Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Climate campaigners win Heathrow expansion case
Controversial plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport have been thrown into doubt after a court ruling. (www.bbc.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
They need to go back to the original proposal of a Thames Airport Hong Kong style with similar connections to downtown London. They could then have four parallel runways and close Heathrow or at least degrade its function.
This plan would leave lots of space for newcomers to build homes after opening of the airport so then they could complain of airport noise as has happened at every airport.
This plan would leave lots of space for newcomers to build homes after opening of the airport so then they could complain of airport noise as has happened at every airport.
Just when you think you couldn't be more disappointed in the British this comes along. England has lost its way which to me personally is very sad.
The 3rd runway at LHR was vital to the UK's economic future. It also seems that no one took into account that aircraft burning needless fuel circling in holding patterns would have been eliminated. The 3rd runway would have also improved taxi delays to the active departure runway as LHR would have no longer been forced to only have one departure runway during peak departure times saving fuel burn as well.
This decision hurt the environment and the climate. It's a shame the flight shamming idiots and ignorant government officials couldn't get their arms around actual facts.
I believe in climate change and supported the 3rd runway at LHR, because I try to have something others don't seem to want to practice these days, common sense!!!
The 3rd runway at LHR was vital to the UK's economic future. It also seems that no one took into account that aircraft burning needless fuel circling in holding patterns would have been eliminated. The 3rd runway would have also improved taxi delays to the active departure runway as LHR would have no longer been forced to only have one departure runway during peak departure times saving fuel burn as well.
This decision hurt the environment and the climate. It's a shame the flight shamming idiots and ignorant government officials couldn't get their arms around actual facts.
I believe in climate change and supported the 3rd runway at LHR, because I try to have something others don't seem to want to practice these days, common sense!!!
These nut jobs exist to destroy capitalism.....the world won't know the difference of another runway or ten of them. It's a way for these nitwits to feel important......
correct
Time these climate protestors realised climate is cyclical and in a few decades they'll be protesting because its too cold!
Please look at the facts. Climate is cyclical by nature, on a very large time scale. What we are experiencing now is not natural. The huge increase in average temperature and atmospheric CO2 within only a few decades that we can MEASURE now is unprecedented in Earth history.
You should check your facts. There have been periods of history where CO2 levels have risen at least as fast as they are rising today. Periods of relatively high volcanic activity have pumped CO2 into the atmosphere at rates higher than humans cause today.
Perhaps you mean “unprecedented in human history”. That would be true, but of course human history has been but a blink of an eye compared to Earth history.
Looking at more recent times, the natural cyclic nature of the climate is due to send the earth into another ice age (think glaciers covering the northern part of the U.S. and the resulting significant reduction in arable land). It is extremely likely that CO2 emissions will prevent this much worse (but naturally) occurring disaster.
The climate-change alarmists seem to accept as their religion that all ‘natural’ (i.e. non-human-caused) climate change is good, and all human-caused climate change is bad. I don’t subscribe to that fallacy. I look at the effect on our environment, and when you do that, you see that climate change always has been, and will always continue, and what really matters is that it does not head in a pattern that will result in mass extinctions, which has always accompanied colder temperatures.
Perhaps you mean “unprecedented in human history”. That would be true, but of course human history has been but a blink of an eye compared to Earth history.
Looking at more recent times, the natural cyclic nature of the climate is due to send the earth into another ice age (think glaciers covering the northern part of the U.S. and the resulting significant reduction in arable land). It is extremely likely that CO2 emissions will prevent this much worse (but naturally) occurring disaster.
The climate-change alarmists seem to accept as their religion that all ‘natural’ (i.e. non-human-caused) climate change is good, and all human-caused climate change is bad. I don’t subscribe to that fallacy. I look at the effect on our environment, and when you do that, you see that climate change always has been, and will always continue, and what really matters is that it does not head in a pattern that will result in mass extinctions, which has always accompanied colder temperatures.
