1,700 Private Jets Fly to Davos to Discuss Global Warming

private jetsA squadron of 1,700 private jets are rumbling into Davos, Switzerland, this week to discuss global warming and other issues as the annual World Economic Forum gets underway.

The influx of private jets is so great, the Swiss Armed Forces has been forced to open up a military air base for the first time ever to absorb all the super rich flying their private jets into the event, reports Newsweek.

“Decision-makers meeting in Davos must focus on ways to reduce climate risk while building more efficient, cleaner, and lower-carbon economies,” former Mexican president Felipe Calderon told USA Today.

Davos, which has become a playground of sorts for the global elite, is expected to feature at least 40 heads of state and 2,500 top business executives. Former Vice President-turned-carbon billionaire Al Gore and rapper Pharrell Williams will be there as well; each plans to discuss global warming and recycling respectively.

Another big theme of the mega-rich confab will be combating “income inequality” and how the world’s rich can pay their fair share to reduce the gap between top earners and the lower class. Admission price for Davos: roughly $40,000 a ticket.

The World Economic Forum will also feature discussions on gender equality and opportunities for women. According to the World Economic Forum’s own statistics, just 17% of all 2015 participants are women.

The 45th World Economic Forum meeting begins on Wednesday and runs through Saturday.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (49)

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    The simple proof that CO2 change does not cause climate change has been hiding in plain sight and here it is:

    CO2 has been considered to be a forcing with units Joules/sec. Energy change, which is revealed by temperature change, has units Joules. Average forcing times duration produces energy change. Equivalently, a scale factor times the time-integral of the CO2 level produces the temperature change.

    During previous glaciations and interglacials (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth) CO2 and temperature went up and down nearly together. This is impossible if CO2 is a significant forcing (scale factor not zero) so this actually proves CO2 CHANGE DOES NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE.

    Application of this analysis methodology to CO2 levels for the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years) (Berner, 2001) proves that CO2 levels up to at least 6 times the present will have no significant effect on average global temperature.

    See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Day

      |

      I explained why that citation was terrible before. Why are you still using it? First of all, the sunspot cycle is just a part of the actual solar energy cycle (energy that makes it to Earth); that’s the cycle that matters and the one that completely doesn’t correlate with surface temperatures.

      Although, now I see you’re citing yourself. Huh. Interesting. You know, I went through your citations for that blog post too. They were kind of not great, let’s say. Plus one included the hockey stick, which you said didn’t matter, but you did cite it so I mean… Must’ve mattered when you were reading it. Granted, it didn’t look like the hockey stick, but that’s exactly what it was. You probably just saw another graph that looked like recent warming wasn’t anomalous and didn’t even stop to look at what it actually was.

      “[quote name=”Dan Pangburn”]During previous glaciations and interglacials (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth) CO2 and temperature went up and down nearly together. This is impossible if CO2 is a significant forcing (scale factor not zero) so this actually proves CO2 CHANGE DOES NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE.[/quote]

      It says you’re an engineer on that blog. Why an engineer would follow this logic (which it should hardly be called) is beyond me. You’re saying that because there’s a correlation that there’s no way there can be causation. Actually, you’re saying that in all caps, so you’re pretty much screaming that corellation can never imply causation. Look, I don’t think you have to be scientifically literate to know that’s a ridiculous statement. Correlation doesn’t always imply causation, but honestly, why are you implicitly stating that it implies no causation? I’m pretty sure I pointed this out once before and you’re still copy/pasting the same ridiculous statements.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Dan Pangburn

        |

        Day – your comments reveal that you not only lack science skill but you also, since I have never cited the hockey stick, lack honesty.

        Apparently you are not even able to grasp that the proof that CO2 has no effect on climate has nothing to do with correlation.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          Are you aware that scientists show less infrared radiation at the top of the atmosphere, at time goes by, right at CO2’s absorption wavelengths?

          This is as direct a proof that can be had.

