Global warming is 'bulls**t' says Ryanair boss O'Leary

Cookie_Monster

Ha, got to love they guy, entertaining whichever side of the fence you are on. he certainly thinks is a load of **** anyway

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/global-warming-is-bullst-says-ryanair-boss-oleary-2333336.html

Indo wrote:

Charging for toilets, weighing passengers and flying with a lone pilot: Ryanair's combative boss Michael O'Leary is renowned for backing unusual ideas, but some passengers may feel that even he has overstepped the mark with his latest comments – denying the existence of global warming.

In an interview with The Independent littered with expletives, the chief executive of Europe's largest airline branded the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is heating up the planet with potentially grave consequences for the future of humanity as "horse****".

He agreed the climate was changing but denied it was caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, such as those from his planes. "Nobody can argue that there isn't climate change. The climate's been changing since time immemorial," he said.

"Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it's all a load of bull****. But it's amazing the way the whole ****ing eco-warriors and the media have changed. It used to be global warming, but now, when global temperatures haven't risen in the past 12 years, they say 'climate change'."

"Well, hang on, we've had an ice age. We've also had a couple of very hot spells during the Middle Ages, so nobody can deny climate change. But there's absolutely no link between man-made carbon, which contributes less than 2pc of total carbon emissions [and climate change]."

He suggested scientists had invented and perpetuated the theory in order to gain research grants. "Scientists argue there is global warming because they wouldn't get half of the funding they get now if it turns out to be completely bogus," he said.

"The scientific community has nearly always been wrong in history anyway. In the Middle Ages, they were going to excommunicate Galileo because the entire scientific community said the Earth was flat... I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the ****ing weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the ****ing global temperatures will be in 100 years' time. It's horse****."

He mocked global warming campaigners, describing the United Nations as "one of the world's most useless organisations", its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "utter tosh", and US politician Al Gore as someone who "couldn't even get ****ing re-elected" after a boom.

Of air passenger duty in Britain, which will rise by between £1 and £30 in November, Mr O'Leary said: "When they introduced it the Treasury said: 'We will ring-fence this money and use it for global climate change initiatives'.

We've written to them once every six months – they never answer the letter – saying: 'What do you use the money for?' It's a straight-forward tax scam... My average fare is £34. I pay passenger tax of £10: I pay 33pc of my revenues in these aviation taxes.

"Aviation gets a crap deal. This is the great historical justification among environmentalists for taxing air travel: 'They don't have tax on fuel'. The only reason we don't pay tax on fuel is that governments can't tax it because you'll upload fuel somewhere else if they tax it."

To date, the US, UK, Germany, Japan, India, and China have all agreed on the existence of global warming, but have failed to agree binding emission targets to limit it. More than 2,500 scientists contributed to the IPCC's fourth assessment report in 2007, which warned that freak weather events such as flooding and drought will intensify, threatening agriculture and the livelihoods of millions.

Greenpeace issued a light-hearted response to Mr O'Leary's comments. "Personally, I wouldn't trust 'O'Really' to tell me the price of a seat on his own airline, but to be fair his position does have the support of such intellectual heavyweights as Nick Griffin, Sarah Palin and George W Bush," said Joss Garman, a Greenpeace spokesman.
O'Leary's views: A rebuttal

O'Leary "The climate has been changing since time immemorial. Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it's all a load of bull****."

Dr Emily Shuckburgh, of the British Antarctic Survey "Over tens of thousands of years, the orbit of the Earth about the Sun slowly varies, and with it the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. When the orbit is such that the radiation dips low enough, it triggers an ice age. Since the Earth has not suddenly jumped into a different orbit in the past century, a different mechanism must explain the recent increase in global temperatures."

O'Leary "It used to be global warming but now, when global temperatures haven't risen in the past 12 years, they say 'climate change'."

Dr Shuckburgh "It is wrong to say global warming has stopped in the past 12 years. The weather changes day to day, and even when the temperature is averaged globally and over a full year, there are still considerable variations from year to year. When this is taken into account, no reduction is found in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20C per decade."

O'Leary "There's absolutely no link between man-made carbon – which contributes less than 2pc of total carbon emissions, most of it is naturally emitted – [and] climate change."

Dr Shuckburgh Vast amounts of carbon are exchanged each year back and forth between the land, oceans and atmosphere – some 200 GtC/yr [GigaTons of Carbon per year] are naturally emitted and 200 GtC/yr are naturally reabsorbed. Man is now emitting more than 8GtC/yr, about half of which remains in the atmosphere. The impact has been significant. Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels were about 280ppmv [parts per million by volume]. Man-made emissions have increased that to nearly 390ppmv.

O'Leary "The same [scientific] community was telling us in the mid-1970s the world was heading into a new ice age. I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the global temperatures will be in 100 years' time."