What we know about the CO2 content of the atmosphere is derived from ice core samples that go back about 300,000 years. And during that time, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has NEVER been nearly as high as today. Changes used to occur very slowly in the past over the course of hundreds or even thousands of years, not within a few decades, as we are seeing today.
And out of interest: Which organizations/institutions are predicting another ice age in the next few hundred years and on what basis?
And out of interest: Which organizations/institutions are predicting another ice age in the next few hundred years and on what basis?
300,000 years is but a blink of the eye in the climate history of the Earth. There is significant evidence that in the billion year history of life on earth there has indeed been periods with quickly rising CO2 levels, with subsequent periods of the rapid advancement and diversification of life on the planet.
Check out this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age. There is overwhelming evidence that without current CO2 emissions the cyclic nature of the climate would soon begin a normal period of global cooling such that glaciers would advance (as they have done repeatedly over the past 400,000+ years deep into the mid-latitudes. Glaciers were in Oklahoma within the past 20000 years! If you want to validly alarm people on the climate, this is what is truly alarming. If this is prevented, then we as a species will definitely benefit.
Check out this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age. There is overwhelming evidence that without current CO2 emissions the cyclic nature of the climate would soon begin a normal period of global cooling such that glaciers would advance (as they have done repeatedly over the past 400,000+ years deep into the mid-latitudes. Glaciers were in Oklahoma within the past 20000 years! If you want to validly alarm people on the climate, this is what is truly alarming. If this is prevented, then we as a species will definitely benefit.
That's exactly my point: Such (natural) changes occur over thousands of years. What difference does such a possible cooling of the planet over a period of Thousands of years make for our civilization, when we'll reach 4 or even 5 degrees of average temparature rise compared to pre-industrial times already within the next 100 years? Tipping points will probably make the process irreversable, long before the slow cooling might have any effect.
Besides: Everyone can upload anything to Wikipedia. Unlike the sources that I've mentioned, the content provided there is not peer-reviewed according to scientific standards.
Besides: Everyone can upload anything to Wikipedia. Unlike the sources that I've mentioned, the content provided there is not peer-reviewed according to scientific standards.
You play pretty lose with their term ‘scientific standards’ while admitting that the crucial step of scientifically proving hypotheses is not possible with climate science. Without experimentation and proof, do we really have science? I suggest that we don’t have science (not that it’s anyone’s fault) but only conjecture that cannot be supported by any reasonable confidence.
This is a key part of my conclusions:
1. The attempt to halt climate change (by any cause, human or ‘natural’) has been acknowledged to cost the world significantly (at 100% confidence), leading to reduced standards of living and greater levels of poverty and suffering.
2. The ‘science’ that suggests that current climate trends will produce great human suffering is conjecture that cannot be supported with real science, and provides very low (close to zero) confidences.
Therefore, do we thrust the world into a guaranteed period of suffering in order to prevent something that is quite likely just fear of the unknown?
I say no. You are free to make whatever changes you want in your life. But to force me to make changes that by reasonable conclusions will either be ineffective or inessential, is to become a tyrant. Don’t be the next tyrant.
This is a key part of my conclusions:
1. The attempt to halt climate change (by any cause, human or ‘natural’) has been acknowledged to cost the world significantly (at 100% confidence), leading to reduced standards of living and greater levels of poverty and suffering.
2. The ‘science’ that suggests that current climate trends will produce great human suffering is conjecture that cannot be supported with real science, and provides very low (close to zero) confidences.
Therefore, do we thrust the world into a guaranteed period of suffering in order to prevent something that is quite likely just fear of the unknown?
I say no. You are free to make whatever changes you want in your life. But to force me to make changes that by reasonable conclusions will either be ineffective or inessential, is to become a tyrant. Don’t be the next tyrant.
By scientific standards in this context, I mean that every publication has to be independently peer-reviewed.
