Fly? Or Drive?

Considering that CO2 makes up .04% (that is less than 1 percent) of all gases, and humans only create 3% of the co2 that is around the world (97% is made by the planet naturally), I don't think we need to worry about how much evil co2 we let loose. If you really want to do some good, get a huge cork and close up all of those pesky volcanoes. Or better yet find a way to prevent plants from dying and decaying. If you really think that co2 is a problem, I would start out trying to stop the planet from polluting, before worrying about the measly 3% that we are causing.

It may be more fuel efficient for some trips, but imagine 200 people driving from New York to Mexico or 200 people flying from New York to Mexico. 200 people taking a plane will use less fuel than 200 people driving. Even if there were 4 people per car that is 50 vehicles. I believe that in some cases it is more efficient to fly.

hey Bud the Chud

where did you get that information from, thats pure rubbish!

we....the people that live on the planet earth and our industries are the responsible of the higher levels of CO2 and other green gases

never....in millions of year...was a so high concentration of co2.

normal levels, the ones that we had before industrialisation were around 100 ppm of CO2 now days we have about 450 ppm. and rising!!!!

dont belive this guy! he works for the petrol companies!

What's missing from this article in my opinion is effect that one person or 4 people would have on the schedule of any flight from point A to point B. If one to four people decide to drive instead of fly, the airline won't cancel the flight that they would have been on. So, in a sense you still have the CO2 emissions from the flight + the emissions from the car. How is that better for the environment?

Hey matchile, quit drinking the Kool-aid and open a book. ANY science text book will show you the CO2 concentrations on this planet. CO2 samples were HIGHER in the 1400 when the temperatures were hotter. Quit trying to scare people with lies. I work for a computer company, not an oil company. You have not lived on this earth for a million years so you don't know if the levels were ever higher. The earth's temp follows solar cycles. CO2 regulates earth's temp.

Here read this if your brain can take it in and understand it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/04/even-doubling-or-tripling-the-amount-of-co2-will-have-little-impact-on-t...

Oh look I found another article that basically says that the co2 levels a few hundred million years ago, were over 7000 ppm, yes thats right 7000 ppm. gee I think that is higher than the 450 you stated.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

burning all the fossil fuels, and releasing all he carbon stored to the atmosphere, created by nature in millions of years in 100 years can not be good.

global warming is real!

Your quoting something from wikipedia????

Post something from an actual scientist and then I will be convinced.

Anyone can put whatever they want in wikipedia, especially socialist looking to convince lemmings like you that GW exist, just so they can have a reason to raise taxes.

Hey Bud the Chud,
Any ".com" website isn't going to give you reliable "scientific" material. I learned that in 6th grade. Did you go to college, did you learn what a good reliable source is? I have professors that would turn down an entire paper if I referenced "scientific" facts from a commercial website. So don't go around preaching your stuff about quoting facts. Your geocraft website might have some fancy links, and some quotes from some big names, but its all taken out of context to argue their opinions. Try reading a little more of what you call a "reliable" source or did you not learn to read either?

Bud the Chud, I have asked this question before and never received an answer. Maybe you can:

Show me one (just one) large, professional science organization that says that global climate change/warming is NOT happening and that humans have not at least partially a responsibility. You know, organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Not the opinions or measurements of individual scientists. You can find ANY opinion supported by a website or an individual scientist somewhere. Heck, you don't need to convince anyone before publishing anything on the web. I expect scientists to question the status quo and try to prove theories wrong. That is their job. Once they can prove it to be wrong and others can see and observe the evidence as well, the theory is changed.

No, what I am looking for is the carefully phrased and peer-reviewed official statement of a professional science organization that will lose its credibility if it is wrong. You say global warming is not happening. Please don't be offended, but I do not trust you. Show me the professional organizations of the best scientists on this planet that support what you say. Just one.

Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less

Abirr:

I cannot say whether the data used in the article above is good or not, but the article clearly states that your CO2 emissions are higher per person when you fly in comparison to driving. So, how did you rationally come to the conclusion that flying may be better in some cases???? Explain your conclusions please. How much fuel does a jet transporting 200 people consume? What fuel consumption did you assume for the cars in question? Your statement is completely random and wrong if based on the data in the article above.

Is this just your want-to-be-true opinion or is this statement based on data that we can review here please. Doing the right thing for the environment has nothing to do with "believe". This is not a question of faith, this is a question of numbers and data.

Stay at home more often. Travel as much as your grand-parents. Depending on the grandparents, that may have been sustainable.

Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less