On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:08:37 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 11/10/2011 19:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:
In uk.railway Bruce twisted the electrons to say:
But it remains a taxiway that can be used as a runway *only in
emergencies*. The absence of any form of ILS and the absence of
proper taxiways when the emergency "runway" is in use tell the story.

So what's that parallel strip of concrete to the north of Runway 08L,
complete with a twin-jet airliner on it in Google Maps' satellite view
then?

That's the taxiway.

Apparently sometimes used as a runway and presumably thus requires the
above paintwork to allow that occasional use ?

In message , at 23:42:58 on
Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Charles Ellson remarked:

So why does it have "08L" at the west end and "26R" at the east end? It
may not be a very good runway, but it IS a runway, and is shown as such
on pilots' charts.

It's best to describe it as an alternate runway, not a second runway.

Successive flights alternate between them ?

No. The "taxiway" runway is an alternative to the normal one when the
latter is closed for some reason.
--
Roland Perry

On 11/10/2011 23:45, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:08:37 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 11/10/2011 19:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:
In uk.railway Bruce twisted the electrons to say:
But it remains a taxiway that can be used as a runway *only in
emergencies*. The absence of any form of ILS and the absence of
proper taxiways when the emergency "runway" is in use tell the story.

So what's that parallel strip of concrete to the north of Runway 08L,
complete with a twin-jet airliner on it in Google Maps' satellite view
then?

That's the taxiway.

Apparently sometimes used as a runway and presumably thus requires the
above paintwork to allow that occasional use ?

Correct.

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

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:50:20 +0100
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?
Thats an interesting take on the word. Care to expand on your theory?

The whole agenda of the 'global warming industry' is based on
(1) generating irrational fear among the general population, then
(2) presenting an alleged solution to the alleged problem that will
cost untold trillions of dollars, pounds, euros and yen (etc...) with
absolutely no certainty as to whether it will solve a problem whose
very existence in doubt.

In doubt by who? Hysterical ostriches on usenet like you? Perhaps. But I'll
go with the almost universal scientific consensus thanks. And please, don't
counterpoint by posting the standard issue links to the one or 2 fringe
professors who arn't even climate scientists who think otherwise. I'm not
interested in the opinions of some ****ing know-nothing economists.

B2003

Roland Perry writes:

Petrol and natural gas are quite close to being "single targets", and
I agree that we should consider ways to reduce consumption of both of
them.

Which means moving more electricity generation to non-fossil fuel and
getting the energy companies to promote the use of electricity over gas
by reversing the current domestic pricing model and charging less per MJ
for electricity than for gas.

d wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:50:20 +0100
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?
Thats an interesting take on the word. Care to expand on your theory?

The whole agenda of the 'global warming industry' is based on
(1) generating irrational fear among the general population, then
(2) presenting an alleged solution to the alleged problem that will
cost untold trillions of dollars, pounds, euros and yen (etc...) with
absolutely no certainty as to whether it will solve a problem whose
very existence in doubt.

In doubt by who? Hysterical ostriches on usenet like you? Perhaps. But I'll
go with the almost universal scientific consensus thanks. And please, don't
counterpoint by posting the standard issue links to the one or 2 fringe
professors who arn't even climate scientists who think otherwise. I'm not
interested in the opinions of some ****ing know-nothing economists.


In the 1990s I managed a large programme of research which included
climate change impacts on the UK. Inevitably, I also had to learn
about the science that underpinned the predictions of those impacts.

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 means that researchers have to agree what their conclusions will
be before proposing research projects for funding. Any contrary views
have to be suppressed or funding is summarily withdrawn. The result
is that many researchers are working on projects whose results will
never be published for fear that they will challenge the so-called
"consensus".

The so-called "consensus" is based on global warming being caused by
man-made carbon emissions, mainly as a result of burning fossil fuels,
leading to a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.

However, there is *not a shred* of reliable scientific evidence that
shows an increase in CO2 levels causes warming. On the contrary,
there is plenty of reliable evidence that suggests historic rises in
CO2 levels *followed* periods of warming. The historic rises in CO2
levels are therefore a *result* of warming and not the cause.

There are plenty of scientists who are trying to find a causal link
between a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and subsequent warming but
despite all their efforts, the only link between warming and CO2 is
that historic data shows CO2 levels tend to increase as a result of
warming and not the other way around.

Note that I do not deny there has been warming, and that it continues.
We desperately need to find the cause and we should be putting massive
funding into research. 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.

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. The scientists involved are sworn to secrecy otherwise
they will lose their livelihoods, because their funding will be
withdrawn and they will be ostracised by the scientific community.

If the IPCC had its way, any scientist expressing a view contrary to
the alleged "consensus" would be prosecuted and imprisoned; the IPCC
believes that such views are equally as serious as treason. Stalin
had nothing on these people.

