Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Climate Camp at Heathrow

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Climate Camp at Heathrow

Old 12th Aug 2007, 19:23
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Essex
Age: 50
Posts: 118
Petty name calling might be acceptable for Jet Blast but perhaps a thread in Rumours and News deserves accurate facts to aid Heathrow staff and passengers or at the very least a bit of reasoned debate.
unfortunately it is impossible to have a reasoned debate with environmentallists (and the new breed of enviroterrorists) because they think that they have some sort of moral imperative to teach the rest of us the results of our wicked ways. The fact that almost all of the available scientific evidence completely rubbishes their arguments doesn't seem to enter their narrow, petty, envious minds.
The fact that the stable, wealthy ISLAND they live on is sustained by aviation also doesn't seem to register.
I do agree with one of their points however.
"Holding the camp at Heathrow aims to highlight the lunacy of the government's airport expansion plans"
quite right - someone needs to point out to the government that we need more airport and runway capacity and we need it now.
I sincerly hope that these people do hold a peaceful demo, I suspect not however and the likelyhood in the current climate is that someone will get shot. Whilst the world will not be the poorer for the loss of any of these idiots, such an event would unfortunately give their daft arguments even more disproportionate airtime.
AlexL is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2007, 19:38
  #22 (permalink)  
The Analog Kid
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brecon Beacons National Park
Age: 54
Posts: 239
Originally Posted by alexl
unfortunately it is impossible to have a reasoned debate with environmentallists (and the new breed of enviroterrorists) because they think that they have some sort of moral imperative to teach the rest of us the results of our wicked ways. The fact that almost all of the available scientific evidence completely rubbishes their arguments doesn't seem to enter their narrow, petty, envious minds.
Do you genuinely not realise how conceited and arrogant that sounds? Hell, I don't even happen to agree with the environmentalists on the aviation issue but pick one of them and one of those shrieking about smelly hippies on here in a straight vote and they end up winning hands down. This is not clever!
fyrefli is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2007, 19:43
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 74
Posts: 2,023
AlexL
quite right - someone needs to point out to the government that we need more airport and runway capacity and we need it now.
I quite agree, as do [most of] the populace of the UK.....
Question, Where are you going to put them?
East? Thames Estuary.......
West? Greenham Common....oh it's shut
North? Luton expansion.....no
South? Gatwick...2nd Runway.....hardly
This is the "No-Win" situation...BAA "needs" to be broken up.....so just Who will pay for the new Runways/Infrastructure needed NOW, never mind in 5-10-15 years....
watp,iktch
chiglet is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2007, 20:06
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Essex
Age: 50
Posts: 118
Do you genuinely not realise how conceited and arrogant that sounds? Hell, I don't even happen to agree with the environmentalists on the aviation issue but pick one of them and one of those shrieking about smelly hippies on here in a straight vote and they end up winning hands down. This is not clever!
I'm not being arrogant. I am just airing my own experience, I have tried to discuss this issue with some of 'them' before.
In life there is very little right and wrong, only opinion. However most of these people think they are right, and don't realise that their point of view is a point of view, and nothing more.
In fact to most intelligent people it is the environmentalists that loose most debates as they generally refuse to debate the issue but resort to other tactics - like harassing passengers at heathrow for example.
Generally speaking resorting to such tactics is only necessary when your point of view alone can't carry the argument.
These are fringe lunatics, they've been around for ever attaching themselves to various different arguments as the world changes. The problem now is that they are getting a disproportionate amount of press, because a certain national broadcaster has an anti-aviation pro-envronment agenda, as does a significant part of the government.
AlexL is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2007, 20:49
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 713
Every August there are morons protesting at Heathrow. One year it baggage handlers, another its cabin crew, another ground staff, another it pilots. So whats another protest. Its not important what they cause is, all it does is inconvenience passengers.
chrisbl is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2007, 20:58
  #26 (permalink)  
Plumbum Pendular
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 51
Posts: 1,117
unfortunately it is impossible to have a reasoned debate with environmentallists (and the new breed of enviroterrorists) because they think that they have some sort of moral imperative to teach the rest of us the results of our wicked ways. The fact that almost all of the available scientific evidence completely rubbishes their arguments doesn't seem to enter their narrow, petty, envious minds.
Quite right to. A bit like arguing with religious zealots.
fmgc is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2007, 21:31
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Asgard
Posts: 488
Never mind, according to the Beeb weather lady, it`s going to p*ss down on Tuesday and blow a gale, so that might put a few of them off.
Loki is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2007, 21:32
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Liverpool
Age: 30
Posts: 63
There are 1000 bigger problems, I'm affraid...

I'm more frightened of lack of fuel resorces then polution; I don't think there's enough fuel to kill the plannet.

