Night flights to take off from Bournemouth airport (From Thisisdorset)

Maybe i missed it, but was the public consulted on this??As another under the flight path, i certianly do NOT welcome more night flights.
We only have a gap between 12am and 5 am as it is without flights. I agree on more flights, but there is plenty of time in the day for this.
It's bad enough trying to sleep with cars, drunks, etc passing by, and the police helicopter.
If this goes ahead, at least vary the flightpath more, maybe let those in Canford Cliffs put up with it!!
No doubt those who decide on these matters, never have to put up with the consequences, and live under the flightpath.

This is bad news for residents. These are NOT particularly interesting or unique destinations, and there is plenty of capacity at Bournemouth for them to land or take off during the day or evening. I suspect that there is capacity at the departure/arrival airport too and that the travel companies involved simply want to save money by using cheaper slots.

The consultation document is available from the Bournemouth Airport website, but for some people this is going to be difficult to download since sitestat.com is blocked by many ad blockers. When you do succeed in downloading this document you will notice that the biggest reason for complains is already night flights.

Quote.A spokesperson for Thomson said:
“Whilst we always try to minimise the amount of night flights through any airport, we need to balance this with offering an excellent choice of destinations to our customers.”
Translation. More profits for a 2nd rate company using old heaps of planes.

I live under the flight path and am not bothered about this in the slightest. More flights, more destinations, great stuff.

Still, I can't hear the planes over the wife's snoring anyway.

Funny how people complain about where they CHOOSE to live.

Do planes really make that much noise?? I think not. Just the moaning brigade out again.

So what if this is a move for TUI to make more money, is that not a good thing in these times? More jobs will come with that and security for those currently working.

Well done Bourenmouth Airport and TUI, I will certainly use these services rather than going from Gatwick, cant wait.

I hope it will not happen the noise is bad enough as it is as planes go over during the day never mind night time as well

So is there a problem or not?

According to your report flights will be arriving at 1.10.am 1.20am 1,25 am 130 a,m,,
and 4.05am Does Christchurch Council say without reservation that that will not happen?

Ironically if these extra flights go ahead not only will the life of local residents be affected in an intolerable way but they will contribute significantly to global warming and will eventually put parts of Christchurh under threat of flooding as sea levels rise

I would also,like to hear from the Chairman of Dorset County Council, and the Leaders of Bournemouth and Poole Council since this expansion fell within a strategy approved by the South West Regional Assembly on which Dorset Bournemouth and Poole are directly represented. and as a resident of Bournemnouth I found it impossible to ascertain whether Bournemouth Council gave its full approval to the strategy for airport expansion in the full knowledge of the environmental consequences

Then I recall that the Bishop of Winchester School in Bournemouth is to be turned into an academy run mainly by the Church of England and we are reminded of the virtues of a Christian education. so where is the applied Chrisianity here when climate change will have devastating consequences for millions of people living in third world countries as sea levels rise and many birda and animal face extinction , not least the majestic polar bear -all gone in the interest Of
human domination of our shared planet ?

Boo Hoo Hoo. I live Throop. I deal with it.

Gordon Cann wrote:
So is there a problem or not? According to your report flights will be arriving at 1.10.am 1.20am 1,25 am 130 a,m,, and 4.05am Does Christchurch Council say without reservation that that will not happen? Ironically if these extra flights go ahead not only will the life of local residents be affected in an intolerable way but they will contribute significantly to global warming and will eventually put parts of Christchurh under threat of flooding as sea levels rise I would also,like to hear from the Chairman of Dorset County Council, and the Leaders of Bournemouth and Poole Council since this expansion fell within a strategy approved by the South West Regional Assembly on which Dorset Bournemouth and Poole are directly represented. and as a resident of Bournemnouth I found it impossible to ascertain whether Bournemouth Council gave its full approval to the strategy for airport expansion in the full knowledge of the environmental consequences Then I recall that the Bishop of Winchester School in Bournemouth is to be turned into an academy run mainly by the Church of England and we are reminded of the virtues of a Christian education. so where is the applied Chrisianity here when climate change will have devastating consequences for millions of people living in third world countries as sea levels rise and many birda and animal face extinction , not least the majestic polar bear -all gone in the interest Of human domination of our shared planet ?

Do you believe in fairys as well?

Global warming is the biggest con since Religion.

The world has been changing ever since it was created and will continue to change. Nothing to do with a few planes, or are you suggesting B'mouth air festival should be cancelled also??

Global warming is the biggest con since Religion
Now that would start a debate!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about checking the noise made by the silly little boys on their tiny under powered motorbikes that swarm about like very angry bees?
Now they are noise polution. xx

So does david barbars believe the polar bear is under threat of early extinction? Yes or No ?