The fact that we've not already destroyed a civilization on an exact copy of the Earth does not mean there's no science. We already have enough knowledge gathered through experimentation and proof to understand and explain the current changes. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature on the Earth surface would be -18°C. And if mankind is not the cause, where does all the additional CO2 come from that we can measure? Why has the last decade been the warmest on record? Please don't say it's the sun. Solar activity does not correlate with these changes.
We are already experiencing more heavy weather, more droughts, rising sea levels (talked to anyone from the Marshall or Solomon islands recently?) as well as more fires (recently in Amazon rain forest, Australia, Siberia). So to say that it's climate change mitigation action that causes suffering is really a bit bizarre.
The fact that we've not already destroyed a civilization on an exact copy of the Earth does not mean there's no science. We already have enough knowledge gathered through experimentation and proof to understand and explain the current changes. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature on the Earth surface would be -18°C. And if mankind is not the cause, where does all the additional CO2 come from that we can measure? Why has the last decade been the warmest on record? Please don't say it's the sun. Solar activity does not correlate with these changes.
We are already experiencing more heavy weather, more droughts, rising sea levels (talked to anyone from the Marshall or Solomon islands recently?) as well as more fires (recently in Amazon rain forest, Australia, Siberia). So to say that it's climate change mitigation action that causes suffering is really a bit bizarre.
Again, I am not debating that mankind has caused CO2 emissions. I accept that, it is very reasonable based upon the data.
Your argument that climate science is true science because we CAN’T experiment and prove hypothesis (i.e. destroy the planet) is not reasonable. It’s nobody’s fault, but to claim that it’s science that tells us we will destroy the earth when science is not possible is irresponsible. Call it what it is, ‘Climate Hypothesis”, or “Climate Conjecture”, or “Climate Consensus”. It is a disservice to science when a necessary step of real science can’t be done.
The past decade has been the warmest on record? You are totally wrong. Did you mean to say ‘Human record’? Like the last 100 years? What’s a hundred years of 1 billion? Not much.
Carbon Dioxide is increasing plant yields, which increases the world’s food supply. Warmer weather increases arable lands, which increases the world’s food supply. In addition, restricting carbon emissions to the levels that most scientists believe will stop global warming will significantly negatively affect the world food supply. All this is much more established than any significant affect of global warming on the human condition.
Again, you are free to personally do what you wish to stop this specter you believe will happen. Just don’t become the tyrant and suggest that I must be forced to accept the unreasonable.
Your argument that climate science is true science because we CAN’T experiment and prove hypothesis (i.e. destroy the planet) is not reasonable. It’s nobody’s fault, but to claim that it’s science that tells us we will destroy the earth when science is not possible is irresponsible. Call it what it is, ‘Climate Hypothesis”, or “Climate Conjecture”, or “Climate Consensus”. It is a disservice to science when a necessary step of real science can’t be done.
The past decade has been the warmest on record? You are totally wrong. Did you mean to say ‘Human record’? Like the last 100 years? What’s a hundred years of 1 billion? Not much.
Carbon Dioxide is increasing plant yields, which increases the world’s food supply. Warmer weather increases arable lands, which increases the world’s food supply. In addition, restricting carbon emissions to the levels that most scientists believe will stop global warming will significantly negatively affect the world food supply. All this is much more established than any significant affect of global warming on the human condition.
Again, you are free to personally do what you wish to stop this specter you believe will happen. Just don’t become the tyrant and suggest that I must be forced to accept the unreasonable.
Well, "On record" of course means since the time humans have started recording wheather data, and yes, it's meaningful if you compare the data to the time prior to industrialization because the conclusion is that the ocurring rapid changes are not natural. Furthermore, for our civilization, billions of years are not relevant. Of course, the planet will survive any climate change, but our civilization strongly depends on a stable climate.
You are right, within certain limits, CO2 will be beneficial for plants. However, experiments have shown that there's a critical CO2 concentration. When it increases further, it will be harmful for plants. I also don't think that the people in the Sahel would share your view that "Warmer weather increases arable lands". Desertification and droughts are a huge problem in many regions, forcing people to leave their homes.
