• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Davos Hypocrites. (1 Viewer)

litebeam

Well-known member
Davos hypocrites

As many as 1,700 private jets will commence in Davos, Switzerland as elites gather for the 2018 World Economic Forum.
Yet another glaring example of the jet-setting, carbon-spewing hypocrites who feign interest in AGW.

The bigger example of hypocrisy is that when I went to link this story for this posting, only sites like Breitbart, The Washington Times and other right leaning sites and media would report this.
Agenda-driven propaganda sources such as The New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic shared nothing.

Simply more of the selective outrage we've come to expect from these partisans.

A pox on the lot.....
 
Last edited:
The bigger example of hypocrisy is that when I went to link this story for this posting, only sites like Breitbart, The Washington Times and other right leaning sites and media would report this.

Well, this is from last weekend's Guardian:
"The same recklessness applies to the environment, only more so. [...] There will be much talk in Davos this week of creating a carbon-free economy, but the rhetoric that doesn’t really square with an estimated 1,000 flights by private jet into and out of Switzerland for the five-day event." link

But I quite agree that "Davos" is an abomination...

J
 
As many as 1,700 private jets will commence in Davos, Switzerland as elites gather for the 2018 World Economic Forum.
Yet another glaring example of the jet-setting, carbon-spewing hypocrites who feign interest in AGW.

3400 flights over 5 days equates to roughly 2 per day per year (for the impact of the Davos meeting at annual rates).

Geneva Airport alone has roughly 300 scheduled flights per day over the year. My rough estimate of how their almost 17 million passengers annually are distributed is 150 passengers per flight. The carbon footprint of the average scheduled airliner is about 30 times that of the average private jet, although the per capita footprint is about 15% of that for private jets. Geneva of course is only one of several major Swiss civil airports.

I agree that there is a deal of hypocrisy concerning Davos not limited to the private jets, but the Davos private jet impact on the carbon footprint of Swiss airports is well below one percentage point of the annual total.

Eliminating private jets' contribution to the world's carbon footprint would indeed be a step forward. albeit a tiny one, but wouldn't any move to ban them come up against various parts of the US Constitution as interpreted by libertarians or aircraft manufacturers? I surmise that any such move would be classed as too socialist or communist by a considerable proportion of the US public.

It's how society deals with the complex world that we live in that is the concern, notwithstanding the fulminations of interested bystanders of whatever political persuasion...
MJB
 
As many as 1,700 private jets will commence in Davos, Switzerland as elites gather for the 2018 World Economic Forum.
Yet another glaring example of the jet-setting, carbon-spewing hypocrites who feign interest in AGW.

The bigger example of hypocrisy is that when I went to link this story for this posting, only sites like Breitbart, The Washington Times and other right leaning sites and media would report this.
Agenda-driven propaganda sources such as The New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic shared nothing.

Simply more of the selective outrage we've come to expect from these partisans.

A pox on the lot.....

I agree, litebeam, but their hypocrisy extends waaaaaay beyond AGW.

A pox on The Donald too?

And as has been stated above the reporting this side of the Atlantic has been quite pointed, so your conspiracy theory does not extend this far. Add the Guardian web news to your bookmarks along with the others for a more balanced view of world events.

Mick
 
I agree, litebeam, but their hypocrisy extends waaaaaay beyond AGW.

A pox on The Donald too?

And as has been stated above the reporting this side of the Atlantic has been quite pointed, so your conspiracy theory does not extend this far. Add the Guardian web news to your bookmarks along with the others for a more balanced view of world events.

Mick
Mick, those of us watching statistics like record Black American employment, record Hispanic home ownership, consumer confidence, stock market/401K growth insanity, ISIS annihilation...we realize that the man has obvious strengths.
And it's clear he has his narcissistic weaknesses, we get it. Any given news cycle will usually include silly tweets.
As it relates to this forum, his ability to slash economy-strangling regulations may be one of the most profound actions of this Presidency, and that flies below the radar with his list of accomplishments.

I'll bookmark the Guardian.
 
How else are people supposed to get from one continent to another in time for a meeting other than by jet? What am I missing?

I think the key word is 'private' regarding the jet.
Much more energy/CO2 efficient to travel commercial if travel is necessary.
M
 
I think the key word is 'private' regarding the jet.
Much more energy/CO2 efficient to travel commercial if travel is necessary.
M

Whether one espouses AGW or not, good stewardship of our planet and resources seems prudent. I would fly 'commercial' rather than by private jet if I were wealthy.
That said, I'm not criticizing these corporate titans and global leaders so much for using these jets, I'm criticizing them for the endless AGW alarmism we endure from them while they continue to utilize that transportation.

Hollywood is a prime example of "good for me, but not for thee." Here in Idaho the Hailey airport is a constant buzz of private jets all day and all night.
Hollywood and elitist hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
“Endless AGW alarmism” from “corporate titans and global leaders”??? Wow, pity the poor denialist with forces like that arrayed against him, and thank God for that candle in the darkness, our noble president!
 
AGW is currently common usage for 'All Going Well' in chats... for those of us from differing backgrounds if you mean 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' or 'Anti Global Warming' or somesuch, please give us a hint.
 
AGW is currently common usage for 'All Going Well' in chats... for those of us from differing backgrounds if you mean 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' or 'Anti Global Warming' or somesuch, please give us a hint.

Given the nature of this forum it ought to refer to these fellas really...

Or maybe those are entirely made up by a global conspiracy of ivory-tower scientists (so we keep funding their pointless taxonomy research), self-serving politicians (in the pocket of the wood-drumming grub-searching African lobby, one and all) and whining snowflake lefties (so we ehrm...care about cute birdies not going extinct)....Who knows?!

[satire people - calm down already!]

For a bit of science just go here: https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/global-warming-frequently-asked-questions
 

Attachments

  • African Grey Woodpecker 2-L.jpg
    African Grey Woodpecker 2-L.jpg
    89.3 KB · Views: 25
Last edited:
AGW is currently common usage for 'All Going Well' in chats... for those of us from differing backgrounds if you mean 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' or 'Anti Global Warming' or somesuch, please give us a hint.

Is that question directed at me?

And are you being serious with this?
 
The abbreviation is used above, and one I have only seen used as 'all going well' so I questioned it for elucidation.
The two opposite examples were used purely to show how abbreviaions can cause confusion.
It was not 'directed' at anyone, it was genuinely asking.
Yes I was being serious, but not mocking.
Please take no offence as non was intended.
I work in USA a lot and get many abbreviations and acronyms wrong, as they differ a cross the Atlantic. My colleagues get my jargon wrong too.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top