Does david barbara believe Bangaladesh will soon suffer devastating consequences as sea levels rise Yes or
No?

Has david barbara read the summary of the Stern Report or the conclusions of the Report issued by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on the consequences of aircraft expansion in issued in 2002, Yes or No ?

To tell us that the world's climate has always been changing is about as relevant as saying that Saturday comes after Friday or that a triangle has three sides.

As per usual the honest decent tax paying public are the ones who suffer. This council has no respect for it's residents and to be honest needs removing with imediate effect before they ruin any more residents lives.

Dont see the problem with aircraft noise; 30 seconds or less and its gone, bournemouth is never going to be like Gatwick.
What is objectionable is the almost constant noise of emergancy vehicles. You can hear them when they are on the other side of town! I sit in my garden and the din is almost constant. Are all these responses entirely necessary! When I was a lad emergency vehicles had a bell on them, you heard them when they were 100 yds away and that was it!

I'm not against aviation in any form, but do we really need flights landing or taking off between midnight and 5am? And what about getting to or from the airport? It'll be expensive taxis or insomniac friends and family.

I live under a flight path for a local air port and you get used to it, though it never bothered me in the first place.
I also lived in Southbourne next to the railway line and didn't even notice the trains, cant see a problem, Good luck to Bournemouth airport.

Early extinction? Can Gordon Cann confirm when they were scheduled for extinction?

Emulated wrote:
Quote.A spokesperson for Thomson said: “Whilst we always try to minimise the amount of night flights through any airport, we need to balance this with offering an excellent choice of destinations to our customers.” Translation. More profits for a 2nd rate company using old heaps of planes.

i see emasculated is at it again , where does he get thomson is is a 2nd rate company from , and anyone who has bought a house on the flightpath of an airport is an idiot and then to complain about it is an even bigger idiot

You know for certain that a plane passing overhead will be gone in a few seconds but drunks, yobs, vandals and the like hang around for hours, make noise and leave mess and destruction in their wake. Give me planes any day.

As for global warming (or climate change as it's now called...I wonder why?) one ship crossing the Atlantic gives off more pollution than ALL the aircraft crossing the Atlantic in the same period. And remember, CO2 is a RESULT of global warming, NOT the cause of it!

David Barbara is quite right...it's all a big con to relieve of us of yet more of our hard earned cash.

Gordon Cann wrote:
So is there a problem or not? According to your report flights will be arriving at 1.10.am 1.20am 1,25 am 130 a,m,, and 4.05am Does Christchurch Council say without reservation that that will not happen? Ironically if these extra flights go ahead not only will the life of local residents be affected in an intolerable way but they will contribute significantly to global warming and will eventually put parts of Christchurh under threat of flooding as sea levels rise I would also,like to hear from the Chairman of Dorset County Council, and the Leaders of Bournemouth and Poole Council since this expansion fell within a strategy approved by the South West Regional Assembly on which Dorset Bournemouth and Poole are directly represented. and as a resident of Bournemnouth I found it impossible to ascertain whether Bournemouth Council gave its full approval to the strategy for airport expansion in the full knowledge of the environmental consequences Then I recall that the Bishop of Winchester School in Bournemouth is to be turned into an academy run mainly by the Church of England and we are reminded of the virtues of a Christian education. so where is the applied Chrisianity here when climate change will have devastating consequences for millions of people living in third world countries as sea levels rise and many birda and animal face extinction , not least the majestic polar bear -all gone in the interest Of human domination of our shared planet ?

Gordon put a rag in it , no one is interested in what a moaner like you has to say on anything.
the airport is not going anywhere so if you dont like move somewhere else

Gordon Cann wrote:
So is there a problem or not? According to your report flights will be arriving at 1.10.am 1.20am 1,25 am 130 a,m,, and 4.05am Does Christchurch Council say without reservation that that will not happen? Ironically if these extra flights go ahead not only will the life of local residents be affected in an intolerable way but they will contribute significantly to global warming and will eventually put parts of Christchurh under threat of flooding as sea levels rise I would also,like to hear from the Chairman of Dorset County Council, and the Leaders of Bournemouth and Poole Council since this expansion fell within a strategy approved by the South West Regional Assembly on which Dorset Bournemouth and Poole are directly represented. and as a resident of Bournemnouth I found it impossible to ascertain whether Bournemouth Council gave its full approval to the strategy for airport expansion in the full knowledge of the environmental consequences Then I recall that the Bishop of Winchester School in Bournemouth is to be turned into an academy run mainly by the Church of England and we are reminded of the virtues of a Christian education. so where is the applied Chrisianity here when climate change will have devastating consequences for millions of people living in third world countries as sea levels rise and many birda and animal face extinction , not least the majestic polar bear -all gone in the interest Of human domination of our shared planet ?