Dr Shuckburgh Of course it is not possible to predict with precision the weather in 100 years. But we can characterise – to within a range – the long-term climate trend that underlies the chaotic weather.

O'Leary "The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is a load of utter tosh."

Dr Shuckburgh The facts are that errors in the IPCC's fourth assessment report were identified and acknowledged, and the fundamental findings of the report were unaltered. This valuable scrutiny has strengthened, not discredited, the conclusions.

O'Leary "The only [IPCC economic growth scenario] that gives rise to this inexorable rise of man-made CO2 emissions linked to climate change... is 7pc compound economic growth into infinity. That's already been torn up in the last two years. We've already had a worldwide decline."

Dr Shuckburgh Carbon emissions do not have to rise inexorably for there to be climate change. If we stopped all emissions now, which is impossible, the temperature would increase for many years due to the emissions we have already made. Moreover, current CO2 emissions, even with the global recession, are in the mid to upper range of IPCC scenarios.

3DataModem

Thread title misleading.

He's talking MAN MADE climate change.

He is right... grant assistance for research is dependent on supporting the man-made climate change view; there is little or no independent research. His 2pc figure is probably an overstatement.

Cookie_Monster

3DataModem wrote: »

Thread title misleading.

He's talking MAN MADE climate change.

He is right... grant assistance for research is dependent on supporting the man-made climate change view; there is little or no independent research. His 2pc figure is probably an overstatement.

Title is from the Paper so don't blame me

Macha

This would be the Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryanair, who has some sort of scientific qualification in environmental sciences of physics? Or would it be the Michael O'Leary whose industry, aviation, is about to be brought under the EU ETS system and will have to start paying for all the carbon being emitted?

My money's on the second option.

djpbarry

3DataModem wrote: »

He is right... grant assistance for research is dependent on supporting the man-made climate change view...

I've seen statements such as this produced countless times over the last few years. I've yet to see anyone produce any evidence to support such a position, however.

3DataModem wrote: »

There is little or no independent research.

Define "independent".

3DataModem wrote: »

His 2pc figure is probably an overstatement.

His 2% figure is completely irrelevant. The fact that human emissions are relatively small compared to total emissions from the biosphere is not the point. The point is that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing and this increase is attributable to human activity.

seensensee

There is a lot of truth in the article you just have to know where to look

Horsesh!t + Bullsh!t = Global Warming...

Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is an important greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 25 compared to CO2 over a 100-year period (although accepted figures probably represents an underestimate[19]). This means that a methane emission will have 25 times the impact on temperature of a carbon dioxide emission of the same mass over the following 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Atmospheric_methane

djpbarry

seensensee wrote: »

Horsesh!t + Bullsh!t = Global Warming...

Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is an important greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 25 compared to CO2 over a 100-year period (although accepted figures probably represents an underestimate[19]). This means that a methane emission will have 25 times the impact on temperature of a carbon dioxide emission of the same mass over the following 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Atmospheric_methane

Global Warming is bull****, but methane contributes to global warming?

seensensee

djpbarry wrote: »

Global Warming is bull****, but methane contributes to global warming?

Yes, methane is a greenhouse gas, it's existence in the atmosphere along with the other GG's is estimated to keep our world warmer by 33 deg.C.
Without that type of global warming, where would we be?

skeleton_boy

What a legend

djpbarry

seensensee wrote: »

Yes, methane is a greenhouse gas, it's existence in the atmosphere along with the other GG's is estimated to keep our world warmer by 33 deg.C.
Without that type of global warming, where would we be?

Accepting that global warming is not bull****, after all?

pclancy

It does not really matter what he's talking about or what he thinks, all that really matters is the brand of Ryanair is once again been given massive publicity by the media without having to spend a cent.

Porridgemonster

Hes dead right,its all a load of sh*te,but it has made a lot of people very very rich and governments can tax you to the hilth using it as a concern !

djpbarry

Porridgemonster wrote: »

Hes dead right,its all a load of sh*te,but it has made a lot of people very very rich...

Such as?

Porridgemonster wrote: »

...and governments can tax you to the hilth using it as a concern !

Governments need global warming to justify the introduction of taxes? Don't governments have the power to introduce pretty much any tax they like in order to boost the public coffers? They don't really need a 'concern' to justify it, do they? Government needs more money, government increases taxes - no justification required other than 'government needs more money'.

mossyc123

djpbarry wrote: »

Such as?
Governments need global warming to justify the introduction of taxes? Don't governments have the power to introduce pretty much any tax they like in order to boost the public coffers? They don't really need a 'concern' to justify it, do they? Government needs more money, government increases taxes - no justification required other than 'government needs more money'.

They have elections every few years so the introduction of new taxes without justification for them it isn't a runner. The Inconvenient Truth is actually a fairly Convenient Lie.

djpbarry

mossyc123 wrote: »

They have elections every few years so the introduction of new taxes without justification for them it isn't a runner.

