“North Somerset Nimby's here we go again. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH........................................see how boring you are.

Liam Fox is happy - he has a nice second home in London now and access to all the flights he wants ! funny that, you think he will offer his flat out to us simple folk who WILL be flying in and out of London airport.

!”

“Bristol Airport needs to expand its facilities to cater for the current level of passenger numbers.

The terminal was designed for 3 million travellers per annum and the current number is nearly twice that.

It's ideally situated in one respect in that it affects only a few hundred villagers half of whom are traditional village families who in the main support the airport and the rest are incomers (the majority of the nimbys) who moved to the area knowing the airport was there.

It's not as if it was somewhere like Filton where there are thousands living under and near the flight path.”

“Hi I love flying but... It's been good chatting too.

I agree with you that ¿the science¿ of anything is never made up. Science is based on hypothesis, data gathering, data analysis and then back to new theories based on the results.

Unfortunately the majority of climate change evidence that I have seen has had glaring holes in it. This ranges from the deletion of data that doesn¿t fit in with the original theory to measuring temperatures next to air conditioning units pumping out warm air. Some organisations have only measured temperatures in their local vicinity and then made the conclusion that the whole world must be heating up! Some of the conclusions (which is the bit most people read of a 100+ page report) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports didn¿t actually represent what was actually found and had reportedly been compiled by two separate parts of the organisation. So much so, that an independent review of this supposedly independent organisation had to be done and the results to be published later this year.

I actually still sit on the fence myself about Man Made Climate Change, but leaning towards no. What I do object to is people claiming the ¿evidence is overwhelming¿ and ¿if you can¿t see, you are just in denial¿. It¿s just show¿s a complete disrespect for peoples intelligence. If people don¿t believe you, it means you have to try harder to convince them. Not fiddle data or claim they are just being selfish.

I also believe that most people are slowly, but surely beginning to wake up to this. A poll carried out by the BBC recently had the following results.
Google ¿Climate scepticism 'on the rise', BBC poll shows¿ ¿ Sunday 7th February 2010”

“The short answer is I choose to trust scientists more than I do think tanks tied to large oil companies! I work near (not for) climate modellers and they will talk quite openly about the limitations of their data, etc., and the uncertainties of their science. But they will also note how where a few years ago the science was not at all sure if global warming was happening now the major question is how bad it will be. Which is also, I believe, the view that insurance companies, the military and others take.
It is true, of course, that science has funders and scientists can make (limited) fame and fortune by drumming to the tune of the day (and UEA appear to have been trying to protect their research advantage). It is not, in that sense, objective. But, I suspect the view that climate change is man made has become hegemonic not for any of the reasons the conspiracy theorists like to come up with but for a much simpler reason: that is what much of the evidence was and is showing.
As it happens, I have time for climate change skeptics if they are saying lets have a reasoned debate, be aware of the limits of science, and are mindful of the impact on people lives and livelihoods of taking particular policy decisions. What worries me more is outright denial or the claim that climate change is a hoax. Lets be honest, if we are concerned about vested interests, then there are much more invested in retaining the status quo than in becoming (for example) a greener economy.

Enough from me but I've enjoyed the conversation.”

“I understand where you are coming from with regards to the University of East Anglia. But why if the evidence is so over whelming (as you put it) would the Uni withhold information when in receipt of a perfectly valid Freedom of Information request? Then when the information is made available (via the ¿release¿ of the emails) was it found that they had also ¿fiddled¿ the figures.

Remember this was the institution that Climate Change campaigners championed on an almost regular basis and based a lot of their facts, figures and claims on.

I do find it slightly biased that many people campaigning to stop Climate Change always resort to the phrase ¿The evidence is overwhelming¿ (without providing any) and always rubbish the evidence against. All evidence and research is supported financially by someone where and it is very hard to find any impartial evidence. Possibly the most impartial research is being done by education institutions, like the University of East Anglia and look where that got us!”

“There are all sorts of complicated issues around UEA, including the commercialisation of science but also how they were being harassed by a climate change skeptic. Sure, they made mistakes, but that doesn't change the fact that the leading antagonists of climate change as being man-made (for which the peer-reviewed evidence is overwhelming) are funded by large extractive industries, notably oil companies. Frankly I'd rather Bristol airport expanded than they build a third runway at Heathrow but let's not be naive about what carbon emissions are doing across the world.”

“Who paid for the University of East Anglia to make up data supporting Climate Change then?”

“Dear "turns left", if you do think for yourself and remain open minded, have a look at who pays for the so-called 'scientific' facts against man-made global warming. Climate Cover-up by James Hoggan is recommended or take a look at http://www.desmogblog.com/”

“If you believe that Global Warming/Climate Change/What ever it is going to be called tomorrow is manmade, then this is obviously not good news for you... Boo Hoo.

If however, you are able to think for yourself, stand back and look at some scientific facts (not the ones provided by Uni of East Anglia though!), don't wear sandals, don't eat Lentil soup and are not trying to force you way of living on everyone else.... then carry on and enjoy flying.”

“We don't need more airports.. In light of everything that is going on, we should be massively reducing air travel, not encouraging the anarchy of it.

Us humans are very thick as a species.”