"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

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.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

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

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

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:

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

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

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

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.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

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

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

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

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

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.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

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.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

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

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:

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)

So what's that per passenger mile?

nor do they inject their
pollution direct into the stratosphere.

Jet-A fuel is basically kerosene, one of the cleanest fuels to burn under
pressure. A Jet Engine is one of the cleanest ways to burn it.


--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Oct 14, 11:51*am, wrote:
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

We have just turned the corner from a warming period.

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.

Check out the leading promoter of this blx. Follow the money.

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.

It happens. By and large the native populations in Western Europe
have a declining birth rate. France is a specific case in point.

Usually by an equal number of fathers. And thats before we get onto large
immigrant families.

Take a look at the birth rate of the "religion of peace".

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:18 +0100 (BST)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:

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)

So what's that per passenger mile?

Who cares? Its the same amount of C02 being released whether its full or empty.
If there was no flight most of the passengers probably wouldn't make the trip
or would use a more efficient train.

nor do they inject their
pollution direct into the stratosphere.

Jet-A fuel is basically kerosene, one of the cleanest fuels to burn under
pressure. A Jet Engine is one of the cleanest ways to burn it.

Early jet engines were filthy. Anyone who's seen a 707 or concorde at
takeoff can remember the dirty trails of pollution they left behind. The
latest ones are cleaner but then so are the petrol engines when combined
with a catalyst.

B2003

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...mest-year.html

We have just turned the corner from a warming period.

Ah , so we've started on the cooler trend this very year have we?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

"The January - September worldwide land surface temperature was 0.80°C (1.44°F
) above the 20th century average - 7th warmest such period on record"

Perhaps you mean this week?

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

Check out the leading promoter of this blx. Follow the money.

Thanks, but I'll follow the science if its all the same.

B2003

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On 14/10/2011 11:51, d wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
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?

IIRC we are midway along a warming-cooling curve, ie at the warmest
point so it should be getting cooler from now on. Trouble is it is a
42000 year cycle so it will be 10000 years or so before we notice.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:41:35 on
Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Bruce remarked:
The proposal for a second runway is a little over 1km to the south of
the existing one, with the new (third) terminal between the runways.

There is no proposal for a second runway. Legally, there can be no
such proposal until 2019.

There has been a proposal since at least 2005 (I've been quoting from
the BAA documents). No doubt the new owners considered such proposals
before buying - it would be an insane leap in the dark not to.

What they can't do is *start building* until 2019. I originally thought
they couldn't apply for planning permission until 2019, but it's not
even that.


That is what I thought too. I researched it in some detail in the
1990s as I lived in an area of Sussex that already had quite a lot of
aircraft noise and would have had more if the changes had gone ahead.

It was quite clear at that time that a second runway could not even be
considered before 2019. I wonder when that changed,

If not before, it will have changed when BAA was privatised as there is no
way that you could force a company to abide by such a rule

tim

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:34:22 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
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?

IIRC we are midway along a warming-cooling curve, ie at the warmest
point so it should be getting cooler from now on. Trouble is it is a
42000 year cycle so it will be 10000 years or so before we notice.

Presumably most of that 42000 cycle is cooling then given how quickly the
warming happened in the last 200 years because if it cooled as fast we'll
be at absolute zero long before the end of the cycle.

B2003

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On 14/10/2011 21:04, d wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:34:22 +0100
Graeme wrote:
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?

IIRC we are midway along a warming-cooling curve, ie at the warmest
point so it should be getting cooler from now on. Trouble is it is a
42000 year cycle so it will be 10000 years or so before we notice.

Presumably most of that 42000 cycle is cooling then given how quickly the
warming happened in the last 200 years because if it cooled as fast we'll
be at absolute zero long before the end of the cycle.

B2003



No, it's 21000 warming then 21000 cooling. Has to do with changes to
the Earth's orbit around the Sun. One consequence is that there is a
theory that the only thing preventing the imminent onset of the next
ice-age is anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately for it's wilder
advocates they assume a very compressed time scale.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

wrote in message

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:18 +0100 (BST)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
under pressure. A Jet Engine is one of the cleanest ways to burn it.

Early jet engines were filthy. Anyone who's seen a 707 or concorde at
takeoff can remember the dirty trails of pollution they left behind.
The latest ones are cleaner but then so are the petrol engines when
combined with a catalyst.

It depends what you mean by 'cleaner' -- catalytic converters make
engines less, not more, efficient in terms of CO2 emissions. What has
made a positive difference is fuel injection. High bypass turbofan aero
engines are more efficient in every way than their low bypass or
turbojet predecessors.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:


Who cares? Its the same amount of C02 being released whether
its full or empty.

But CO2 in the stratosphere isn't a problem. Nor is it pollution.

If there was no flight most of the passengers
probably wouldn't make the trip or would use a more efficient train.

Let me know when I can catch a train to Canada.

Anyone who's seen a 707 or concorde at
takeoff can remember the dirty trails of pollution they left
behind.

Which isn't in the stratosphere, which is what you were complaining about.
And Concorde using afterburners was very clean...



--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

Maglev, perhaps?

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

We were about to embark at Dover, when () came up
to me and whispered:

Maglev, perhaps?

What about it?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:19:01 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
No, it's 21000 warming then 21000 cooling. Has to do with changes to

I know, I was being sarcastic given all the wild claims made.

ice-age is anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately for it's wilder
advocates they assume a very compressed time scale.

