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]
Have not these Idiots said we'll die in 12 years?? incredible how stupid 21st century baboons are behaving, maybe more oranges in their diet would help their shrinking brains, if do they have any!!
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
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!!!
Ha! Good job climate-nazis...but please don't stop while your competition prospers...you'll figure it out in the end when reality sets in since critical thought was not your first choice...
People who make the public aware of unpleasant facts are not Nazis. Do you believe that the entire science community consists of Nazis? There is a near 100% consensus among climate Researchers that man-made climate change is happening right now.
When climate scientists have no proof, consensus is all they have to offer. Consensus is not science, it is religion.
I suggest you look at the climate data published by NASA, the WMO, the UN's IPCC etc. They have the world's leading scientists and are certainly not religious organizations.
I don’t dispute the real climate data. I dispute the unsubstantiated disaster scenarios that are unscientifically derived from it. If there was science supporting these disaster scenarios, it would be provided. In the absence of science, there is only consensus. Consensus is not science
Again, all the science you need is provided in the IPCC reports, have you read them? Most people who deny man-made climate change have not and say the IPCC is corrupted, undermined etc. (Conspiracy theories)
I have skimmed it and found very little true science.
sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.’
I have seen no experimentation to test the hypotheses of climate catastrophe put forth. Without any testing of the hypotheses, there is no true science, just conjecture, followed by an attempt to obtain consensus using attempts to humiliate those who question the hypotheses. Which, by the way, is NOT part of true science, as well.
“The scientific method involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, ”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
If ‘rigorous skepticism’ is required when applying the scientific method, why are skeptics ridiculed at all costs?
Open your mind, apply true science, ask intelligent questions, and you, too will see that what is being passed off as science is much more related to religion.
sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.’
I have seen no experimentation to test the hypotheses of climate catastrophe put forth. Without any testing of the hypotheses, there is no true science, just conjecture, followed by an attempt to obtain consensus using attempts to humiliate those who question the hypotheses. Which, by the way, is NOT part of true science, as well.
“The scientific method involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, ”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
If ‘rigorous skepticism’ is required when applying the scientific method, why are skeptics ridiculed at all costs?
Open your mind, apply true science, ask intelligent questions, and you, too will see that what is being passed off as science is much more related to religion.
So you have found "very little true science" in the IPCC report, but you do find it on Wikipedia? Maybe your criteria what is "true science" is less strict when the hypothesis is more convenient?
Nope. Try again.