"Chris Jones" wrote in message
...
Eurostar to Lille, then TGV direct to Avignon, and Montpelier or
Marseilles. 183mph almost all the way.

How come when a train does 183 mph, everyone's all like "woohoo, this is
the
best thing ever, trains rule"... but when a car does 183 mph, everyone's
all
like "what an irresponsible, dangerous thing to do, why won't you think of
the children?!?!?!?"


When an aicraft does 600 miles an hour, people sip champagne and eye up the
totty.

When a car does 600 miles an hour the press descends from all over the
world.

On your logic, an aircraft can do 600 miles an hour in perfect safety, so
now I will go and buy Thrust SSC and do 600 mph down the M40 because that is
a safe speed.

In message
"Chris Jones" wrote:

Eurostar to Lille, then TGV direct to Avignon, and Montpelier or
Marseilles. 183mph almost all the way.

How come when a train does 183 mph, everyone's all like "woohoo, this is
the best thing ever, trains rule"... but when a car does 183 mph,
everyone's all like "what an irresponsible, dangerous thing to do, why
won't you think of the children?!?!?!?"



Possibly because the train is not doing 183mph down Watford High Street...

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
....
And of course if one is "only" travelling as far as the South of France
one
doesn't have to fly does one?

Gatwick to Toulouse or Montpellier with BA scheduled flight is a couple of
hours for around £60 + taxes per person return. Driving is a couple of days
each way, at around £1,000 for the trip, last time I did it. London to
Montpellier by Eurostar and TGV is 7-8 hours and £109 return. So, I don't
have to fly, but, particularly important for a long weekend, it is the
quickest and the cheapest way to travel.

Colin Bignell

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote in message
...

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
...
And of course if one is "only" travelling as far as the South of France
one
doesn't have to fly does one?

Gatwick to Toulouse or Montpellier with BA scheduled flight is a couple of
hours for around £60 + taxes per person return. Driving is a couple of
days
each way, at around £1,000 for the trip, last time I did it. London to
Montpellier by Eurostar and TGV is 7-8 hours and £109 return. So, I don't
have to fly, but, particularly important for a long weekend, it is the
quickest and the cheapest way to travel.

Obviously air travel is too cheap - not properly reflecting its
environmental cost

Colin Bignell

"nightjar" wrote in message . ..
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton:

One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population
of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current
ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet
pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones.

Pollution levels do not include CO2 , they usually are only NOx , CO , and SO2
which are a lot easier to meet. And how is it useful for the bulk of the
population? You think that Fred the bus driver needs to go to an important
business meeting in franfurt every other week?


This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's
present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all
CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions.

These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve
that sort of level of growth.

Even if its 20% and not 40% , it doesn't matter. Its increasing , thats the
problem. It should be decreasing.

There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion
comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not
essential for the general operation of our society.

A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful
operation of our society.

Holidays may be nice , but they're hardly essential. Ask any farmer. Besides
which there are plenty of ways to travel without using an aircraft.

Nobody is forcing you to take two holidays a year if you think that, but I
will continue to take my usual three and I have a target of at least one
long weekend in France each month as well.

Bully for you. And when you wonder why england in 30 years is like the south
of france (and southern europe is a semi desert) and all the mative faunu is
dying perhaps you can explain to your kids that it was partly down to the
selfishness, indifference and extravagance of people like yourself.


My personal view is that it is a pity that Gatwick did not get another
runway and that the RAF never finished Heathrow's nine runways before they
handed it over.

You're a bit of an arsehole arn't you?

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"nightjar" wrote in message
. ..
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton:

One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the
population
of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its
current
ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet
pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones.

Pollution levels do not include CO2 , they usually are only NOx , CO , and
SO2
which are a lot easier to meet. And how is it useful for the bulk of the
population? You think that Fred the bus driver needs to go to an important
business meeting in franfurt every other week?


This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's
present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of
all
CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions.

These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to
achieve
that sort of level of growth.

Even if its 20% and not 40% , it doesn't matter. Its increasing , thats
the
problem. It should be decreasing.

The figure, being a proportion, is essentially meaninigless. If all other
sources were eliminated, it would rise to 100%, even if cut to one tenth of
its present levels in absolute terms.

....
Holidays may be nice , but they're hardly essential. Ask any farmer.
Besides
which there are plenty of ways to travel without using an aircraft.

None of which are realistic, if you want to travel any distance and don't
want to take needlessly long to do so.

....
Bully for you. And when you wonder why england in 30 years is like the
south
of france (and southern europe is a semi desert) and all the mative faunu
is
dying perhaps you can explain to your kids that it was partly down to the
selfishness, indifference and extravagance of people like yourself.

