Moderator Message

There hasn’t been any mention of military aviation per se for quite a while now, so I think we’re about done here, gentlemen.

The thread for discussion of the political and diplomatic aspects of events in Libya is still open in General Discussion.

When I have more time later, I’ll move some postings from this thread to that one so that current lines of discussion can continue.

Regards

GA

To bring the protagonists of the two extreme views down by cheap jibes does nothing to advance the cause of rational debate in which the majority try to engage.

You may well be right. It is important to remain objective and to avoid personalising this serious issue that faces all of us.

Al Gore’s ludicrous claims in his ridiculous film have long been shown to be not worth the paper they were written on….

Oooops! :diablo:

No it means you go ping and I go pong, or vice versa, if you prefer.

You seem to be assuming that I agree with those who say that global warming is caused by human action.

Alas, you are mistaken again.

Our priority should be to mitigate the effects of global warming and rising sea levels, not to indulge ourselves in hair-splitting ideological arguments about who is to blame.

As far as the hysterical fringe of environmentalism on the one hand – and the vested energy interests and their paid mouthpieces on the other – are concerned, I say a plague on both of their houses.

The rise over the last 40 years on the esast coast has been about 80mmn and in Cornwall by about 40mm In the north sea levels have fallen.

In fact, what you are describing here is a change in “land level” which is a hangover from the last Ice Age.

As the ice retreated 20,000 years ago the removal of it’s enormous weight meant the north slowly tilted up while the south sank down. Scotland is still experiencing this “springboard” effect while southern Ireland, Wales and England continues to sink.

This is a completely different phenomenon from the gradual rise of global mean sea levels associated with global warming.

No point in answering ther second point as it is simply a ping pong match.

So you concede that both extremes of the debate are equally risible, then?

There is an extremely remote chance of our coastline being affected by a tsunami and an even remoter chance of it being of the magnitude of the Japanese one.

More or less correct, but a long way from “..and there is no chance of a tsunami around any of our coasts..” nevertheless.

A remote chance is not the same thing as an impossibility.

I can’t argue with that and as far as sea level rises being a spectre, that is all they are.

No, they’re an established fact. Ask the people of Kiribati.

The cause and future speed of the rise are open to debate, however.

Al Gore’s ludicrous claims in his ridiculous film have long been shown to be not worth the paper they were written on….

Just as worthless as some of the claims made by zealots and paid shills on the other side of the argument, I’d say.

….and there is no chance of a tsunami around any of our coasts..

Not so.

The Bristol Channel, Severn estuary and adjacent low-lying areas are particularly vulnerable to tsunamis triggered by offshore seismic activity out in the Atlantic.

Some authorities are of the opinion that the exceptionally destructive flooding in that area in 1607 was caused by just such a tsunami.

Gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling of living on a safe planet.

Doesn’t it? 😮

Netjets are a global commercial operator, though, not some rich person’s status symbol.

It’s not uncommon for their flights to appear on the Manchester information screens, although by no means all of them.

Perhaps it depends on what type of flightplan is filed?