On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:56:55 +0200
Robin9 wrote:
;137181 Wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:-
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to
have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would
benefit
the city and the country as a whole.-

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the
economy will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a
cloud
higher than any 747 can reach.

--
Spud

I think you need to read posts more carefully before you respond to them
with
such venom. He wrote that an extra runway "would benefit . . . the
country"

Wasn't meant to be venomous , just robust )

Anyway, I disagree. The only people an extra runway would benefit are
the shareholders and directors of Ferrovia and even that would be marginal
since AFAIK air traffic control in the southeast is getting close to its
limit too.

which is something most sensible people agree with. Transforming the
economy will take more than any one project or policy, as George Osborne
is
slowly and painfully learning.

Well quite.

--
Spud

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:01:14AM +0000, d wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.
Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

London's economy doesn't need rescuing.

--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

All children should be aptitude-tested at an early age and,
if their main or only aptitude is for marketing, drowned.

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:51:54AM +0000, wrote:

and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

And the reasoning behind these statements is what?

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

Blessed are the pessimists, for they test their backups

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:30:19AM +0100, JNugent wrote:

Fifty-five thousand jobs at "only" forty-two thousand million pounds
(current estimates).

Wow... that's only £763,636 per job.

Construction started in 2009, and will finish in 2018. That's 9-ish
years of work, so 85 grand per year per job on average. When you consider
things like employer's NI, overheads such as paying for office space and
power, the cost of equipment used and materials consumed, and the cost of
land purchased, it seems quite a reasonable rate per hour worked to be
honest.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

I'm in retox

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:00:03 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:51:54AM +0000, wrote:

and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

And the reasoning behind these statements is what?

Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky? Apart from looking vile, for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see. Not to mention
all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Plus I'm currently working virtually right under the heathrow flight path and
its not much fun. Thank god I don't live here.

--
Spud

In message , at 11:45:42 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky? Apart from looking vile, for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see. Not to mention
all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Wrong on two counts. The ice reflects the sun and cools the earth, and
the jet engines draw in and burn methane, which is a much more powerful
greenhouse gas than CO2.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:01:44 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:45:42 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky? Apart from looking vile, for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see. Not to
mention
all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Wrong on two counts. The ice reflects the sun and cools the earth, and
the jet engines draw in and burn methane, which is a much more powerful
greenhouse gas than CO2.

I'd change your pot dealer if I were you, clearly he's selling you something
a bit too strong.

- The ice might reflect the sun but it disperses in a few hours so its a
temporary effect whereas the CO2 however will be around for thousands of
years. Moreover the ice clouds also reflect heat back down to the ground
so the jury's out on whether they're good or bad during the day. At night
it'll be bad.

- Your burning methane comment is farcical. The amount the engines will suck up
is miniscule and even allowing for its stronger greenhouse effect it will be
outweighed by orders of magnitude compared to that of the CO2 generated. Plus
methane has a half life in the atmosphere of about 10 years so in the scheme
of things its pretty irrelevant.

--
Spud

In message , at 14:20:17 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky? Apart from looking vile, for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see. Not to
mention
all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Wrong on two counts. The ice reflects the sun and cools the earth, and
the jet engines draw in and burn methane, which is a much more powerful
greenhouse gas than CO2.

I'd change your pot dealer if I were you, clearly he's selling you something
a bit too strong.

- The ice might reflect the sun but it disperses in a few hours so its a
temporary effect whereas the CO2 however will be around for thousands of
years. Moreover the ice clouds also reflect heat back down to the ground
so the jury's out on whether they're good or bad during the day. At night
it'll be bad.

- Your burning methane comment is farcical. The amount the engines will suck up
is miniscule and even allowing for its stronger greenhouse effect it will be
outweighed by orders of magnitude compared to that of the CO2 generated. Plus
methane has a half life in the atmosphere of about 10 years so in the scheme
of things its pretty irrelevant.

What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university
research project that came to the conclusions above.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:33:40 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

--
Spud

In message , at 14:50:25 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

You need a reality check.
--
Roland Perry