Just a gorgeous aircraft…..can’t have too many of them flying around.

As mentioned above, I think the solution is membership of a “support” organisation.

The Danish DC3 only carries paying members of “The friends of the DC3”. Besides being a member, you also have to pay for the flight (unless you have dones some work).

Could a UK DC3 operator sell such “memberships” along with the ticket?

Its nevertheless a great shame to see such a sturdy and safe aircraft grounded due to safty rules (you have to look quite hard, to find a safer aircraft).

Can’t wait to see it fly…….its a great looking machine.

I live on Amager, so I bet I could see it, if I really strained my eyes 😮

Hi TempestNut,

I would never suggest that you are an “Eco-terrorist” :p

The whole global warming issue, is one of those questions, where you pick your side of scientists. Each side then defame and undermind the other.

There are very valid and scientific papers supporting both sides, as the whole issue about atmospheric chemistry and global warming in general, is rather complex and hard to estimate.

Your own link points to a myth about “Modeling the earth’s climate is nearly an exact science.” Naturally this goes both ways.

There is no consensus on the models used in these predictions, hence the different results and predictions.

“Antarctic ice extent this year will again break all records, Arctic ice last year was nothing unusual despite the hysteria,”

The Arctic ice is schrinking and it has been for a number of years:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml

This year the ice has increased compared to last year, but its has still decreased compared to earlier data, so clearly there is no “record breaking” going on. However, these data do not go back far enough to make a true judgement in a historic context.

This is where the discussion de-rails. Stating that the arctic ice sea-ice is at a historic “high” is clearly false. Likewise its false to claim its at a historic “low”.

Fact is that the arctic sea-ice this year is 10% below the avarage of 1979-2000.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NSIDC071708.JPG

Appearently there is too much hysteria to make a fair call from either side. However, this years figures show, that decrease in the arctic sea-ice is not constant trend. We will have to wait to see, if the ice returns to the level of 1979-2000.

Once the sea-ice drops below avarage, there need to be another year above avarage to make the numbers fit,otherwise the avarage drops. This has yet to be seen. From 2000 the ice has been below the avarage between 1979-2000. Granted thats only an 8 year span, compared to 20 years for the last figures. In theory it could be ice free for 19 years, and then have a humdinger of an increase to make the numbers fit 😉

We all know about statistics.

This decrease in arctic sea-ice has an effect on polar bear habitat. Since we don’t know if its permanent, we can’t predict anything about the habitat either, but the subpopulations in the affected areas are currently under threat.

When ICECAP say the decline in polar bears around Hudson bay is to prevent overpopulation:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#17

The question should be, why are the area suddenly overpopulated?

Perhaps due to the loss of habitat and decline in food. There is no difference between culling a population and letting the population decline naturally. Both are results of of overpopulation. There are no figures to show, that the population suddenly increased by 259 animals, which would have to be culled to make the population sustainable. Ather scenario is more likely, mainly that the area no longer can sustain those 259 animals.

Globally the numbers might look different, but the affected subpopulation around Hudson bay has decreased along with 4 other subpopulations.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/docs/PBSG14proc.pdf

This might not be anything alarming, as habitats change naturally (there were once giraffes, where the sahara is now), however the solution is not to deny the figures, or discredit the science behind them, but to investigate why.

The whole global warming issue, has descended into a “tit for tat” argument, that is not becomming for a scientific community.

As you say; measuring the CO2 ppm is quite difficult.

However, ice core data suggest that for the last 400.000 years it was never above 300 (ending in 1950):
http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html

Here are other data set:
http://powerpoints.wri.org/climate/img001-large.jpg

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

I would like to see the data for 1820 and 1944 (this is not a challange, i truely would like to see them, as I find all information should be used in such a debate and I can’t find them).

I’m not a tree-hugger or anything in that direction, I purely take notice whan i see a trend i don’t like. Fact is that we are polluting the atmosphere, to an extend that is above the natural chemical levels. It does not seem unlikely to me, that one day we will have to pay for that pollution, just as we have paid for pollution on land and in the sea.

The ecological system has evolved to cope with the natural chemistry of earth, once you add to the system it becomes hard to predict the end result.

Oh, I do not intend to start a discussion about golbal warming and CO2, I just wanted to point out, that there is more to it than a “gravy train”.

Thats the way to do it:

“The promise of coming home to the States isn’t one that has a statute of limitations on it.”

Every country should be actively searching for their MIA. Either by an official office, or by allowing interested groups and organisations to do so.

More specific RAF disarmament wing destroyed (although some were kept for test, later museum, purpose):

Fw 190 = 978.

Bf 109 = 897.

Various twin fighter bombers = 906.

Various aircraft instruments = 145897.

Aircraft guns/cannons = 36211.

Talk about a time machine…………

NOTE: The above was just north Europe, I do not have the numbers for other parts of the world.