Gordon put a rag in it , no one is interested in what a moaner like you has to say on anything.
the airport is not going anywhere so if you dont like move somewhere else

With the exception of those who moved to the area before the airport existed....why are a residents complaining about the aircraft noise? You moved there for heavens sake!

The airport has been there for how many years ? The ' residents have lived there for how many years ? Yes - I think you will find the airport was there first - deal with it or move. I am sure there will be people willing to have a 'cheap' house off you.

There are a lot worse thinsg to live next to than a regional airport ! Dont hear complaints about the red-arrows do we !- and they are a **** site louder than any 737 landing. I suspect you are happy to live where you do when they are around ?

No issue with the flights whatever time of day. What does concern me is the ongoing LACK of public transport offered to and from Bournemouth Airport. The existing bus is not frequent enough and considering Bournemouth Airport is going expansion you would of though the airport would have got the basics right first like getting the X3 Salisbury-Bournemout
h bus route diverted. Car parking and taxi are a rip off at Bournemouth Airport, I'm still happy to go to Gatwick in protest at those alone.

david barbara wrote:
Funny how people complain about where they CHOOSE to live. Do planes really make that much noise?? I think not. Just the moaning brigade out again. So what if this is a move for TUI to make more money, is that not a good thing in these times? More jobs will come with that and security for those currently working. Well done Bourenmouth Airport and TUI, I will certainly use these services rather than going from Gatwick, cant wait.

Just shows you know nothing about planes landing. At Bournemouth International Airport, its spin name, planes landing use reverse thrust. I live 2 miles away as the crow flies and I can hear the noise that loud it blots out all other sound. I am amazed at how many people will fly in junk planes to save a few quid. They obviously do not put much value on their own or their families lives.

david barbara wrote:
Funny how people complain about where they CHOOSE to live. Do planes really make that much noise?? I think not. Just the moaning brigade out again. So what if this is a move for TUI to make more money, is that not a good thing in these times? More jobs will come with that and security for those currently working. Well done Bourenmouth Airport and TUI, I will certainly use these services rather than going from Gatwick, cant wait.

Just shows you know nothing about planes landing. At Bournemouth International Airport, its spin name, planes landing use reverse thrust. I live 2 miles away as the crow flies and I can hear the noise that loud it blots out all other sound. I am amazed at how many people will fly in junk planes to save a few quid. They obviously do not put much value on their own or their families lives.

Blackroady wrote:
The airport has been there for how many years ? The ' residents have lived there for how many years ? Yes - I think you will find the airport was there first - deal with it or move. I am sure there will be people willing to have a 'cheap' house off you. There are a lot worse thinsg to live next to than a regional airport ! Dont hear complaints about the red-arrows do we !- and they are a **** site louder than any 737 landing. I suspect you are happy to live where you do when they are around ?

Check your facts first as you haven't a clue and try to make a case to suit your conscience. Hurn was used to build aircraft with no commercial flights whatsoever. I had family who worked there for BAE who moved from Weybridge. Therefore many of us lived here before Hurn became commercial.

Are any of these aeroplanes going to be as loud as the one-eleven engine tests used to be? I seem to remember windows shaking all over town regularly!

Some people seem to have nothing to do except moan about everything, although I couldn't agree more re:transport links to the airport.

It's quite a long walk from Christchurch Station...

Surely this will equate to no more than one flight per night.

Another NIMBYism. We all want a better local service. At least we are not near Heathrow or Gatwick. How does Southampton not allow flights after 22.00

Lets see if I have got it right, the scientific evidence for global warming is a complete con; the polar bear is not going to become extinct,the glaciers in the Himalayas are not going to melt' this country is not at risk as temperatures warm up and we import diseases such as malaria;residents living under flight paths should put put up with whatever inconvenience they experience because of additional flights especially at night time; consumerism is a good thing and its expansion must be protected at all costs ;'Al Gore 'is an interfering moaner body who should be pensioned off, the Nobel Prize for showing concern for the environment should be posthumously awarded to Nero, -and one more thing the world really is flat despite what Copernicus said; and as for Charles Darwin anyone with a grain of sense can see that the world really was made in seven days!!

In fact the whole of modern science is really one big confidence imposed on the world's people

Get all the latest disruptions, delays, service cancellations, closures and weather warnings for Bournemouth AirportFirst of all, lets get this in perspective. This is a total of 5 flight PER WEEK, less that one per night. And as most approaches are from the east over the New Forest there will be little disruption to people west of the airport.