But, if I were concerned, I'd be affraid of the Billions of letres of petrol used by cars per day, and not about aircraft.
coolblackcat is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2007, 21:38
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 545
unfortunately it is impossible to have a reasoned debate with environmentallists (and the new breed of enviroterrorists) because they think that they have some sort of moral imperative to teach the rest of us the results of our wicked ways. The fact that almost all of the available scientific evidence completely rubbishes their arguments doesn't seem to enter their narrow, petty, envious minds.
I suspect Zac Goldsmith, David Attenborough or Al Gore to name but three may be able give you a reasoned debate or many of the 5 million members of the National Trust, RSPB, CPRE, the Woodland Trust and others which come under the umbrella group Airport Watch.

They can't all have narrow, petty, envious minds can they?
Del Prado is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2007, 22:04
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 51
I wondered what happened to all the dolts from Greenham Common and similar other places. Looks like they have found a new and similarly pointless excuse for being totally maladjusted.

Best Wishes
psyan is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2007, 22:14
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
They are of course entitled to their view but it seems they are unable to see any other and I think that is what makes their position unreasonable. It is disappointing that one doesn't see much fighting back by the aviation community.

For instance I understand that the international airline community is spending c.$5million each month in fuel going around the holds for Heathrow, simply because there isn't enough runway capacity there. Another runway, properly managed, would enable increased capacity and improved environmental performance.

A very substantial amount of the air pollution around Heathrow comes from the road traffic using the M4/A4 and M25. If Heathrow is unable to meet the EC air quality requirements for R3 it will be substantially down to this. (And a significant amount of this road traffic is not airport related.)

Life has to be a fair balance. Even the forecast doubling will mean aviation caters for just 6% of world CO2. Road traffic accounts for very substantially more than that. Better public transport delivered through a co-ordinated transport policy and appropriate funding would be the correct strategy. Saying "no" to R3 when the UK transport policy is half baked is unfair to aviation. The current balance between scheduled traffic and capacity is so tight as to be very inefficient environmentally. Somebody please explain to these people that additional capacity, correctly managed is a positive thing. Aviation must fight back.
.4
120.4 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2007, 22:15
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 545
Maybe donkeys in your eyes Basil but most western governments agree climate change is caused by human activity.

The United Nations panel on climate change has agreed that it is "very likely" human activity is to blame for global warming that could bring more droughts, heatwaves and rising seas in the coming years.

Delegates hope that the panel's report, due for release on Friday, will increase the pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"Very likely" mean that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believes that there is at least a 90 per cent probability that mankind is to blame.


Britain's Environment Secretary David Miliband could conclude: "The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over.
Climateologists have been telling us for years climate change is man made, politicians now seem to agree. Perhaps it's better to be with the donkeys than to be an ostrich.
Del Prado is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2007, 02:36
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,572
Oh dear, much consternation about a few 'campers'...

Leaving aside the nonsensical notion that man has anything remotely connected with any larger picture climate change, it is wondered why the aerodrome fire services cannot have their daily emergency hose drills in the area of said camp...at least the 'campers' might smell better.
411A is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2007, 07:14
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Essex
Age: 50
Posts: 118
Del Prado
The IPCC are also entitled to their views, but it should be regognised that they also may be wrong, especially as their funding and continued employment rides on there being a 'problem' to continue researching.
The majority of these protestors (i'm talking about the people actually camping at LHR, not the david attenboroughs of the world who use more sensible and effective means to air their views) cannot accept that their argument may be flawed.
even if you agree with the IPCC viewpoint, and many don't, it's then no longer a question of "does CO2 cause climate change", and "has man contributed to this". Its a question of "can we do anything about it" - to which the answer is probably not. We ain't gonna stop flying, we ain't gonna stop using consmer products - that is just wishful thinking - you may as well have a justice policy of "we'll tell all the criminals to stop breaking the law- that will solve it".
So if we really do need to reduce emissions (and i believe we do, mainly because oil is a finite resource) then it comes down not to doing less stuff, but to finding ways to continue our lifestyles, and economic prosperity, but in more energy efficient ways.
Aviation should be viewed positively in this respect as it is one of the few industries that has made huge leaps in fuel efficiency over the last few decades.
A Few contributers to this thread have proved my point about the environmental argument - dare to question the environmental 'party line' and question the motives of the activists and you're 'arrogant' 'concieted' 'a bigot' and many more. This is what i mean about these people not engaging in resoned debate - just using emotive language to rubbish any detractors.
AlexL is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2007, 07:20
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bath
Posts: 243
unfortunately it is impossible to have a reasoned debate with environmentallists
Alex

As this thread demonstrates, it is hard to have a debate with most people, whichever siode of the fence they sit on.

The science is out there for anyone to read, but I would suggest the majority of people on both sides of the argument haven't taken the time to study it.