          “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Dan Pangburn

            |

            If you could understand the simple physics and math (aka ‘engineering’) in my first post you would realize that it trumps anything that disagrees with it.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            What it means
            The conclusion as stated is somewhat misleading. It does not provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in earth’s greenhouse effect. It does so only for the cloud-free part of the atmosphere located over a portion of the planet’s oceans. And for such circumstances, the authors’ results are exactly what we would expect: over the 27 years in question, measured increases in the atmospheric concentrations of the gases mentioned should indeed have increased the greenhouse effect of the pristine cloudless atmosphere.

            This finding, however, tells us nothing about earth’s climatic response to the inferred increase in radiative forcing, which is what the climate change debate is all about, i.e., trying to evaluate the competing effectiveness of various positive and negative feedbacks that come into play when there is a small change in the radiative properties of the cloudless atmosphere. In fact, the authors’ finding is so rudimentary as to be essentially meaningless. Assuming, for example, that their handling of their data is correct – and this is a huge assumption they spend over half their paper discussing – they have simply verified the definition of the greenhouse effect!
            http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N12/C1.php

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” Was overwhelmed by natural variability. Wonder why the models failed?

            “An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that WATER VAPOR, the MOST IMPORTANT GREENHOUSE GAS, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001.”
            [img]http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg[/img]

            wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            How about quoting some real science, instead of a couple of propaganda sites?

            If you’re taking your science from the likes of WUWT and Friends of Science, you aren’t looking for scientific understanding, you’re just looking for confirmation of your biases.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            The IPCC is a propaganda machine. You first.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            You quote the IPCC, who have yet to produce a single skilfull prediction with the “settled science”.

            Faked data and faked models making failed predictions…

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Climate models don’t make predictions. Sorry — it’s impossible in principle.

            But there are these:

            “Successful Predictions of Climate Science,” R. Pierrehumbert, Dec 2012

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            [i]Faked data and faked models making failed predictions…[/i]

            If the data is “faked,” why are you using it for model comparison?

            You want it both ways: when you think the data don’t stack up, you use it for model comparision. Later, when it’s convenient for you, you claim it’s “faked.”

            This is hypocritical — both can’t be said at the same time.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            So if the Models can’t make predictions because it’s an impossible principle. Why do you then link to “Successful Predictions of Climate Science,”?

            If it’s an impossible comparison why are you using it?

            This is hypocritical — both can’t be said at the same time.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Why don’t you watch the video and find out? Models are not the sum total of climate science.

            Amir, correcting you again and again has gotten boring. Good luck.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Why don’t you watch the video and find out? Models are not the sum total of climate science.[/quote] No! They also use data that has been “adjusted” to fit these failed model “predictions”. :zzz

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            While we are watching Video’s. Here’s one.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Models are not the sum total of climate science.[/quote]

            That’s true! There is tortured data, hyperbole, and denial of natural variability.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]How about quoting some real science, instead of a couple of propaganda sites? [/quote] Data from NASA Satellite’s is now “propaganda”? I might not argue that point. 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]How about quoting some real science, instead of a couple of propaganda sites? [/quote] So your claiming the data from NASA is not real science? Is it becuse it shows the assumed Co2 Water Vapor feedback programed into ALL of the models is BS? You talk about confirmation bias. 😮
            [quote]”An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that WATER VAPOR, the MOST IMPORTANT GREENHOUSE GAS, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001.”[/quote]

          • Avatar

            Day

            |

            So… Let me see if I can get this right.

            First, the solar cycle has resulted in less energy being emitted by the Sun. Second, relative humidity has gone down, so there is, in theory (since relative humidity =/= actual humidity), less water vapor in the air. Third, the PDO is at its lowest point, or has been on a downturn in the past ten or fifteen years.

            So there’s less energy from the Sun, and less gas in the atmosphere to keep that energy trapped on Earth? Right? And the ocean cycles would indicate slight cooling too.

            But the temperature has increased? And somehow it isn’t because of increased carbon dioxide, methane, and CFCs in the atmosphere? Even though it would actually kind of make a lot of sense if it was just that simple?

            Sometimes, you guys seem to contradict yourselves to the point I’m amazed you can’t see the obvious alternative even when it’s literally right in front of you.

            Oh, and Dave is right. WUWT is hardly real science being practiced and reported.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]# Day 2015-02-22 14:51
            So… Let me see if I can get this right.