Emulated, check your facts. Hurn has ALWAYS been commercial after the end of WW2. In fact in 1945 is was the international airport for London! And if it hadn't been commercial how could Palmair have been operating from it since 1960?

I was only a little girl at the time but I remember going to Cherbourg from Hurn with Silver City in the late 50's-early 60's. Your car was driven on for you and then you hopped on and off you went! Brilliant! Anyone else remember that? Btw I've lived in the flight path for 30+years and far more annoying than the commercial flights are the Chinook and Police helicopters.

I want more flights and hopefully nightflights will increase the choice of desinations. Will hopefully save driving to Gatwick all the time when going on hols.

I do laugh at some who moan about living under the flight path to BIA, and notice that their location is in Poole. I live within 2 miles of the airport, slightly higher level than the airport, so we hear most of what goes on out there, yet it does not affect our ability to hear, sleep, or live a normal life.

I am amazed also at he knowledge of some peoples thoughts on destinations. Corfu is and has been for a long time, one of the biggest tourist destinations, with over 150,000 tourists during its six month season. Sharm El Sheikh is an up and coming destination, as are the others which have been mentioned.

It would be pointless to rebuild an airport, and not use it to its full potential.

We have to remember that the airport was in use, military, testing and commercial long before most of us lived here, let alone under its flight path.

I look forward to be able to travel to my favourite island of Corfu, and other destinations from my own local airport rather than having to travel the country before and afterwards.

Lets hope it all goes through. Happy Holidays.

Hurn 2050

Mum whats a polar bear?

Mum whats a song thrush ?

Mum whats a glacier ?

Oh do keep quiet and pass the anti malarial cream

Gordon Cann wrote:
Lets see if I have got it right, the scientific evidence for global warming is a complete con; the polar bear is not going to become extinct,the glaciers in the Himalayas are not going to melt' this country is not at risk as temperatures warm up and we import diseases such as malaria;residents living under flight paths should put put up with whatever inconvenience they experience because of additional flights especially at night time; consumerism is a good thing and its expansion must be protected at all costs ;'Al Gore 'is an interfering moaner body who should be pensioned off, the Nobel Prize for showing concern for the environment should be posthumously awarded to Nero, -and one more thing the world really is flat despite what Copernicus said; and as for Charles Darwin anyone with a grain of sense can see that the world really was made in seven days!!

In fact the whole of modern science is really one big confidence imposed on the world's people

You got one thing right...there is NO conclusive evidence that Global warming is caused by mankind.
In the medieval period vineyards were grown as far north as Hadrian's Wall and average temperatures were approx. 4C higher than now. In fact, Europe is nearly at the end of a mini ice-age, that's why it's getting warmer. HIGHER temperatures are the norm. Google "A convenient fiction" and see the real figures. Don't be fooled by the tree huggers as they only perpetuate the myth and allow our government to con us out of even more money.

Please, Gordon Cann, don't lump truths and half truths in with lies in the vain hope that we will think it all true. That is the ploy of the desperate.

We're doing our bit Gordon - tell India and China.

Emulated wrote:

Blackroady wrote: The airport has been there for how many years ? The ' residents have lived there for how many years ? Yes - I think you will find the airport was there first - deal with it or move. I am sure there will be people willing to have a 'cheap' house off you. There are a lot worse thinsg to live next to than a regional airport ! Dont hear complaints about the red-arrows do we !- and they are a **** site louder than any 737 landing. I suspect you are happy to live where you do when they are around ?

Check your facts first as you haven't a clue and try to make a case to suit your conscience. Hurn was used to build aircraft with no commercial flights whatsoever. I had family who worked there for BAE who moved from Weybridge. Therefore many of us lived here before Hurn became commercial.

November 1944
Towards the end of the war, the airport was transferred to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and, for a couple of years became the UK’s only intercontinental airport (until the opening of Heathrow Airport). Among the destinations served from Bournemouth were Accra, Cairo, Calcutta, Johannesburg, New York, Sydney and Washington.

Commercial aircraft construction took place from the 50's, notably the BAC One Eleven - which was significantly louder than any of the types flying into the airport these days.

Forgive me if Im wrong, but I grew up under the flight path from BIA and to be honest I think its only a good thing for the area, more jobs and work at the airport, more access for everyone to international flights.

Modern aircraft (and pilots) are well equipped to deal with night flights as they are taught to power the engines differently to cope with noise levels.

Watch this you Numpties !

http://videos.howstu
ffworks.com/nasa/218
1-how-quiet-aircraft
-technology-works-vi
deo.htm

'The ploy of the desperate.' try telling that to President Obama meeting at the moment with other world leaders to try and sign up to new targets limiting man made global warming emssions .