Ian
IanSeager is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2007, 07:25
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Essex
Age: 50
Posts: 118
there's alot of pseudo science around on this subject, and there is also a modest amount of real science. And one can cherry pick to prove or disproove pretty much any point of view.
Anyway, back to the real purpose for this thread. The BBC are reporting that a day of "Direct action and civil disobidience" is planned for next Sunday.
Apparently there are workshops all week in the camp for people to learn how to break the law in various ways.
Probably not a good day to visit LHR.
AlexL is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2007, 07:34
  #37 (permalink)  
The Analog Kid
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brecon Beacons National Park
Age: 54
Posts: 239
Originally Posted by AlexL
A Few contributers to this thread have proved my point about the environmental argument - dare to question the environmental 'party line' and question the motives of the activists and you're 'arrogant' 'concieted' 'a bigot' and many more.
Alex, you can cherry pick quotes all you like but if you take them out of context you demonstrate that you yourself are incapable of rational debate, whilst you accuse others. I actually said:

"Do you genuinely not realise how conceited and arrogant that sounds? Hell, I don't even happen to agree with the environmentalists on the aviation issue but pick one of them and one of those shrieking about smelly hippies on here in a straight vote and they end up winning hands down. This is not clever!"

So, not content with objectionably stereotyping the protesters, you're now misrepresenting people on your own side who object to your mode of expression. Not exactly how to win friends and influence people, is it?
fyrefli is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2007, 07:37
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Sadly Del Prado thinks the IPCC is the font of all truth........
Aviate 1138 copies below this reasoning from Grumpy Old Sod.com
"Few scientists or rational politicians doubt that global warming is a serious issue that poses long-term dangers to the planet. The scientific evidence that the world's climate has changed and that this change is accelerating is convincing. But it is also beyond doubt that the world is in danger of being held captive by powerful lobby groups that have distorted data, made unjustified extrapolations and attempted to stifle debate on one of the most important issues of our time.
The warnings issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Brussels yesterday are a collection of worst-case scenarios. The report, approved by 130 governments and endorsed by 2,500 scientists (few of whom probably had any hand in writing it), makes scary reading. It predicts a catastrophic future for millions of humans and other species. Global warning will bring hunger, floods and water shortages. Greenhouse gases will change rainfall patterns, intensify tropical storms, accelerate the melting of Arctic ice and mountain glaciers. Africa faces starvation, coastal cities will be swamped and China will see the rapid advance of the desert.
Some of these dangers may well be real. But many are deliberate exaggerations, as the IPCC's mandate was to highlight the dangers if global temperatures were to rise by up to 4C (7.2F). That assumption is far from proven. But it is enough for some environmental groups to speak of "an apocalyptic future", a "nightmare vision" and a "humanitarian catastrophe".
Every group is entitled to lobby hard for its cause. But to jump on a band-wagon and blame everything on climate change is neither good science nor sound lobbying. China's deserts have been threatening its cities for hundreds of years. Africa cannot be simultaneously threatened by endless droughts and by a rapid increase in malaria. Children are threatened by global warming, but they have also been helped by the economic development that some lobbyists seem to regard as a criminal activity. Tens of millions of children in India and China who would have died 30 years ago are not dying because increased wealth has brought better food, cleaner water and improved access to healthcare.
Companies and individuals have a responsibility to examine their behaviour and reduce their impact on the planet. But that self-examination should be rational and real and not debased by left-leaning fear-mongers, whose social agendas are recipes for impoverishment and hardship.
The real danger of the zealots is that they brook no argument. This does not mean that scientists should take a myopic view of figures that point to danger, such as the rise in carbon dioxide levels to about 380 parts per million, far exceeding the "natural" range for the past 650,000 years. But even to ask what is the natural range is regarded as some sort of heresy, and to ask questions about the precise contribution of anthropogenic influences is to commit a thought crime. There have already been examples of environmental scientists hounded out of their jobs for daring to question the prevailing orthodoxy. The IPCC summary is inevitably a political narrative, one in which each word and phrase will be endlessly and selectively parsed by the likes of Greenpeace and friends.
The planet deserves the benefit of the doubt. Climate change is serious and must be a political priority. But the arguments must be subject to free and rigorous debate and the facts separated from fanciful predictions - the environment is too important to be bequeathed to the hysterical."
Aviate 1138 finds much to agree with in the above article and a look back at historical events confirms that we have rarely had stability with respect to global weather.
http://www.phenomena.org.uk/Landmarks1.htm
Sift through these observations and imagine how 24 Hour Breaking News would have reported the events and how the Global Warming Alarmists would explain the variations.
aviate1138 is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2007, 07:50
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Slightly off topic but both worth a look

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...dle/index.html

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?i...FQttMAodBGO3Kg
dfstrottersfan is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2007, 08:17
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK/Australia
Posts: 73
Global warming Just in time ?

If you listen to other doomsayers , the supervolcano under Yellowstone Park in the USA is overdue for its 700000 year eruption, and is due to cause catastrophic global cooling, so looking on the bright side the two big events could cancel each other out.

Natural balance of nature?

Why dont the protesters become proactive and go to Upper Heyford in Oxfordhire and campaign FOR the re utilisation of the runway there instead of protesting AGAINST a third runway at Heathrow ? help alleviate the congestion at lhr therby cutting down on polution ? JMHO
tacr2man is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.