Their approach is to scare everyone into believing that environmental
disaster is approaching fast and that we must stop CO2 emissions or at
least reduce them so that atmospheric CO2 does not rise above a
certain concentration that spells doom. Yet there is no evidence for
a causal link between CO2 and warming, but plenty of evidence to the
contrary.

Global warming research has become a massive international industry
with research funding made available on an unprecedented scale. It's
a wonderful area to be in, because generous funding is guaranteed, as
is job security for life - just as long as you toe the IPCC line and
agree before you start your research that the results will either
support the alleged "consensus" or be suppressed.

Of course many people believe that the IPCC is right. When every
scientist involved agrees with the IPCC, and those expressing any
contrary view are dismissed as kooks, incompetent researchers or
people in the pay of oil companies, the public could be forgiven for
swallowing the idea that there is a "consensus". But when a
"consensus" only exists because of the strong-arm tactics of the IPCC,
supported by scientists who want the job security they could never
count on before and are prepared to have their results suppressed, you
have to wonder what on earth this "consensus" really means.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:24:03 +0100
Bruce wrote:
In the 1990s I managed a large programme of research which included

Oh really? Which one? Give it was large I'm sure there must be a link to
some info about it?

climate change impacts on the UK. Inevitably, I also had to learn
about the science that underpinned the predictions of those impacts.

Not very well it seems plus the science has rather improved in 20 years.

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

I see conspiracy corner is open for business and tickets are selling well.

(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".

So all governments are in on the conspiracy are they, even the russians?

Perhaps you should get together with your fellow mouth breathers on the flip
side of the braindead coin you all inhabit who insist that all governments are
in cahoots with the oil companies and don't care about the climate. Then you
can have a bitch fight while I get the popcorn.

That means that researchers have to agree what their conclusions will

Of course they do dear. Whatever you say. Have a nice cup of tea.

reset of ranting drivel snipped

If you think writing pages of paranoid prose that could have been cut and
pasted from any number of pig ignorant US websites somehow makes your argument
seem stronger then I've got bad news for you pal.


B2003

On Oct 12, 12:51*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:24:03 +0100

Bruce wrote:
In the 1990s I managed a large programme of research which included

Oh really? Which one? Give it was large I'm sure there must be a link to
some info about it?

climate change impacts on the UK. *Inevitably, I also had to learn
about the science that underpinned the predictions of those impacts.

Not very well it seems plus the science has rather improved in 20 years.

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

I see conspiracy corner is open for business and tickets are selling well..

(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".

So all governments are in on the conspiracy are they, even the russians?

Perhaps you should get together with your fellow mouth breathers on the flip
side of the braindead coin you all inhabit who insist that all governments are
in cahoots with the oil companies and don't care about the climate. Then you
can have a bitch fight while I get the popcorn.

That means that researchers have to agree what their conclusions will

Of course they do dear. Whatever you say. Have a nice cup of tea.

reset of ranting drivel snipped

If you think writing pages of paranoid prose that could have been cut and
pasted from any number of pig ignorant US websites somehow makes your argument
seem stronger then I've got bad news for you pal.

You usually talk sense. However, 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.

On 9 Oct, 16:52, Chris Sanderson wrote:
I had a good laugh when i first heard this suggested, but perhaps
there's another way to look at it....

The BML needs relieving with a lengthy tunnel being suggested,
dedicated services to both Heathrow and Gatwick are under threat of
being at least partially absorbed into Crossrail/Southern services,
and the cancellation of Airtrack continues to leave Heathrow without
rail access from the South.

Throwing caution to the wind, might a high capacity 'Thameslink2/
Airport Express' from Brighton/Gatwick to Stansted (or elsewhere north
of London) via a SWML interchange (Surbiton?), Heathrow and Central
London be a [slightly] more practical idea?

Chris

On Airtrack, I really don't understand why they didn't just commission
the rail link from Heathrow Terminals to Staines - and forget about
the problems caused by increased through trains. Then I could catch a
train and change at Clapham Junction - like the vast majority of
people in the south / south west / south east can, and then at Staines
your change takes you right to the terminal. No different than
catching the mini shuttle at terminal 5 if you arrive by road, or
changing at Heathrow Central at the moment.

Oh, I know capacity problems - which then completes the circle, and
agrees with the arguement that the whole thing should have already be
built in the first place...

Ken

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
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.

I'm hardly a fluffy liberal. As for the hockey stick controversy - there
wasn't one. That was hype based on a few discrepancies blown out of all
proportion by vested interests:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

"At the request of Congress, a panel of scientists convened by the National Rese
arch Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with
some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failing
s but these had little effect on the result."

"More than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical method
s and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to
the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th c
entury "shaft" appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that th
e warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century"

I'll go with the science, you can go with the shills if you like.

B2003