Anyway if the scientists are wrong our consumption of finite resources will have been reduced, but if the world consenus of scientists is right then we (you) do face a pretty dreadful future and yes I was aware that grapes were once grown in this country, what that proves escapes me !

'The ploy of the desperate.' try telling that to President Obama meeting at the moment with other world leaders to try and sign up to new targets limiting man made global warming emssions .

Anyway if the scientists are wrong our consumption of finite resources will have been reduced, but if the world consenus of scientists is right then we (you) do face a pretty dreadful future and yes I was aware that grapes were once grown in this country, what that proves escapes me !

Get all the latest disruptions, delays, service cancellations, closures and weather warnings for Bournemouth AirportIn that case I think we should postpone any night flights until NASA have reduced aircraft noise by 95% - that will be in about 2050. Even at 25% of the noise level they are now, an aircraft is still going to wake you up and I don't see BIA paying for homes to have triple glazing and thicker walls.

At the end of the day ask yourselves, who told you to live under the flight path of the towns airport?? uh!! you chose to yourself nobody forced you to, its not as if b-mouth are running a fleet of airbus 380's or vulcan bombers

I don't see that this is going to be that much of a problem. If the aircraft are only landing then most of the time the are going to be on final approach over The Forest so there going to be only a few people to hear the aircraft.

nobull wrote:
Global warming is the biggest con since Religion Now that would start a debate!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just trying to get Al Gore on the 'horn'.lol

This has made me smile loads.

Thanks to everyone who has posted for brightening an otherwise dull afternoon.

I am on the side of the "you knew it was there when you bought the house" brigade and I am sorry if you had not worked out that an airport can be noisy more fool you.

I have to agree with several people the insidious and often very annoying Police Helicopter hovering for extended periods of time is far more annoying than 3 planes between 12 - 5 in the morning. Yes I do live close enoough to hear them and as per another person you get used to it and ignore them.

Gordon Cann wrote:
'The ploy of the desperate.' try telling that to President Obama meeting at the moment with other world leaders to try and sign up to new targets limiting man made global warming emssions .

Anyway if the scientists are wrong our consumption of finite resources will have been reduced, but if the world consenus of scientists is right then we (you) do face a pretty dreadful future and yes I was aware that grapes were once grown in this country, what that proves escapes me !

It proves that the climate was WARMER!! 4 degrees C warmer!!
As they didn't have 4x4s or aircraft or anything else blamed for global warming then it's obvious that global warming is NATURAL! It happened before and it's happening again. In Europe it's UN-NATURAL to have the low temperatures experienced until recently because the norm is for them to be 4C warmer. That's how they were able to grow grapes so far north (which they can't even do today...yet!).

And are you implying that Obama is also telling half truths mixed with lies in order to con us all? When America signs up for anything it only has America in mind! Perhaps a lesson Gordon Brown should learn?

Once oil production peaks, the price of fuel will go sky high, so air travel will become hideously expensive and the number of flights will fall dramatically. The only way round this is to develop an alternative fuel for aircraft, but I don't know of anyone doing this yet, so there will probably be a delay before air travel can return to current levels and affordability.

What's all this about 'grapes were once grown in this country'? They still are, you plonker!

Anybody notice newer jets are quieter than they have ever been, and unless I missed something, these are arrivals NOT departures, so less noise is produced. Is this yet another case of NIMBYism?

And so what if the climate was warmer in a previous era? That doesn't disprove man-made global warming. If I leave an ice cube on the kitchen table, it'll melt eventually - that doesn't mean to say I can't accelerate the process by heating it up myself.

Blimey, you should have lived under the flightpath of a Flight of USAF B17's on route to Germany.Now that was a racket.

Blimey, you should have lived under the flightpath of a Flight of USAF B17's on route to Germany.Now that was a racket.

Blimey, you should have lived under the flightpath of a Flight of USAF B17's on route to Germany.Now that was a racket.

Zzzz wrote:
What's all this about 'grapes were once grown in this country'? They still are, you plonker!

BUT GRAPES ARE NOT GROWN NOW AS FAR NORTH AS THEY ONCE WERE! (spare me from plonkers like you). Perhaps you don't know where Hadrian's Wall is?
Or are you deliberately trying not to understand?

And, please explain how the climate was warmer eons ago, BEFORE man even set foot on this planet.