You seem to have much more faith than I that it is possible to make long
term predictions of climate behaviour from relatively short term
measurements. 40 years ago, we were, with equal confidence, expecting to see
the first signs of a mini ice age by now. The predictions are only as good
as the model used to make them and predictive modelling does not have a
particularly good record, especially where it takes a long time to get
corroborative feedback. AIDS, where feedback can be obtained in months,
rather than decades, is currently on about its fifth model and African
countries that should, according to the model, be virtually depopulated by
now are actually having problems of population growth. Even if you get a
reliable model, that is only as good as the data that gets fed into it. The
first claims for global warming were based upon sea surface temperature
measurements taken by ships. Later automatic equipment showed that there had
been an essential flaw in the basis for the measurements taken, which
virtually invalidated that data. That raises the unanswerable question of
how much reliance can be placed upon the data being obtained now. If, as
seems most probable, there is a real tendancy to global warming, opinions
are deeply divided as to what, if any affect human agencies have to do with
it. The fact that 2003 was the fifth warmest year on record has to be set
against the fact that 1949 was warmer, the worst floods in Europe for 100
years, only show that worse floods have happened before - Budapest escaped
any problems because its builders had allowed for those worse floods. As
yet, the measured variations are still well within what nature is quite
capable of achieving without man's help, although man probably isn't helping
the problem. However, trying to reduce man's impact by limiting what we do
is the way of the Luddite. The only realistic approach is the to follow the
path that we have been on for decades and to reduce the amount of impact
that what we continue to do has on the environment. Cars today produce a
fraction of the level of pollution that they did in the 1960s, despite
being, on average, considerably more powerful and the next generation of
airliners will use 20% less fuel. Those are the progressive ways to tackle
the problem. Of course, the largest single contribution to reducing
greenhouse gasses would be to replace all those fossil fuel power stations
with nuclear power plants.

Colin Bignell

"nightjar" wrote in message ...

...
Holidays may be nice , but they're hardly essential. Ask any farmer.
Besides
which there are plenty of ways to travel without using an aircraft.

None of which are realistic, if you want to travel any distance and don't
want to take needlessly long to do so.

For long distance yes , for medium and short distance no.


...
Bully for you. And when you wonder why england in 30 years is like the
south
of france (and southern europe is a semi desert) and all the mative faunu
is
dying perhaps you can explain to your kids that it was partly down to the
selfishness, indifference and extravagance of people like yourself.

You seem to have much more faith than I that it is possible to make long
term predictions of climate behaviour from relatively short term
measurements. 40 years ago, we were, with equal confidence, expecting to see
the first signs of a mini ice age by now. The predictions are only as good

40 years ago we didn't have computer prediction, they basically were
working on guesswork. Aside from models theres the basic physics that C02
is a green house gas and more CO2 = more trapped energy in the atmosphere
whatever effect that may have.

as the model used to make them and predictive modelling does not have a
particularly good record, especially where it takes a long time to get
corroborative feedback. AIDS, where feedback can be obtained in months,

So in other words you can't tell if the models are correct until the predicted
result has come about. Well thats a great argument for doing nothing, lets
wait until the climate goes haywire THEN start worrying eh?

rather than decades, is currently on about its fifth model and African
countries that should, according to the model, be virtually depopulated by
now are actually having problems of population growth. Even if you get a

People are a teensy bit harder to model than atmospheric physics. You dont
have free will to take into account. Bad example.

it. The fact that 2003 was the fifth warmest year on record has to be set
against the fact that 1949 was warmer, the worst floods in Europe for 100

And the last decode had the other 4 warmest years too. So 1949 was hot? Big
deal , all that shows is that short term random fluctuations can cause
short term perturbations as great as the overall long term change.

the problem. However, trying to reduce man's impact by limiting what we do
is the way of the Luddite. The only realistic approach is the to follow the

I'd imagine the population of the Easter Island took the same point of view.
The end result is that they destroyed their enviroment and died out.

path that we have been on for decades and to reduce the amount of impact
that what we continue to do has on the environment. Cars today produce a
fraction of the level of pollution that they did in the 1960s, despite

Err no, thats a specious argument. Cars produce a fraction of SOME pollution
compared to the 1960s. Mainly NOx, CO and SO2. You'll find however that the
most important pollutant (ie CO2) has only been reduced by something like 30%
per unit of distance travelled , and considering there are probably 4 times
as many cars on the roads (in the UK anyway) as in the 60s .. well I think you
can do the maths.

being, on average, considerably more powerful and the next generation of
airliners will use 20% less fuel. Those are the progressive ways to tackle

If the volume of air traffic is to double as the forcasts suggest , how exactly
is a 20% reduction going to help? Overall there wil still be 1.6 times the
amount of fuel being burnt. I don't call that progress.

the problem. Of course, the largest single contribution to reducing
greenhouse gasses would be to replace all those fossil fuel power stations
with nuclear power plants.

Well we finally agree on something. Nuclear power is a far mroe realistic
and reliable alternative to wind farms, wave machines etc but its been killed
off my green activists who couldn't tell you the difference between and alpha
and beta particle if their lives depended on it. Ah well, as history has
shown time and time again, humanity seems to have to learn its lessons the hard
way.

B2003

wrote:

... Nuclear power is a far mroe
realistic and reliable alternative to wind farms, wave machines etc
but its been killed off my green activists who couldn't tell you the
difference between and alpha and beta particle if their lives
depended on it.

Quite.

I'm never sure whether they are in favour of burning only coal or perhaps
would prefer to see everyone keep warm by shivering and wearing woolly
jumpers.

(Boltar) wrote in
om:



Well we finally agree on something. Nuclear power is a far mroe
realistic and reliable alternative to wind farms, wave machines etc
but its been killed off my green activists who couldn't tell you the
difference between and alpha and beta particle if their lives depended
on it. Ah well, as history has shown time and time again, humanity
seems to have to learn its lessons the hard way.

At the current rate of consumption you are probably right. Of course a
better alternative to all of these is not to use so much enerhy in the
first place. But that's a bit boring...

--
Adrian

In message , Boltar
writes

40 years ago we didn't have computer prediction, they basically were
working on guesswork. Aside from models theres the basic physics that
C02 is a green house gas and more CO2 = more trapped energy in the
atmosphere whatever effect that may have.
Whilst I have no problem with the fact of increased CO2, we don't yet
know if the increase allows a corresponding increase in uptake by
vegetation.
--
Clive