            First, the solar cycle has resulted in less energy being emitted by the Sun.[/quote]

            Nope, you got it wrong, because once again you listen to the wrong people.

            [i]A paper published in the journal of the Italian Astronomical Society finds that solar geomagnetic activity was highly correlated to global temperature changes over the period from 1856-2000. The authors “show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.”[/i]

            Once again about global warming and solar activity
            K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

            1 Solar-Terrestrial influences Laboratory, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bl.3 Acad.G.Bonchev str. 1113, Sofia, Bulgaria
            2 Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Roma, Italy

            It is obvious if you are looking for the truth, and not pushing an agenda.

            [img]http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c016760922c24970b-400wi[/img]

          • Avatar

            Dan Pangburn

            |

            The excellent correlation of average global temperature with the time-integral of sunspot numbers (which are closely related to solar magnetic flux) is shown at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]But the temperature has increased? [/quote]Pay attention Day!
            Temperatures have not increased for over 18 years, which has refuted the AWG hypothesis. All the invalidated models predicted increased warming that never happened despite rising Co2.

            Falling humidity has also invalidated you claimed “positive feedback” BS. Another predictive model failure.

            Your “real science” is in stark contradiction to the scientific method.
            [quote]Oh, and Dave is right. WUWT is hardly real science being practiced and reported.[/quote]

            LOL… Not suprising you would think Dave is “right”. You use the smae methods as he does.

            Compare the trafic at Watt’s site, to pathetic ol Dave’s.

            Never seen Watt’s quote himself as a reference.

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        We are still waiting for you to address the many questions posed to you Day.

        [quote] First of all, the sunspot cycle is just a part of the actual solar energy cycle (energy that makes it to Earth); that’s the cycle that matters and the one that completely doesn’t correlate with surface temperatures.[/quote] Yes, actually it does! The IPCC’s lone solar “scientist” doctored the data despite the letters of protest lodged.
        [img]http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Sat-Measurements-of-total-solar-irradiance.gif[/img]
        [quote]Claus Frohlich, meanwhile, constructed a composite time series from satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) made since the late 1970’s. His composite, the so-called ‘PMOD’ model, modifies the published results of the Numbus7/ERB and ACRIM1 science teams to provide better agreement with the predictions of a statistical model by Judith Lean based on linear regressions against solar emission and absorption line proxies for TSI. (emphasis added)[/quote]
        The solar data was “adjusted” to match model results against the protests of the men who designed, built and operated the Nimbus7 cavity radiometer. You can read their letters of protest here.

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2010/06/judithgate-update.html

        More detail here.
        http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/NS_grl-supplement.pdf

        Reply

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      Quoting CO2 levels in the deep past means nothing until you note that the Sun was 5% weaker 542 Mya.

      Given the weaker sun, it took all that much more CO2 to keep the planet above freezing. See how that works?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Dan Pangburn

        |

        The planet plunged into and recovered from the Andean/Saharan ice age while the CO2 level was more than 4 times the present. Because it both cooled and warmed, the lower sun radiance obviously had no significant effect. See how THAT works?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          You write like you’re the first person to ever think of this question. Hardly.

          What was solar irradiance 450 Mya? About 4% less than today’s. (Solar irradiance increases about 1% every 100 Myrs.) That’s a difference of 54 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere, or 9.6 W/m2 at the surface (assuming the same albedo as today, which isn’t a good assumption, but I don’t know of a better one).

          How much CO2 would it take to counteract this large decrease in sunlight at the surface? About 6 times more than the pre-Industrial level. Just to give today’s climate.

          So a CO2 level 4 times present would be a net forcing of -2.2 W/m2 compared to today. That is enough to create an ice age.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Dan Pangburn

            |

            If you could understand the proof you might realize that non of that is relevant to the proof.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Sounded relevant to me.

          • Avatar

            Dan Pangburn

            |

            Read the proof again. Solar radiance is not part of it.

          • Avatar

            Day

            |

            Then maybe you should stop citing your blog, where you claim that the sunspot number (which, while being important, is far less relevant than actual solar radiance) is one of two important factors that corolate with the climate.

            Since it’s not a part of it, after all.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Then maybe you should stop citing your blog. [/quote] David does exactly that and you think he’s “right”. Is it because he agrees with you?

