In the course of Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change Robin McKie says:
The Observer’s travel desk already gets hate mail merely for highlighting interesting destinations that might seem to encourage carbon-producing air travel
Well no. Without condoning the hate mail (which probably isn’t) the grauniad and observer frequently (almost always) runs travel sections on places you can only plausibly get to by air. They do this because their readers want them to. They run these alongside articles bemoaning the rise of CO2 from air travel. Its a contradiction they would do better admitting than try to pretend away.
wmconnolley: scienceblogs.com/stoat archive 
William, is ‘greenyness’ (greeniness?) another coining drawing on the Colbert Rule (ie based on the ‘truthiness’ model)? Is it yours? (Colbertiness-spotting has become a minor hobby of mine…)
[I made it up myself -W]
LikeLike
Mr or Ms Robin McKie didn’t notice one key detail about the “conspiracies”: in the case of the global warming, it is the alarmists who are the conspiracy theorists and who argue that a conspiracy of humans is going to create something really big.
A person who doesn’t believe conspiracy theories and who prefers a rational and natural explanation is normally called a skeptic.
LikeLike
Has anyone seen an online tradeoff calculator for deciding whether to drive an automobile solo, vs. taking a commercial airline for any given distance?
I know taxiing a few dozen yards in an aircraft must be horrendously fuel-inefficient compared to driving a 4-cylinder car.
But is there some distance in the say 3000 miles across the USA where there’s a worthwhile CO2 production choice to be made?
I miss the days when I’d fecklessly decide to drive from Virginia to Seattle and back in the old Peugeot 404. 30 miles per gallon.
LikeLike