wed Jul 23, 2008 13:30

Is the appalling spin some on here put on everything with no concept of the truth at all.

The break up of the old Yugoslavia was a tragedy but Blair was not even PM at the time!!!!

The Bosnian war was from 1992 to 1995 - Blair became PM in 1997

Clinton was elected President in 1993 a year after the war started.

So your assertion that : "Yankee and UK (Clinton and Blair) go in and stir up domestic strife, then bomb the civilians to hell and claim to be the heroes of the piece." is pure fabrication! On top of which the US and the UK as well as many other nations were there under a clear UN mandate to protect the population from the Serbian Ethnic Cleansing.

What would you have rather have happened we all sit on our arses on a comfortable sofa in Bristol Bath or wherever and just let people be killed each night whilst we watch it on our TV screens?????????????????????????????

This gets more like the News of the World every day - "never let the truth get in the way of a good story"

So much spin and little or no substance, thought or knowledge.

by Historian Thu Jul 24, 2008 06:37

The accusation that the RAF bombs civilians is wishful thinking by persons who require "facts" that portray the situation to be different to that of the truth.

The fact is that Air power helped prevent further genocide in the Balkans when the truth came out there as to what the Serbs were up to. Ethnic Cleansing.

RAF Bomber Command did sanction and carry out the Fire Bombing of Dresden - something that is indeed of debatable morality as it can be seen as a tit for tat response to the Blitz the Nazi's carried out on London. But that was in WWII - and since that time I am not aware of the RAF being used to indiscriminately attack civilians.

But if any one has any specific examples - post them please.

What amuses me in all the posts that try to paint the RAF and Air Power in general in a bad light is the fact that when air power is used it is in response to an atrocity - two examples Iraq’s murder of the Marsh Arabs and the use of Gas weapons on men women and children. And the example above of the genocide of Muslims by the Serbs.

Whilst those of a certain "persuasion" wish to portray the RAF and Air Power as a terrible thing, they can only do so if they ignore the atrocities that caused the use of the Air Power to be considered. This is selective use of facts and selective thinking.

Or “Spin” to use a modern idiom

by Student Fri Jul 25, 2008 06:58

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/14/21508/1189

The latest atrocity of the Coalition of the Willing - which has actually come to light. How many more atrocities have been covered up?

Remember the media coverage of the flattening of Fallujah, Iraq, in 2006, a city the size of Bristol?

We were told nothing, the BBC's lack of coverage resulted in demonstrations in London.

Well done Historian, you're doing a sterling job for humanity, NOT.

Your rewards must be considerable that you sell your soul in this fashion.

Most of us are not rich and get no pleasure in seeing the suffering of our like in other countries, so that exploiters can line their pockets.

by Gene Police Fri Jul 25, 2008 23:13

Yeah, but, er, they were evil terrorist weddings. The RAF stopped the terrorists from getting married, er, and making more terrorists! Ra RA RA!

(that was sarcasm btw, I don't really believe that weddings should be bombed)

by Student Sat Jul 26, 2008 06:27

Let's not forget that the "Shock and Awe" on Baghdad sent from Fairford was an extreme form of terrorism designed to terrorise a whole country into submission.

This was the start of a disastrous illegal invasion.

But as it was performed by the US-UK Air Forces, (so say to get rid of one man), truth in our media was just another victim.

Criticise the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium which have left a lasting legacy of birth deformaties in the Middle East if you dare!

Steam hammer to crack a nut? No, yet another example of indifference to civilian casualties.

by nickleberry Sat Jul 26, 2008 09:17 http://nickleberry-huxtable.blogspot.com

@J29 wrote: I do have a love for aircraft, so this, in particular, is an emotive subject for me. I couldn't describe how irate I'd be if the world's biggest and best military airshow was wiped off the map because it didn't conform to the views of 'green people' or environmentalists. And really, that wouldn't just apply to airshows. By all means, I'd feel strongest about those, but there are plenty of other shows and events, that have an impact on CO2 levels, however insignificant, that have the potential to be banned in the name of global warming. But I honestly think the damage you'd do to your cause would far outweigh the benefits, due to people simply not wanting to go green if they feel it is dictating and taking away their lives

Amidst all the pseudo-scientific nonsense, debates about RAF history, and reposts of speeches from Czech heads-of-state (!), I found this little comment really quite illuminating. To announce my bias: I am firmly on the side of those who see climate change as a threat. I think the potential damage that it could do is massive and I think our response needs to be radical.

However I think @J29 makes a very good point. It's really easy for climate change activists to be perceived as absolutist. This is, of course, partly due to deliberate misrepresentation by an unsympathetic and unscrupulous media. Nonetheless it's important that this perception is avoided where possible. I am in favour of radical alternatives, but this does not mean that I am a Luddite. I still think the fact that humanity has figured out how to fly is incredible and should be celebrated. Air shows could be a valid activity in this context...

Having said this, I entirely endorse some of the criticisms that have been made of this air show (for instance, I have huge problems with a celebration of "military capability" and all that this implies). Nonetheless @J29's comment is a salutory reminder for the radical element, that we need to be sensitive to the diversity of interest and lifestyle amongst the great British public. In the new, greener society that we are seeking to construct, we must have space for as much variety of experience as possible...

by Joe Wed Dec 24, 2008 21:10

Fairford is a very quiet base compared to say, Heathrow.

Fairford has periods of activity no more than five times a year.
Heathrow has periods of activity 24:7

I attend this show every year and can honestly say that I have never seen war being celebrated.

In 2006, the Pakistani AF brought a plane celebrating the efforts of other countries.
During the flying display, the commentators discuss the capabilities of the plane (eg bombs it can carry) when necessary, however there is only one demonstration which involves mock bombs, the RAF's 'Role Demo'

Most of your comforts, including the computer you are reading this on, will have come from abroad. How did they get here?
We would not have the characteristics Britain has today without the invention of the aeroplane.

Wadduington, RIAT and Farnborough were held on consecutive weeks, so some aircraft transited between all three sites. That saves a flight from abroad, right?

by I hate Fairford Air Tattoo - Fairford Air Tattoo Tue Feb 17, 2009 19:49 fairfordairtattoo at yahoo dot co dot uk

Getting ready for 2009