You are right, within certain limits, CO2 will be beneficial for plants. However, experiments have shown that there's a critical CO2 concentration. When it increases further, it will be harmful for plants. I also don't think that the people in the Sahel would share your view that "Warmer weather increases arable lands". Desertification and droughts are a huge problem in many regions, forcing people to leave their homes.
Our civilization does NOT depend on a stable climate. A stable “snowball earth” would not benefit us in any way.
Our civilIzation depends on a favorable climate.
I understand that there is an upper limit of CO2 for the viability of plants, but I understand it to be very much higher than the upper limits of CO2 concentrations that could be achieved by the burning of all fossil fuels.
Climate changes do indeed change weather patterns. Some areas will benefit from increased arability, others will suffer. What the paleontologic record clearly shows is that the net affect on life is positive for warmer climates.
I’ll take net positive.
Our civilIzation depends on a favorable climate.
I understand that there is an upper limit of CO2 for the viability of plants, but I understand it to be very much higher than the upper limits of CO2 concentrations that could be achieved by the burning of all fossil fuels.
Climate changes do indeed change weather patterns. Some areas will benefit from increased arability, others will suffer. What the paleontologic record clearly shows is that the net affect on life is positive for warmer climates.
I’ll take net positive.
The critical concentration for plants could already be reached by the end of the 21st Century:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/899
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/899
An even better article from NASA which shows current trends: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/
“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide”
More green obviously means more food for human (and animal) life. Vegetarians should be very happy.
“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
The key takeaway here is that plants acclimate to their environmental conditions. Again, good news.
By the end of the 21st century, we’ll pretty much have all the buried carbon back in the atmosphere were it originally came from, and there won’t be any more CO2 to put there. So things look good as far as plants are concerned, little need to worry about them, they’ll keep doing great, as long as we don’t take their CO2 away.
The more research that I do, the more I learn that no one is really sure about anything when it comes to what the real effects of climate change will be on human beings. The short-term is pretty clear... More carbon, good. Long term it is still just a an unproven guess, one I would like to NOT sacrifice the human condition trying to mitigate, when many climatologists suggest it is already too late to do anything of substance, regardless. We normally reject high cost, low return scenarios. I think that is a good plan.
“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide”
More green obviously means more food for human (and animal) life. Vegetarians should be very happy.
“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
The key takeaway here is that plants acclimate to their environmental conditions. Again, good news.
By the end of the 21st century, we’ll pretty much have all the buried carbon back in the atmosphere were it originally came from, and there won’t be any more CO2 to put there. So things look good as far as plants are concerned, little need to worry about them, they’ll keep doing great, as long as we don’t take their CO2 away.
The more research that I do, the more I learn that no one is really sure about anything when it comes to what the real effects of climate change will be on human beings. The short-term is pretty clear... More carbon, good. Long term it is still just a an unproven guess, one I would like to NOT sacrifice the human condition trying to mitigate, when many climatologists suggest it is already too late to do anything of substance, regardless. We normally reject high cost, low return scenarios. I think that is a good plan.
We can't afford to burn all the remaining fossil fuels, our remaining carbon budget to keep the climate stable or "favourable" in your words will be long used up by then. We would be heading into the worst case "Hot house Earth" scenario, in which several tipping points such as the melting permafrost (which has already declined much faster than the worst predictions), the melting arctic sea ice (which is disappearing at record rates), the disappearing boreal and tropical rain forests, the changing monsoons would trigger an irreversible process.
