Well I really aint getting into an argument over this, you know what you typed and so do I, if you want to re-write history then fine.

 

I cannot answer your question directly, but surely if using a third runway allows more aircraft to operate from the airport in a given length of time, then basic intelligence indicates that more CO2 will be produced not only in the airport environs but also anywhere else where they might fly.

Les

 

Still Martin2005 beleives the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. Strange!

 

What, you mean like most of the so called 'eco-scientists' have done?

 

strange...I have no recollection of having said this, silly me must be my age

 

Funny, the amount of people getting it wrong eh?

Martin, seriously, can you not see why a lot of people think that green taxes are mis-guided and don't actually solve the real problem, if any? With this in mind, can you also see why many people think it is a deliberate act to raise taxes as opposed to saving the planet, like they say they are doing?

 

Errrmm...you believe the AGW theory, no? If you believe the AGW theory that burning fossil fuels, ie CO2 release, then you understand thermodynamics, no?

 

No, don't you read? He doesn't agree with it or disagree with it, he is just sitting on the fence saying that the actions to protect the earth are logical, even though there is no evidence to support that statement!

 

I can absolutely see why people say that; and as I said earlier I agree that to an extent this issue is being explioted for that very reason, but again, that really is quite different to the whole issue being a lie created in order to raise taxes.

 

I despair

 

Jesus, I have to wait 45 seconds for a pgae update! Anyway, what is Copenhagen about? If taxes do not feature in your answer, then you do get it. You want it, I don't.

 

If I say this one more time will you please remember it?
I am keeping an open mind on the science of climate change. I do lean more towards believing than not believe (last time I checked that wasn't a crime btw) There is much about the current wisdom that doesn't tally with me. And therefore to be absolutist in either direction would be idiotic.

My post on here (if you'd actually read them) are about trying to turn the whole debate into a illogical (as I see it) conspiracy theory.

Now is that clear, or are you just going to re-interpret my words wrongly again??

 

Again, I say, study thermodynamics, and the physics of CO2. When you do you will discover AGW is impossible. This has been my request to you all along.

 

Right, so by that comment, you do not think that trying to protect and improve the Earth is a logical line of thinking?

 

When I no longer have a life to live, people to see, things to do, I've satisfied myself that there is no experience I am yet to enjoy, then I'll draw up a list of the 10 things I'd least like to do, then once I've done all those, I'll 'study thermodynamics, and the physics of CO2'

Man you need to get out more.....and fast

 

No I'm just getting pissed off at the non stop sniping and deliberate misconstruing of what I say.

Kind of sums up the whole GW debate really don't you think?

 

Oh ffs!

This is what I think you are trying to say.

Certain things that Human Beings are doing, MAY BE causing a rise in co2 gases in our ozone, which generally speaking, is a bad thing. So much evidence to whether this assumption is true or not has been published, that it is difficult to make a firm decision one way of the other. But we have little to lose by trying to make a difference, i.e. being more efficient. Taxing people in a way that makes them question their choices and in the majority of cases, makes them decide upon the most eco-friendly option cannot be a bad thing. So you are more swayed to agree with the implementation of the majority of 'green' taxes.

Now if that isn't what you are saying, I think you need to have a look at your posts, as this is what you have led me to believe.

 

I think that's a fairly decent summary of my views yes.
Now so what is so wrong with that btw? It seems (to me at least) a perfectly reasonable view to hold, and hardly the demonic rantings of an 'eco-warrior' and communist that I sadly get portrayed as, mainly because I dare to have a view that is nuanced and not absolutist.

 

I have to say I agree with that Martin. The AGW theory started a long time ago, and I have no doubt that they originally thought they were correct.

The theory that it has all been thought up to create taxes is a bit ridiculous and paranoid.

It's the perpetuation of a mistake/misunderstanding and manipulation subsequently that is so distasteful. Whether or not governments actually believe the IPCC or not, AGW has now become policiticised and has long lost any link to real science.

Geezer

 

I'll tell you what is wrong with it!
If we are to go along with the assumption that we are to blame and have the means to stop the C02 levels rising, why are the governments doing very little that actually makes any difference. Birth rates come to mind, but that isn't politically correct. But shoudn't politics take a back seat if the world needs to be saved?
The very fact the government is only doing the bare minimum required to please the GW advocates, is primary reason why so many people, including myself, don't believe that MMGW exists. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

I too think population growth is a massive challenge, how does government tackle this, it's a really tough one isn't it? It has nothing to do with being PC either, it's about the government getting involved in the very personal choices of individuals and families.

Our government (at face value at least) has committed to reduce our Co2 emissions by 80% I think by 2030 (although I may have got that date wrong), that isn't doing the bare minimum is it, that actually doing quite a lot (assuming they are actually serious about doing this). I believe there is a decent consensus amongst the main party’s on these commitments too, so it's not specifically a 'lying Labour' thing.

 

Interesting comment on the 'conspiracy front' ...

Incentives and Conspiracies | Climate Skeptic

Makes you think huh?

 

You'd think so wouldn't you?

But what if a 3rd runway reduced the amount of "holding" to zero?

 

But what if the 3rd runway increased the capacity to create another holding zone?

 

But what if Govt said LHR could only operate at 75% capacity, compared to the current 99.4%?

More flights in and out, reduced holding, nett decrease in Co2.

 

More than negated by the increase of 400 additional flights the third runway will bring.

 

Do you have the figures to back that up?

 

theres more if you google it!

Heathrow third runway a mistake, says Lord Stern - 25 May 2009 - BusinessGreen.com
Heathrow third runway gets go-ahead | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Heathrow?s expansion will go ahead but what happened to climate change targets? | Climatico

 

Amazed you lot are still squabbling about this - it's a pointless argument. I've said it before and will say it again, the only clear threat to the planet is human population. Thankfully some have spotted it (e.g. Attenborough's programme last night).

Evem assuming that CO2 is an issue, and assuming we could halve the amount of it produced per head (big assumptions both), the population growth alone will quickly negate that, before you add in the impact of the developing world trying to catch up to developed world standards of living. Which it won't, because man will have cheerfully decimated and buggered up the available resources before we get there.

Population control globally is the only answer - but there isn't a clear, socially, economically or politically acceptable way to do it. Ergo we're buggered. Eat, drink and drive fast cars has to be the way forward

Gordo