          • Avatar

            Dan Pangburn

            |

            The blog corroborates the proof.

            The blog uses the time-integral of the sunspot number anomaly, not sunspot numbers or radiance.

            Apparently you can’t tell the difference. Seek help.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Global warming (climate change )is an industry on its own .1700 jets fly Davos to talk about Climate $$ Ka -Ching .Isn’t it kind of them to think about how they can sprinkle
    a few crumbs about after the big pigs take their cut .

    Maybe Mexico can use some of the money to figure out how to stop the mass murder of kids that happens every year .

    Solve some real problems you jet setter
    leaches.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      I betcha most of those flying in those planes were Republicans and/or conservatives, who couldn’t care less about their impact on the planet.

      So what’s your point?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        You would lose that bet.

        Compare the amounts of trash left behind when leftwingers and the right have demonstration rally’s’
        [img]https://lowertheboom.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ohioobamatrash.jpg[/img]


        [quote]Washington trash trucks hauled away at least 130 tons of garbage after the inauguration of President Obama, with more to go. National Park Service workers picked up almost 100 tons on the Mall and near the White House.[/quote]

        The same Mall was cleaner after the tea party left than it was when they arrived.

        http://thecitysquare.blogspot.ca/2012/10/san-francisco-tea-party-greets-obama.html

        http://thecitysquare.blogspot.ca/2012/10/san-francisco-tea-party-greets-obama.html

        Reply

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          You’re just trying to change the subject — your comment has nothing to do with Davos and private jets.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote] I betcha most of those flying in those planes were Republicans and/or conservatives, who couldn’t care less about their impact on the planet.

            So what’s your point? [/quote] Pure Projection. My comment was in response to the wager you lost.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Yes… But Republicans are Climate Change deniers. Everyone knows that.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            And you still lost the bet! 😀

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Bwaaaaahahahahahaha! Toshinmack does a drewski! Classic!

  • Avatar

    Dale

    |

    Isn’t this news a little late, say maybe a month?
    To be relevant, event dates should be included in articles so that we are not mislead into thinking old news is happening right now.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Dale ,it takes a long time to count 1700 private jets. Isn’t that more than there are real climate scientists ? Isn’t that almost 10 per country ?
    No doubt they bought carbon offsets .

    Love to see a list of who were on those air limos . Maybe even a few CLUB OF ROME
    wheeler dealers ,hedge fund managers ,and a very large group of climate protection managers from the UN .

    If you called a meeting to announce an end to world hunger or a cure for cancer you couldn’t get 1700 private jets and their self important cargo to attend .

    The $dollars available to insiders in the global warming(income redistribution ) scam must
    be staggering .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Al Shelton

      |

      I totally agree.
      The truth of the “science” was not important to the Agenda 21 promoters.
      Before the internet was big and there were no blogs; social media, or twitter etc., the UN IPCC officials at that time, stated that it did not matter if the science was true, only what people believed to be true.
      THAT is a total admission that the political agenda was all that mattered. To these people, truth in science was meaningless, and unimportant.
      That MO is still in force today.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Agreed Al and that is why people that try and convince others on the basis of science are just confirming the science isn’t settled .
    If the income redistribution mafia start getting their hands on the money the “science can drift off into the fog as the propaganda will have served its purpose .

    Some western (have) economies are playing ball because they would love a new tax and as we know all those rich people need fossil fuel to jet set .

    The winners are :
    Corrupt banana republic leaders hoping for handouts

    Asia through continued job relocation as the west commits self induced economic and military suicide .

    The greenie groups who need continued scary stories to keep the cash rolling in .

    Industry leeches and global warming preachers who will want to trade hot air chits and keep a piece .

    Politicians who see a DO GOOD carbon tax as another new source money .

    A number of climate scientist and actors that pretend to be scientists who can’t resist the cash or having a mike in their hands .

    The Losers will be :

    The truth

    The poor who will be made expendable

    Tax payers in general .

    The public interest when the stolen money from the scam is not used to solve real environmental and other social priorities .

    Science that has been sold out by a small group of frauds disguised in white coats .

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.