Quite.

B2003

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:26:12 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
It depends what you mean by 'cleaner' -- catalytic converters make
engines less, not more, efficient in terms of CO2 emissions. What has
made a positive difference is fuel injection. High bypass turbofan aero
engines are more efficient in every way than their low bypass or
turbojet predecessors.

The latest turbine engines are actually little more efficient in the amount of
work done per unit of fuel than a decent piston engine and thats only
when they're running at constant rpm.

B2003

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:02 +0100 (BST)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:


Who cares? Its the same amount of C02 being released whether
its full or empty.

But CO2 in the stratosphere isn't a problem. Nor is it pollution.

That is such a cretinous statement thats its hard to know where to begin
with a reply really. Suffice to say the atmosphere mixes and what goes into
the one part won't stay there forever.

If there was no flight most of the passengers
probably wouldn't make the trip or would use a more efficient train.

Let me know when I can catch a train to Canada.

If you're in the USA it shouldn't be a problem. Anyway , obviously for some
trips an aircraft is the only viable option unless a month on a ship is part
of the plan. But there are plenty of short haul flights which could be
dispensed with.

Anyone who's seen a 707 or concorde at
takeoff can remember the dirty trails of pollution they left
behind.

Which isn't in the stratosphere, which is what you were complaining about.

I think you'll find the engines were just as dirty whatever the altitude.

And Concorde using afterburners was very clean...

********. It left a trail of brown NOx that even Stevie Wonder could have
seen.

B2003

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:

********. It left a trail of brown NOx that even Stevie Wonder
could have seen.

How strange - an Afterburner is very clean, as it superheats and burns
the fuel almost completely. Certainly the only film of Concorde I can
find with a trail of brown smoke is the day it crashed.


--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 10:03 +0100 (BST)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
How strange - an Afterburner is very clean, as it superheats and burns

Actually an afterburner just dumps more fuel into the exhaust of the turbine
which then ignites with the left over O2.

the fuel almost completely. Certainly the only film of Concorde I can
find with a trail of brown smoke is the day it crashed.

You didn't look very hard. This shows it quite nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0pCWn3qLyI

Skip to 2:55 for the full muck.

B2003

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:

You didn't look very hard. This shows it quite nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0pCWn3qLyI

Skip to 2:55 for the full muck.

Kerosene PM10's... not NOx.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:30 +0100 (BST)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:

You didn't look very hard. This shows it quite nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0pCWn3qLyI

Skip to 2:55 for the full muck.

Kerosene PM10's... not NOx.

I'm sure its a mixture of a whole load of nasty things. Point is - its a long
way from being clean.

B2003

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

In message , at 09:09:12 on Mon, 17 Oct
2011, d remarked:
I'm sure its a mixture of a whole load of nasty things. Point is - its a long
way from being clean.

Seen at Stockport station, spring 2009:

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/56302.mpg [3MB]
--
Roland Perry

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:

I'm sure its a mixture of a whole load of nasty things. Point
is - its a long way from being clean.

Have you seen a diesel train or bus recently?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:42 +0100 (BST)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:

I'm sure its a mixture of a whole load of nasty things. Point
is - its a long way from being clean.

Have you seen a diesel train or bus recently?

Yes. And? What have diesel engines got to do with whether old jet engines
were dirty?

B2003

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

In message , at 09:46:38 on Mon, 17 Oct
2011, d remarked:

What have diesel engines got to do with whether old jet engines
were dirty?

They continue to pollute, but Concorde doesn't.
--
Roland Perry

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Bruce wrote:

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

They claim to, but you'll actually land in a small field in the middle
of the Scottish Highlands with "Venus" hurriedly daubed onto a rotten
board by the gate.

--
David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice

If you can't imagine how I do something, it's
because I have a better imagination than you

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 06:18:52PM +0100, Guy Gorton wrote:

Not a comment on the original post but just a little contribution to
the overall thread on global warming/pollution/whatever.
I don't think a word has been said about the contribution of volcanoes
to all the nasties in the atmosphere - as I understand it, man's
pollution is but a fraction of what the world's volcanoes spew out.
Or have I been misinformed?

Let us assume for the moment that you have been correctly informed.

If anthropogenic pollution is just a small proportion, it could still be
sufficient to disturb a finely balanced equilibrium. A new equilibrium
will, of course, eventually be found, but that doesn't mean that it
would be a nice equilibrium. It could be one where many of our major
cities are uninhabitable; or where our most productive farmland becomes
unusable; or in which our best and most important crops, which have been
engineered for hundreds of years to suit particular conditions, fail.

I'm not saying that that is what undoubtedly will happen. Merely that
it's worth at least caring about the little things.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

People from my sort of background needed grammar schools to
compete with children from privileged homes like ... Tony Benn
-- Margaret Thatcher

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
18:58:57 on Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
You do know what contrails are, right?

What they really are, or just what the government wants us to think
they are?

They are actually a vast clandestine surveillance device listening to
all our emai.... No carrier.

http://xkcd.com/966/

Sam

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

In article
,
77002 wrote:

... I am with Tony Polson on this one.
Green is the new Red. I do want to breathe cleaner air in our
cities. That can be achieved with electric transit. But, the whole
"Hockey Stick" theory is based on false data. Climategate brought
that out into the open. Just look into who supports "climate change",
the "liberal" elite and their useful idiots.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Sam