Sure, if taxes are increased to unprecedented levels, then yes, there might be a problem. But the fundamental reason for taxation is to raise revenue - no other 'justification' is required. For example, what is the "justification" for VAT and income tax, other than revenue generation?

mossyc123 wrote: »

The Inconvenient Truth is actually a fairly...

...poor documentary and I've no idea why people seem to consider it an authoritative source.

mossyc123

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure, if taxes are increased to unprecedented levels, then yes, there might be a problem. But the fundamental reason for taxation is to raise revenue - no other 'justification' is required. For example, what is the "justification" for VAT and income tax, other than revenue generation?

Politicians "fly kites" all the time regarding new taxation(e.g the property tax this summer) in order to gauge public reaction. Budget day's both here and in the UK include extensive explanation of the reasoning behind the introduction of new taxes. Justification IS demanded by the voting public...Government's don't generally introduce new taxes without proper explanation/justification.
Conveniently for them the climate change/ global warming concept and the need to do something about it has been in the public consciousness for the last few years so people haven't kicked up to much of a fuss about carbon taxes, increased airport charges and the rest.

djpbarry

mossyc123 wrote: »

Politicians "fly kites" all the time regarding new taxation(e.g the property tax this summer) in order to gauge public reaction. Budget day's both here and in the UK include extensive explanation of the reasoning behind the introduction of new taxes. Justification IS demanded by the voting public...Government's don't generally introduce new taxes without proper explanation/justification.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with that, but generally, ‘we need to generate more tax revenue to plug a hole in the public finances’ is all the justification that is required. The income levy is a case in point. Sometimes taxation can also be used as a means of behaviour modification, but in that case, the charges involved (and, subsequently, the revenue raised) tend to be rather small. The plastic bag levy would be an example.

mossyc123 wrote: »

Conveniently for them the climate change/ global warming concept and the need to do something about it has been in the public consciousness for the last few years so people haven't kicked up to much of a fuss about carbon taxes, increased airport charges and the rest.

I don’t think you can say that airport taxes were introduced primarily as an emissions-curbing measure. They were introduced (in my opinion) because air fares had gotten ridiculously low and governments spotted a revenue-generating opportunity. Furthermore, it could be seen as a means of offsetting against the lack of tax on jet fuel. However, even with these extra taxes and charges in place, air fares are still (historically speaking) very low and it is for that reason (in my opinion) that they have been accepted by the public.

As for the (relatively miniscule) carbon tax – people are not kicking up a fuss? Are you kidding me? Go read some of the threads on the politics forum and see how accepting people are of this measure.

Porridgemonster

Such as?

There are millions of euros made every day by waste management companies everyday just in this country,all because you cant burn rubbish in your back yard because we are told its bad for the enviroment.
Next time your on a car journey,take note of how many articulated trucks hauling waste ejector trailers full of waste to landfills around the country.
I see loads being hauled 150-200 miles to a landfill,grossing 44 tonnes by a truck averaging 6-7mpg ! Carbon footprints my ass All making money for big corporations and fair play to them,people are so easily influenced by all that green propaganda !

djpbarry

Porridgemonster wrote: »

There are millions of euros made every day by waste management companies everyday just in this country,all because you cant burn rubbish in your back yard because we are told its bad for the enviroment.

You're conflating separate issues there - sanitation exists for public health reasons and has been around long before we became aware of global warming. If you want to discuss it further, this thread would be more appropriate.

awesom_o

These are the exact comments one would expect from idiots such as O'Leary. I always see him on british consumer documentaries (Panorama, Watchdog, Dispatches ect) and cringe when I hear his irish accent denying any wrongdoings. He's a disgrace!

There's always something I wondered though..

I wonder if his pilots study the weather forecasts for the routes they are going to fly or do they hang up some seaweed in the cockpit?

coletti

awesom_o wrote: »

These are the exact comments one would expect from idiots such as O'Leary. I always see him on british consumer documentaries (Panorama, Watchdog, Dispatches ect) and cringe when I hear his irish accent denying any wrongdoings. He's a disgrace!

Your comments betray your prejudices, and indicate you are unlikely to be able to be objective when you come over as so prejudiced.

If you always cringe when you hear his Irish accent. why are you contributing to an Irish website where many people, one supposes, also have Irish accents?

I suppose George Bernard Shaw and Oscar Wilde, amongst others, also had Irish accents. I imagine Winston Churchuill had an English accent and Abraham Lincoln an American accent, while General De Gaulle had a French accent. Thats probably because thats where they grew up and lived, and if Michael O'leary had a chinese accent, that would indeed be remarkable.

Do you just cringe when you hear an irish accent, or do you cringe when you hear other accents, also? If so, which ones?

