d 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 don't understand what the IPCC is, and how powerful it is.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is supported,
indeed sponsored by governments of almost every country in the world.
It is authorised to speak on behalf of all governments, many of whom
are represented on the panel. It has enormous power because
governments (notably including our own) have granted it that power.

The IPCC is by definition the world authority on climate change, and
most governments (especially our own) are completely in awe of it and
fund it - and its research programmes - extremely generously. None of
this should be a surprise to you.

As to why no-one questions the IPCC's alleged "consensus", that's
pretty simple. Apart from the fact that any scientist stepping off
the climate change gravy train would be committing career suicide, the
IPCC means that more money is going into many branches of scientific
research than ever before. Research scientists and organisations who
previously had great difficulty getting their work funded are now
almost awash with funds.

Climatology has been changed forever, from a little known backwater to
the core of scientific research. Whole new institutions and research
centres have been built on the back of climate change research. This
is a huge worldwide industry, and anyone leaving such a well-funded
area of research would either have to be mad, or have real integrity,
which thankfully a few do, but not many.

Politicians don't question the IPCC's work as much as they should.
Most politicians know less than nothing about climatology research,
and that's why they set up the IPCC to do the job for them. They just
want reports on what is happening, where we are going and what needs
to be done. And the IPCC is spectacularly good at giving that
information to politicians, even though so much of it is wrong.

But the real reason why the IPCC research isn't questioned is that,
bad though the warming situation is (and I don't deny that warming is
taking place), something can be done about CO2. Of course stopping
CO2 emissions altogether isn't practicable, but reducing them is. So
while the carbon reduction measures are hideously expensive, and will
do enormous damage to our economy, at least it appears possible that
politicians can make the decisions needed to save something like our
current way of life.

The alternative reason for warming may well be far more scientifically
sound than the IPCC's claimed "consensus", but it would present a far
more difficult situation for politicians. That's because, unlike
reducing CO2 emissions which is just about practicable, there is
probably nothing that could be done to bring warming under control. So
let's all believe the IPCC, shall we?

On Oct 12, 3:29*pm, 77002 wrote:

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.

Regardless of that, the case for electric powered vehicles is more
around avoiding pollution at the point of use than avoiding pollution
altogether, unless like say France you mainly get your power from
nuclear.

In the railway's case it's about what might be providing power well
into the future, though, given the long lead times for such thing, and
about cost saving overall and reliability to some extent.

Neil

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:53:02 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
amogles wrote:
On Oct 9, 1:18=A0am, "Richard J." wrote:

How exactly does a rail link between LHR and LGW increase *air*
capacity? =A0The problem at Heathrow is said to be that the runways are
98% fully used. =A0Gatwick is already the world's busiest single-runway
airport. =A0So how is this capacity increase achieved?
--
Richard J.

I guess it would allow some of the duplication of flights between the
two airports to be reduced.

You have to wonder just how many more flights will satisfy the aircraft
lobby. The sky is already a contrail polluted mess on most days and thats
not even from the aircraft landing at london airports. Perhaps they won't
be happy until the sky looks like the M25 with wings?

B2003

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?

Guy Gorton

Graeme Wall wrote on 12 October 2011
07:46:54 ...
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.

We're all getting confused here. Bruce claimed that 08L/26R was really
just a taxiway because:

- it could be used as a runway only in emergencies. Not true: it is
used whenever 08R/26L is unavailable, e.g. during maintenance. 08L/26R
is routinely in use as the operational runway for 3 hours every Thursday
morning if no runway maintenance is scheduled for that week.

- absence of ILS. True, but nevertheless it has full ICAO designation
as a runway.

- absence of proper taxiways when it's in use as a runway. As Alistair
Gunn pointed out (but his post was misinterpreted by Graeme and
Charles), there is an additional taxiway to the north of 08L which
functions as a taxiway at all times (shown as Taxiway J on the aerodrome
chart).
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On 12/10/2011 17:40, Bruce wrote:

As to why no-one questions the IPCC's alleged "consensus", that's
pretty simple. Apart from the fact that any scientist stepping off
the climate change gravy train would be committing career suicide, the

What about scientists work for, or hoping for, a job with Big Oil or a
car manufacturer looking for some trams to shut down, etc?

IPCC means that more money is going into many branches of scientific
research than ever before. Research scientists and organisations who
previously had great difficulty getting their work funded are now
almost awash with funds.

So on that basis and looking at history are most scientists generally in
favour of dropping atomic bombs on people?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:18:52 +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?

Pretty much, yes. You have been misinformed.

Individual large eruptions can spew out a lot of CO2, but they're
transient. They don't keep on pumping it out day after day, month after
month, year after year. Globally, it's a small (going on insigificant)
effect. This hasn't always been true in geological time, of course -
vulcanism may have played a critical role in driving climate change at
the end of the Permian, for example.

Sample reference at:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_dioxide

but the numbers look consistent with other refereed/reputable sources
I've seen.


--
Speaking for myself, and no-one but myself

In message , at 18:35:39 on Wed, 12
Oct 2011, Richard J. remarked:
We're all getting confused here. Bruce claimed that 08L/26R was really
just a taxiway because:

- it could be used as a runway only in emergencies. Not true: it is
used whenever 08R/26L is unavailable, e.g. during maintenance. 08L/26R
is routinely in use as the operational runway for 3 hours every
Thursday morning if no runway maintenance is scheduled for that week.

- absence of ILS. True, but nevertheless it has full ICAO designation
as a runway.

- absence of proper taxiways when it's in use as a runway. As Alistair
Gunn pointed out (but his post was misinterpreted by Graeme and
Charles), there is an additional taxiway to the north of 08L which
functions as a taxiway at all times (shown as Taxiway J on the
aerodrome chart).

Confused, yes some might be. But don't miss the essential point that
when people say Gatwick is a "one runway" airport, what that means is
"only one runway in operation at any particular time".
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:18:52 on
Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Guy Gorton remarked:
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?

If you have a scheme to stop the volcanoes, a fortune awaits you.

But that (plus other natural things) are the "background emissions", and
as Dickens wrote:

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six,
result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty
pounds ought and six, result misery."

The man-made carbon emissions might well be that pair of sixpences.

I suspect Tony Polson's point is that reducing it by 33% to fourpence
isn't going to solve it.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:18:06 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

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.

So not alternate runways but primary and secondary.

In message , Bruce
wrote:
Gatwick does not have two runways. It has one runway and a parallel
taxiway that can be used as a runway only in an emergency.

No, it has two runways and a parallel taxiway.

The taxiway does not meet ICAO standards for a runway

That's because it's a taxiway.

and lacks even a
basic ILS (instrument landing system).

As most taxiways do.

It's true that 08L/26R doesn't have ILS either. That doesn't mean it's
not a runway. If it wasn't a runway, why did my plane land on it?

When it is in emergency use as
a runway there are no proper taxiways. So, contrary to what
Wonkypedia says, the taxiway is NOT a runway.

I'm not quoting "Wonkypedia". I'm looking at aerial photographs, I'm
looking at Jepperson plates, I'm looking at AAIB notices, and I'm
looking out of the window when flying. All of which show two parallel
runways and a taxiway to the north of them.

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