On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:41:08 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 11:57:46 on
Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Bruce remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 22:00:18 on
Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Charles Ellson remarked:

The "taxiway" runway is an alternative to the normal one when the
latter is closed for some reason.

So not alternate runways but primary and secondary.

Yes, the use alternates between the two.

Wrong. That wording suggests more or less equal use, when in fact the
emergency runway is rarely used.

Perhaps I should have insisted on my original word: "alternative".

Er, yes.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:23:50 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:49:47 +0100
Bruce wrote:
And what would you suggest? Do nothing and hope for the best?


Exactly that. The UK produces less than 2% of world emissions,
probably a lot less. The cost of cutting that in half would destroy
our economy and life as we know it, yet it not would have any

Translation: I'm alright jack. That really goes down well when trying
to persuade others.

Does the 2% include the proxy emissions associated with imports ?

And if you really don't believe CO2 is a greenholuse forcer but is just an
effect of warming I suggest read up on Venus.


On Venus? Can't I read up on it here? Do Ryanair fly there?

When you're painted into a corner doing a clown act doesn't make the paint go
away.

B2003

In message , Bruce
wrote:
The idea that there is an "almost universal scientific consensus" is a
complete fallacy. The so-called "consensus" is a political construct
by the leaders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). Anyone who wants to carry out climate change research funded
by governments has to sign up to that so-called "consensus" before
they can even apply for funding. They also have to undertake never to
release any results that question or contradict the so-called
"consensus".

If that's so, then you'll be able to provide us with copies of the
agreement that they sign, no?

But we aren't, because research that would
challenge the alleged "consensus" doesn't get any funding and anyone
proposing it is routinely and very effectively ostracised.

Name some names.

A major study that was funded within the IPCC cartel recently
reported. It concluded that there was a reliable explanation for at
least half of the warming that the planet has experienced in the last
~150 years. It is highly probable that the research explains more
than that, probably as much as two thirds, and possibly even more. Yet
it has nothing to do with CO2.

You aren't ever going to hear about it because the results have been
suppressed.

Then how do you know about it? What's stopping you (or the authors)
leaking it to Wikileaks?

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
It is certainly not true, as you say, that the global warming fallacy

Actually even the people who arn't convinced about mans impact on the
climate accept that the planet has got warmer over the last century so
you're on your own with that one.

As an aside the Sovereign State of Texas is hardly in recession.
Texas is drilling new deep level wells and employment is increasing.
Likewise, the Province of Alberta, CA is experiencing a boom as it
exports refined shale oil to the US.

Yes, and texas is such a model example of enviromental controls.

You know the thing that would help the most is if people kept their bloody
trousers on and stopped having so many damn kids. If there were only a
billion people on the planet it wouldn't matter a jot if we all drove around
in 5 litre V8s and left the lights on 24/7.

B2003

On Oct 14, 10:01*am, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:15:32 -0700 (PDT)

77002 wrote:
It is certainly not true, as you say, that the global warming fallacy

Actually even the people who arn't convinced about mans impact on the
climate accept that the planet has got warmer over the last century so
you're on your own with that one.

There are clear long term climate cycles. We are now transitioning
into a cooling trend. Hence the warmers now talk about "climate
change". It is about more funds for the liberal elite.

As an aside the Sovereign State of Texas is hardly in recession.
Texas is drilling new deep level wells and employment is increasing.
Likewise, the Province of Alberta, CA is experiencing a boom as it
exports refined shale oil to the US.

Yes, and texas is such a model example of enviromental controls.

You know the thing that would help the most is if people kept their bloody
trousers on and stopped having so many damn kids. If there were only a
billion people on the planet it wouldn't matter a jot if we all drove around
in 5 litre V8s and left the lights on 24/7.

Hardly an issue in European countries.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
Actually even the people who arn't convinced about mans impact on the
climate accept that the planet has got warmer over the last century so
you're on your own with that one.

There are clear long term climate cycles. We are now transitioning
into a cooling trend. Hence the warmers now talk about "climate

Oh really? How come we've had some of the the hottest years on record in the
last few decades then? How does that square with a cooling trend exactly?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...mest-year.html

change". It is about more funds for the liberal elite.

Oh riiight. Silly me, all those climate scientists, ecologists and campaigners
are all the liberal elite. Now it all makes sense.

trousers on and stopped having so many damn kids. If there were only a
billion people on the planet it wouldn't matter a jot if we all drove aro=
und
in 5 litre V8s and left the lights on 24/7.

Hardly an issue in European countries.

Depends. There are plenty of chavs shooting out half a dozen kids still.
Usually by an equal number of fathers. And thats before we get onto large
immigrant families.

B203

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:40:13AM +0000, d wrote:

Anyway , have a look at http://www.flightradar24.com to see the shear
numbers of aircraft in the sky already over europe.

I looked. Gosh, there's not many. One thousand nine hundred and fifty
eight planes, over the whole of Europe. If you zoom in to just the UK -
all of the UK, from the top of Scotland all the way down to the end of
Cornwall - then there are fewer planes there than there are cars parked
underneath this building.

--
David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice

Languages for which ISO-Latin-$n is not necessary, #1 in a series:

Latin

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 08:50:07AM +0000, d wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Your reaction to them is, however, bizarre - bordering on paranoia.
So pointing out the large number of aircraft over europe is paranoid is it?

No, it's not paranoid. It's just wrong, because there isn't a large
number.

--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

Aluminum makes a nice hat.
All paranoids will tell you that.
But what most do not know
Is reflections will show
On the CIA's evil landsat.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:24:03PM +0100, Bruce wrote:

The idea that there is an "almost universal scientific consensus" is a
complete fallacy. The so-called "consensus" is a political construct
by the leaders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). Anyone who wants to carry out climate change research funded
by governments has to sign up to that so-called "consensus" before
they can even apply for funding. They also have to undertake never to
release any results that question or contradict the so-called
"consensus".

That's an extraordinary claim.

[citation needed]

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

I caught myself pulling grey hairs out of my beard.
I'm definitely not going grey, but I am going vain.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:29:38 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:40:13AM +0000, d wrote:

Anyway , have a look at http://www.flightradar24.com to see the shear
numbers of aircraft in the sky already over europe.

I looked. Gosh, there's not many. One thousand nine hundred and fifty
eight planes, over the whole of Europe. If you zoom in to just the UK -
all of the UK, from the top of Scotland all the way down to the end of
Cornwall - then there are fewer planes there than there are cars parked
underneath this building.

Your average car doesn't use about 10 tons of fuel per trip (100 tons if you're
talking about a 747 on long haul) nor do they inject their pollution direct
into the stratosphere. But sure, apart from that you make a valid point.

B2003