And I don't know what's good about rising sea levels (which will threaten at least 150 million people according to the IPCC), more droughts, heat waves and floods (In total, weather-climate disasters cost 290 billion euro in 2017 - according to https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/ESPAS_Report2019.pdf)
And I don't know what's good about rising sea levels (which will threaten at least 150 million people according to the IPCC), more droughts, heat waves and floods (In total, weather-climate disasters cost 290 billion euro in 2017 - according to https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/ESPAS_Report2019.pdf)
1. Again, stability and favorable are two different things. You seem to have confused them again. Stability is not necessarily a good thing for life. Favorability is. They are not the same.
Tipping points have been suggested, but their existence are hypothesized and very uncertain. Past predictions of specific tipping points have been plagued by failure. It’s not a good scenario to be spending trillions of dollars on something that is so uncertain. It WOULD be pretty cool if we had actual science to help us out, but it is just not there.
Based on your description of ‘Hot House Earth’; it has happened multiple times before (i.e. no ice at the poles, therefore no permafrost). What was the result? An explosion of life on earth. Change? Certainly! Bad change? Not so much. During human history (before ‘recorded’ human history) reductions in sea ice were the result of the birth of civilization. This link references a paper published in science magazine that substantiates the benefits to human beings of less sea ice. I would link the actual science magazine paper, but a subscription is required. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/paper-finds-arctic-sea-ice-extent-8000.html
Guess what, no climate disaster. No human catastrophe. Change? Yes! But it was good change for humans. In fact, the following cold spell (Ice Age) wiped out whole civilizations.
History (All history, not just the blink of an eye ‘recorded’ history) has consistently and confidently demonstrated that Warm Earth - Good for Life, Cold Earth - Bad for LIfe.
We used to blame weather disasters on God’s wrath. Now we blame them on ‘human caused climate change’. Little proof exists for either.
Tipping points have been suggested, but their existence are hypothesized and very uncertain. Past predictions of specific tipping points have been plagued by failure. It’s not a good scenario to be spending trillions of dollars on something that is so uncertain. It WOULD be pretty cool if we had actual science to help us out, but it is just not there.
Based on your description of ‘Hot House Earth’; it has happened multiple times before (i.e. no ice at the poles, therefore no permafrost). What was the result? An explosion of life on earth. Change? Certainly! Bad change? Not so much. During human history (before ‘recorded’ human history) reductions in sea ice were the result of the birth of civilization. This link references a paper published in science magazine that substantiates the benefits to human beings of less sea ice. I would link the actual science magazine paper, but a subscription is required. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/paper-finds-arctic-sea-ice-extent-8000.html
Guess what, no climate disaster. No human catastrophe. Change? Yes! But it was good change for humans. In fact, the following cold spell (Ice Age) wiped out whole civilizations.
History (All history, not just the blink of an eye ‘recorded’ history) has consistently and confidently demonstrated that Warm Earth - Good for Life, Cold Earth - Bad for LIfe.
We used to blame weather disasters on God’s wrath. Now we blame them on ‘human caused climate change’. Little proof exists for either.
I'm not confusing anything. My point is that our civilization is very vulnerable to environmental changes, even more so in view of the growing world population.
I'm aware that there have been periods without any ice at all, and it's no problem for the planet itself, and life as such will continue to exist on this planet and adapt, but our civilization will not. Therefore, your equation Warm Earth - Good for Life, Cold Earth - Bad for LIfe (which of course also means warm Earth - more diseases!) is too simplistic, and it does certainly not apply to our modern (technological and economic) human life.
"Little proof exists for either."
The frequency of extremes is definitely increasing: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2018s-billion-dollar-disasters-context
I'm aware that there have been periods without any ice at all, and it's no problem for the planet itself, and life as such will continue to exist on this planet and adapt, but our civilization will not. Therefore, your equation Warm Earth - Good for Life, Cold Earth - Bad for LIfe (which of course also means warm Earth - more diseases!) is too simplistic, and it does certainly not apply to our modern (technological and economic) human life.
"Little proof exists for either."
The frequency of extremes is definitely increasing: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2018s-billion-dollar-disasters-context
As the U.S. increases in population and creation of material assets, we will naturally see an uptrend in costly disasters.