Man made...NO! Man contributing...maybe
. But, rest assured, climate change has happened many times in the past, it's happening now and it will happen again many times in the future. Those who are arrogant enough to think that us feeble humans can out-think nature are on to a hiding to nothing.
I suggest you take your ice-cube(before it melts) put it in a gin & tonic and relax.

david barbara wrote:

Gordon Cann wrote:
So is there a problem or not? According to your report flights will be arriving at 1.10.am 1.20am 1,25 am 130 a,m,, and 4.05am Does Christchurch Council say without reservation that that will not happen? Ironically if these extra flights go ahead not only will the life of local residents be affected in an intolerable way but they will contribute significantly to global warming and will eventually put parts of Christchurh under threat of flooding as sea levels rise I would also,like to hear from the Chairman of Dorset County Council, and the Leaders of Bournemouth and Poole Council since this expansion fell within a strategy approved by the South West Regional Assembly on which Dorset Bournemouth and Poole are directly represented. and as a resident of Bournemnouth I found it impossible to ascertain whether Bournemouth Council gave its full approval to the strategy for airport expansion in the full knowledge of the environmental consequences Then I recall that the Bishop of Winchester School in Bournemouth is to be turned into an academy run mainly by the Church of England and we are reminded of the virtues of a Christian education. so where is the applied Chrisianity here when climate change will have devastating consequences for millions of people living in third world countries as sea levels rise and many birda and animal face extinction , not least the majestic polar bear -all gone in the interest Of human domination of our shared planet ?

Do you believe in fairys as well?

Global warming is the biggest con since Religion.

The world has been changing ever since it was created and will continue to change. Nothing to do with a few planes, or are you suggesting B'mouth air festival should be cancelled also??

"global warming is the biggest con since religion, the world has been changing ever since it was created"

If thats the case why do you believe the world was created?

keyboard warrior wrote:

david barbara wrote:

Gordon Cann wrote:
So is there a problem or not? According to your report flights will be arriving at 1.10.am 1.20am 1,25 am 130 a,m,, and 4.05am Does Christchurch Council say without reservation that that will not happen? Ironically if these extra flights go ahead not only will the life of local residents be affected in an intolerable way but they will contribute significantly to global warming and will eventually put parts of Christchurh under threat of flooding as sea levels rise I would also,like to hear from the Chairman of Dorset County Council, and the Leaders of Bournemouth and Poole Council since this expansion fell within a strategy approved by the South West Regional Assembly on which Dorset Bournemouth and Poole are directly represented. and as a resident of Bournemnouth I found it impossible to ascertain whether Bournemouth Council gave its full approval to the strategy for airport expansion in the full knowledge of the environmental consequences Then I recall that the Bishop of Winchester School in Bournemouth is to be turned into an academy run mainly by the Church of England and we are reminded of the virtues of a Christian education. so where is the applied Chrisianity here when climate change will have devastating consequences for millions of people living in third world countries as sea levels rise and many birda and animal face extinction , not least the majestic polar bear -all gone in the interest Of human domination of our shared planet ?

Do you believe in fairys as well?

Global warming is the biggest con since Religion.

The world has been changing ever since it was created and will continue to change. Nothing to do with a few planes, or are you suggesting B'mouth air festival should be cancelled also??

"global warming is the biggest con since religion, the world has been changing ever since it was created"

If thats the case why do you believe the world was created?

Why do we have to have a reason for the creation of the world, or even the universe, come to that?

Can anyone explain why 5 extra landings could lead to parts of xchurch being flooded,or is gordon cann having a wobbly.

Gordon Cann wrote:

Hurn 2050

Mum whats a polar bear?

Mum whats a song thrush ?

Mum whats a glacier ?

Oh do keep quiet and pass the anti malarial cream

Hello Gordon, are we to presume that you do not fly, ie, take holidays overseas. You do not drive, you do not produce heat at your home. Polar Bears, if they are reducing in numbers is because of the fish stocks being taken by illegal fishing, could be another reason. Song thrushes, get them every day outside my house. Malaria, its been around for years, got it myself in 1986, before any talk on global warming. Oh yes, and by the way, President Obama is asking for a reduction in 2c, whats that, about 3.6f.

Anyway, not a year ago, it was produced at another G Meeting that air travel only contributed to 4% of pollution.

Happy Holidays Gordon.

Its a ******

Well that is 10 minutes of my life that I will not get back again..!!!

What a load of rubbish. When was it a Commercial Airport, when wasnt it. So what. Assuming we all agree that it has been there for at least 30 years, that is plenty of time for you to either get used to it or move on and live in a hut away from civilization.

You must have been horrified when the Spur Road started taking more than 5 cars a day...!!!

I do agree that more should be done to reduce the amount of flights that take off and land outside of socialable times but to take the argument down the road of 'it was never built to take commercial aircraft' just makes you sound stupid and completely unreasonable.

Did you spare a thought for the people who live near Heathrow the last time you flew from there. Considered the people who live by the side of the M3 as you flew by at 5AM to catch your 9AM flight. No you wouldnt have done would you because they chose to live there didnt they.

