Given the role of contrails in holding back the warming, giving up flying would be a bad idea. But jets could run on biodiesel or hydrogen. The BTU values of methanol and ethanol are too low for aircraft.

The alarmist should ride bikes no matter what the weather is and Kayak across the Ocean to get to the AGW shakedown meetings . Some want to go back to a hunter , gatherer tribes.

I guess they want to sleep out side with the friendly Ticks and other pest . And no fires in winter because because you cant burn wood .

I guess when deniers start to try and use the mass of humans themselves as a measure you can tell they are way out of their depth, they try to invent excuses why Al Gore should not fly etc, or bleat about plots to stop us all flying, all this is the usual smoke screen to cover the fact they have no answer to the science.

Meanwhile the actual adults are looking at ways of reducing the problems associated with greenhouse gases and flying, using new fuels that reduce emissions or fuels from renewable sources rather than fossil fuels, such fuels have already been tested in commercial jets and they work.

People like to travel and some have to travel as part of their work and their are no trains that cross oceans so flight is for any forseeable future the only way to travel over these areas (in a reasonable time).

I think, sadly, deniers answers to questions like this show pretty clearly what their real motives are.

Usually there is some reference to "greens want us to live like cavemen or cowboys", when in fact it is advances in technology which will be needed to fight climate change, like bio fuels, better solar cells and energy storage like fuel cells, of course such advances would be quite bad for the bottom line of oil energy groups which is why they are funding so heavily the denial of AGW, and suppling many of the theories deniers use, many of which rather obviously have the punchline that we need to keep using thier fuels and how bad alterative energy is. Although oddly many remote communties around the world seem to be able to use these same alterative energies to supply themselves with energy and even in urban areas many who have rooftop 'solar' know how much such systems can save them in energy costs.

P.S. I have such a system on my roof, so while deniers post B.S about how these systems don't work, all I have to do is look at my energy bill, as my system offsets 100% of my use and over ~6 years has already paid for itself in full.

As for other forms of transport look at the newer electric cars, Mitsubishi have released in Australia a medium sized SUV it is ~$50K ~$6K more than the equivalent petrol powered vehicle, it still uses petrol but with a rated milage 0.6L per hundred km, it's consuption is less that 10% that of the traditional car, in commutiong to work you could recover the cost difference in less than 2 years and beyond that this car would be far cheaper to operate. Does this sound like being driven to being a caveman, or does it sound like something that would actually (in the long run) save it's owner thousands of dollars and scare the willies out of the fuel industry. These are still only the first efforts at comercail electric and hybrid cars they are only going to get better and cheaper as mass production gears up.

While you seem to be trying to deride the train, over medium length travel like London to Paris via the tunnel, the train is actually faster than flying by plane

Yes, you should not travel by plane and always take the train. Just stay out of my business and we will be fine.

how far should we go in order to save the planet? Should we boycott travelling by airplane and always take the train? Should we ban the imports of goods from far away? Or is the fear of global warming just propaganda?

If you go by train your still burning coal, witch produce co2 just like gasoline.

trains do not work across oceans and america does not have bullet trains

The whole planet feeds off of the energy CO2 brings. CO2 warming is a fallacy. There are bigger controls on our climate than CO2. Much bigger.

Usually there is some reference to "greens want us to live like cavemen or cowboys", when in fact it is advances in technology which will be needed to fight climate change, like bio fuels, better solar cells and energy storage like fuel cells, of course such advances would be quite bad for the bottom line of oil energy groups which is why they are funding so heavily the denial of AGW, and suppling many of the theories deniers use, many of which rather obviously have the punchline that we need to keep using thier fuels and how bad alterative energy is. Although oddly many remote communties around the world seem to be able to use these same alterative energies to supply themselves with energy and even in urban areas many who have rooftop 'solar' know how much such systems can save them in energy costs.

Do you realize that human influence on our climate is next to nil?

The volume of human existence is equal to less than 1/3rd of 1 cubic mile which makes humans about 1/35,000,000,000,000ths the size of Earth itself.

We should walk and eat roadkill.