From the study... “ The increase in population and material wealth over the last several decades are an important factor for the increased damage potential. These trends are further complicated by the fact that many population centers and infrastructure exist in vulnerable areas like coasts and river floodplains, while building codes are often insufficient in reducing damage from extreme events.”
The study then mentions that climate change is also a factor, but does not call it ‘important’. In fact there does not seem to be any serious attempt to analyze how much of the increase in these high cost incidents is due to increasing exposure and vulnerability versus the suggested increase in weather events due to climate change. That would have supported your point, but it seems to be entirely missing.
I also am not impressed with the 38 year time window. Very short when all possible weather-affecting phenomena are considered, such as sun spot activity.
Like pretty much all of the climate change alarmism, I find the connection very weak and not at all well substantiated.
From the study... “ The increase in population and material wealth over the last several decades are an important factor for the increased damage potential. These trends are further complicated by the fact that many population centers and infrastructure exist in vulnerable areas like coasts and river floodplains, while building codes are often insufficient in reducing damage from extreme events.”
The study then mentions that climate change is also a factor, but does not call it ‘important’. In fact there does not seem to be any serious attempt to analyze how much of the increase in these high cost incidents is due to increasing exposure and vulnerability versus the suggested increase in weather events due to climate change. That would have supported your point, but it seems to be entirely missing.
I also am not impressed with the 38 year time window. Very short when all possible weather-affecting phenomena are considered, such as sun spot activity.
Like pretty much all of the climate change alarmism, I find the connection very weak and not at all well substantiated.
It says that climate change leads to a "rise in vulnerability to drought, lengthening wildfire seasons (...) and the potential for extremely heavy rainfall".
This is in line with the worldwide observation. The EU comes to the same conclusion: "It is estimated that By 2030, the world will be 1.5 degrees warmer than during pre-industrial times. This means that hotter summers will be the norm throughout Europe – but also in the United States, the southern neighbourhood and Asia. This will lead to increased occurrences of droughts and wildfires, as seen in the summer of 2018, the hottest on record and one in which 30-50% of certain key crops were lost in Europe. Studies show that healthcare costs increase significantly per heat wave, and that in the United States the cost of fighting wildfires reached $2 billion in 2017." (https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/ESPAS_Report2019.pdf)
Sun spot activity can't explain the current phenomena:
http://sidc.oma.be/silso/monthlyssnplot
This is in line with the worldwide observation. The EU comes to the same conclusion: "It is estimated that By 2030, the world will be 1.5 degrees warmer than during pre-industrial times. This means that hotter summers will be the norm throughout Europe – but also in the United States, the southern neighbourhood and Asia. This will lead to increased occurrences of droughts and wildfires, as seen in the summer of 2018, the hottest on record and one in which 30-50% of certain key crops were lost in Europe. Studies show that healthcare costs increase significantly per heat wave, and that in the United States the cost of fighting wildfires reached $2 billion in 2017." (https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/ESPAS_Report2019.pdf)
Sun spot activity can't explain the current phenomena:
http://sidc.oma.be/silso/monthlyssnplot
Quit wasting your time on Dan....
You can't fix stupid, look at all the trumpf supporters enabling a LYING CONMAN to ruin our country.
You can't fix stupid, look at all the trumpf supporters enabling a LYING CONMAN to ruin our country.
Typical response of one who has drunk the Kool-Aid... “Retreat, can’t handle being challenged.” Science encourages skepticism. Religion discourages it.
The science is in... climate changer IS man made is spite of your ignorance!
Religion IS mythology believed by idiots period.
Religion IS mythology believed by idiots period.
Is ALL climate change man made? Think again, ‘science’ is very clear on that, and it does not agree with you. And it sounds like you have picked your religion, but your belief system is much more unreasonable than those you accuse of being ignorant.
Scheduling will have to finesse many travelers, but at least at Heathrow the old village and the motorway north of the field will survive.