Re read your posts and then have a good old honest chat with yourself. Is it really as bad as your fingers typing on the keyboard are telling you? Have you really become that grumpy over the years? When was the last time you laughed?

ps The Red Arrows are booked again for the summer. You may want to avoid that day to go to the beach. Wasnt like that in Victorian days!!!!

Ef the ref wrote:

Zzzz wrote:
What's all this about 'grapes were once grown in this country'? They still are, you plonker!

BUT GRAPES ARE NOT GROWN NOW AS FAR NORTH AS THEY ONCE WERE! (spare me from plonkers like you). Perhaps you don't know where Hadrian's Wall is?
Or are you deliberately trying not to understand?

And, please explain how the climate was warmer eons ago, BEFORE man even set foot on this planet.

Man made...NO! Man contributing...maybe

. But, rest assured, climate change has happened many times in the past, it's happening now and it will happen again many times in the future. Those who are arrogant enough to think that us feeble humans can out-think nature are on to a hiding to nothing.
I suggest you take your ice-cube(before it melts) put it in a gin & tonic and relax.

Pardon me. I didn't see your original comment, only someone else's response.

Yes, gradual cyclical climate change happens naturally over the course of millennia and will continue to happen in the future. But the current rate of climate change is more rapid than what would occur naturally (barring an asteroid impact like that which killed off the dinosaurs by causing the release of greenhouse gases which caused rapid global warming).

It's not arrogance to think we can do something about it, it's hope. The alternative is acceptance or our imminent extinction.

Interested in the news re the night flights at Bournemouth Airport as we live directly under the flight path for both takeoff and landing. The current situation is about tolerable as the aircraft fitted with "fan jets" used are much quieter than the older models, however when the pilots bring the planes in really low the noise is not so good. I believe consideration should be given to facts such as Gatwick was in a similar situation some years back, I wonder if residents around the airport wished now they had taken the airport to task to put some sort of cap on traffic and noise?
Could we consider a maximum noise value when exceeded there would be compensation paid to residents, money always focuses the minds!
From my comments you may observe I am not totally against the proposed increase in traffic rather would prefer to see a more cautious and considered approach. What improvements have been proposed for additional road traffic? The local roads are filled to capacity at present or are we faced with the usual council strategy of develop first and maybe the roads later examples Ringwood Road retail park, Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Castle Point to name but three road planning disasters.
The planners records are not exactly brilliant. The formula as in all manufacture and developments being
PLAN, DO, FINE TUNE, AMEND- SUCCESS!!!
not do and hope for the best.

I hope im not the only one who couldnt give a monkeys about global warming.Im quite happy driving my car as much as i like, and i really dont care if half the world goes under water so i can keep doing it. The planet isnt big enough to support the population now, so if mother nature wants to drown a few million, to get the population down, thats fine by me.

Question-
Out of those moaning about noise how many use a plane to go on holiday? 99.9% of you?
Do you all think about the people who live near Gatwick, Heathrow, Southampton airport?
When you have an early or late flight? Do you sit in the travel agent and say "oh we can't go that early as the plane will wake people" No exactly!

It's good for Bounemouth and the area as it will mean more jobs for the airport and industry's associtated with it.

It's called progress deal with it!!!

And yes i have planes coming over my home.

Whilst I agree that if you choose to move near to an airport you cannot complain about the noise however when the authorities decide to expand that airport and change the flight paths which then pass at 1000 ft if not less directly over your home 9 miles away on a constant basis you do have the right to ask questions or complain , I have lived in the Broadstone area on and off for 34 years and have never known it to be this bad. As for those that moan about the emergency sirens and Police Helicopter I think you should ask yourselves why they are sounding, I bet if you needed them you would be less likely to moan.

As the airport will benefit from the proposed night flights they should be prepared to compensate the community why not pay for triple glazing say to off set their pollution

wayneofafcb wrote:
Maybe i missed it, but was the public consulted on this??As another under the flight path, i certianly do NOT welcome more night flights. We only have a gap between 12am and 5 am as it is without flights. I agree on more flights, but there is plenty of time in the day for this. It's bad enough trying to sleep with cars, drunks, etc passing by, and the police helicopter. If this goes ahead, at least vary the flightpath more, maybe let those in Canford Cliffs put up with it!! No doubt those who decide on these matters, never have to put up with the consequences, and live under the flightpath.

Dear Bournemouth Airport

I knew this would happen. You forgot to mention it to Wayne. Not sure how this happened but can you be a bit more careful in future.

Thanks

Jacko

ps Wayne (from his name) is an AFCB supporter. He is available to take all messages from people who live near the ground about the noise and the roads full of cars/people on a matchday. This worries him as much as the airport though his opinion may be different as it does not directly impact on him.!!!