Macha

coletti, try to keep on topic and cut out the personal commentary.

ReginaII

Jaysus, tis ok for one lad to call some1 else an idiot, a disgrace, and being demeaning about an irish accent, but not ok to note that the guy who says that comes over as displaying his prejudice.

I'm amazed u let awesome_o say those tings without comment & shout at a lad who mentions it.

djpbarry

ReginaII wrote: »

Jaysus, tis ok for one lad to call some1 else an idiot, a disgrace, and being demeaning about an irish accent, but not ok to note that the guy who says that comes over as displaying his prejudice.

I'm amazed u let awesome_o say those tings without comment & shout at a lad who mentions it.

Please do not discuss moderation in-thread - if you have an issue with a post, report it.

Now, back on-topic please.

Comrade C

Why is it that any theory that makes things an inconvenience for any1 complete bull****! There are so many theories with significantly less evidence than man made climate change that no one would dare say are false with the fear of ridicule! Michael O Leary is doing what he always does being a eejit who is just looking for publicity!

encyclopedia

coletti wrote: »

Your comments betray your prejudices, and indicate you are unlikely to be able to be objective when you come over as so prejudiced.

If you always cringe when you hear his Irish accent. why are you contributing to an Irish website where many people, one supposes, also have Irish accents?

I suppose George Bernard Shaw and Oscar Wilde, amongst others, also had Irish accents. I imagine Winston Churchuill had an English accent and Abraham Lincoln an American accent, while General De Gaulle had a French accent. Thats probably because thats where they grew up and lived, and if Michael O'leary had a chinese accent, that would indeed be remarkable.

Do you just cringe when you hear an irish accent, or do you cringe when you hear other accents, also? If so, which ones?

It seems to me that awesome_o meant that he is embarrassed that Michael O Leary is Irish and it comes across that all Irish people have the same opinion as him. I can never understand how people can actually listen to Michael O Leary, he is clearly out for free publicity and he only cares about his own agendas. The whole Climate Change argument doesnt suit him so he just wants to slate it without having any real backup for his argument. Depleting the worlds resourses for no causes but greed is the real issue, the fact that Goverments are starting to tax these actions are what bothers him.

SirPeter

encyclopedia wrote: »

It seems to me that awesome_o meant that he is embarrassed that Michael O Leary is Irish and it comes across that all Irish people have the same opinion as him. I can never understand how people can actually listen to Michael O Leary, he is clearly out for free publicity and he only cares about his own agendas. The whole Climate Change argument doesnt suit him so he just wants to slate it without having any real backup for his argument. Depleting the worlds resourses for no causes but greed is the real issue, the fact that Goverments are starting to tax these actions are what bothers him.

That sort of implies that governments are not, themselves, greedy? Is that what you really think, that governments and politicians are not themselves greedy?

If all Irish people had the same opinions as Michael O'Leary, Ireland would not be in the mess it is now in, brought to its knees by the same politicians who now tell us that they, again, know how we can avoid global warming.

Michael O'Leary has created thousands of jobs and a profitable business giving people what they want. If that's the sort of "Irish" person you scorn, then perhaps there is little hope for Ireland if that view is more widely held.

encyclopedia

SirPeter wrote: »

That sort of implies that governments are not, themselves, greedy? Is that what you really think, that governments and politicians are not themselves greedy?

If all Irish people had the same opinions as Michael O'Leary, Ireland would not be in the mess it is now in, brought to its knees by the same politicians who now tell us that they, again, know how we can avoid global warming.

Michael O'Leary has created thousands of jobs and a profitable business giving people what they want. If that's the sort of "Irish" person you scorn, then perhaps there is little hope for Ireland if that view is more widely held.

If every person in Ireland had the same opinions as Michael O Leary no other country in the world would want to do business with us. Just look at how the other companies within that sector feel about him and the way he undermines them. From my understandings people who decide to work for Ryanair can not get work with other airlines after, I'm open to correction on this though. You also say he gives a service that the people want: Just look at the consumer issues forum and you will see that not everyone agrees with you on this, they have a sticky for Ryanair complaints alone.

I never said in my previous post climate change is not being used as an excuse for taxing or that politicians aren't greedy, you have absolutely no idea what my political views are yet you jump to conclusions, that is for another thread though, this thread is about Michael O Leary talking with a bias about something he has no proper understandings about. I understand he is a good businessman but this does not give him the right to make statements that he knows nothing about. Has he ever read the IPCC 4th assessment report, does he know anything about the Kyoto Protocol, the answer is most probably no. The point I was making was that his statement was for free publicity and people should not form their opinions based on that as he is raising the issue for his own agenda.

Turtwig

encyclopedia wrote: »

People who have no understanding of issues should not form opinions about them.

I really think you should rephrase that because it can imply far more than you probably intended.

PaulGogartyTD

Just serving his business interests is all