Deary me aviate1138, what touched your nerve? Was the article really that much of a global warning panic attack? Struck me as quite a restrained account of an unusal flight, hence my posting on this site.
As for 'global warming', ATNotts brilliant tongue in cheek reply is almost sufficient. However, will add a few points as I am a scientist working in a field (hydrology) where climate change is starting to make an impact on how we view, and calculate, the world. The trouble is that there is so much ill informed speculation that I can quite understand the degree of frustration expressed by aviate1138. In 1963 I had the wisdom to remain in the womb until the worse of the ice was over so cannot comment upon the newspapers, but the ill informed 'new ice age' headlines merely underlines that nonsense from the media is nothing new. In the same way, I do find myself agreeing with the tone of the comment concerning GreenPeace and Friends of the Earth who, by a misplaced hysteria that sometimes feels not grounded in hard science, I feel do real harm to the cause of responsible care for the environment.
Our climate is changing. As aviate1138 points out this is not news, and we know it has always been changing. What is of interest, and maybe concern, is how rapidly it is changing at the moment. It would be poor science not to ask why this is happening, and things like flights to the Antarctic are important to collect hard data (not anecdote) on the change. If the answer is that this is natures' way, then fine. On the other hand, we have so much past evidence of how mankind can be destructive that it might be prudent to view what we are doing. And that may involve making some hard decisions. There is a precedent for this, in that it did not take us long after the start of the industrial revolution to kill our rivers. At the time aviate1138 was driving the Mini Cooper 'S' on the Thames, fishing on that river was a relatively unproductive sport. It took years of legislation to control the discharges, years of encouraging people who were saying that requiring discharge control was a restraint of free trade (or whatever), years of allowing nature to clean up our mess, before we now have our rivers in a condition to be proud of. Not convinced, then look at the headlines when a few fish get killed by mistake. Without realising it we are proud of how clean our rivers are now. I do not know about the effect of carbon dioxide, it is not my field and I suspect that applies to anybody who reads this forum. However, intuitively I know that in any aspect of life too much waste tends to bugger up the immediate environment (I am sure there is a joke worthy of Jet Blast in that statement!). Moderation in all things seems a good idea, something that the Americans, in their approach to Kyoto, do not seem to understand!
Maybe this thread should go to Jet Blast, although that would be sad as the subject of climate change was not my intention in starting this thread. Instead, it might be worth reflecting on the challenge of flying to the Antarctic. Clearly a dangerous and difficult business, as this
thread makes clear.