Perhaps Thomson Holidays and First Choice should be forced to pay for the installation of triple glazing to all homes under the flight path before being permitted to commence night flights. That would change their minds sharpish, being faced with a bill of millions of pounds!

Excellent news! If you don't like aircraft noise then don't live near an airport!

i live in kinson and the planes landing dont really bother us,maybe for a matter of seconds during the evening if our windows are open.So many holiday destinations yet so few days annual leave.

Get all the latest disruptions, delays, service cancellations, closures and weather warnings for Bournemouth AirportOr, more recently ( mid 1980's ) under Concorde's take-off path in a little village just west of Heatrow...7pm every evening. Could wave to the pilot from the bedroom window !

WIGGINSv wrote:
Blimey, you should have lived under the flightpath of a Flight of USAF B17's on route to Germany.Now that was a racket.

Ignore the 1st two lines of above posting..it should have been a reply to WIGGINSv comment !

Fantastic news that we are finally getting a better choice of destination, I live near the flight path and the noise will not bother me at night! Its called double glazing..

Zzzz wrote:

Ef the ref wrote:

Zzzz wrote:
What's all this about 'grapes were once grown in this country'? They still are, you plonker!

BUT GRAPES ARE NOT GROWN NOW AS FAR NORTH AS THEY ONCE WERE! (spare me from plonkers like you). Perhaps you don't know where Hadrian's Wall is?
Or are you deliberately trying not to understand?

And, please explain how the climate was warmer eons ago, BEFORE man even set foot on this planet.

Man made...NO! Man contributing...maybe


. But, rest assured, climate change has happened many times in the past, it's happening now and it will happen again many times in the future. Those who are arrogant enough to think that us feeble humans can out-think nature are on to a hiding to nothing.
I suggest you take your ice-cube(before it melts) put it in a gin & tonic and relax.

Pardon me. I didn't see your original comment, only someone else's response.

Yes, gradual cyclical climate change happens naturally over the course of millennia and will continue to happen in the future. But the current rate of climate change is more rapid than what would occur naturally (barring an asteroid impact like that which killed off the dinosaurs by causing the release of greenhouse gases which caused rapid global warming).

It's not arrogance to think we can do something about it, it's hope. The alternative is acceptance or our imminent extinction.

Apologies accepted re: the "grapes"...

However, there is not a shred of evidence to show that the world is heating up at a faster rate than has happened previously. Current theories predict an overall increase of between 2 and 3 degrees over the next century. However, in medieval times the average temperature was 4 degrees warmer than now but we did not have massive floods, species dying out and cities submerged. Mankind actually thrived and prospered. It was only at the start of the mini ice-age that civilization began to falter and we entered the 'dark ages'.

Ef the ref, it appears that any vineyards in northern England were few and short-lived. Ignoring anecdotal reports, the Domesday Book doesn't record any vineyards further north than Ely.

Suggested further reading…
http://tinyurl.com/f
6s6m

And for any other climate change deniers…
http://tinyurl.com/5
rn2e8

No, there's absolutely no scientific evidence that the average temperature was 4 degrees higher in medieval times. And even if it was warmer, it has absolutley no impact on current climate change theory - which does not rely on whether today's temperatures are unprecedented (clearly they are not).

Hooray!! More flights. Im glad as I use the airport a lot and think its great for the people of Bournemouth and surrounding areas. For those that dont like it, MOVE!!!!! I have birds in my garden that are noisier than planes in the morning, should I move to escape them? Would not bother me to live in the flight path. Im just glad that Bournemouth airport is finally being recognised and will now be having a lot more flights.

Hang on a mo, these are flights that are landing, they make hardly no noise at all when landing its taking off which is loud.
I wonder if there will be any complaints about the noise of the airshow ??

Zzzz wrote:
No, there's absolutely no scientific evidence that the average temperature was 4 degrees higher in medieval times. And even if it was warmer, it has absolutley no impact on current climate change theory - which does not rely on whether today's temperatures are unprecedented (clearly they are not).

You said it! THEORY! Which means it's NOT proven.
Tree rings, ice cores, ancient writings, the Venerable Bead ...the evidence is endless and conclusive for a much warmer medieval period. The point of this is that if the earth was warmer 1000 years ago and mankind was NOT responsible then it's quite possible that the same process is repeating itself. The temperature over the last 1000 years has actually been lower than it should be and we are only now returning to more like the average and therefore NORMAL temperatures.

As a global warming believer you may not like it but facts are facts.

I'm old enough to recall when so called 'climate experts' said we were heading for another ice-age and London would be under a mile of ice. Then others said we would all be dead by now because of the ozone hole or we would all die of aids. Well, we're still here...I wonder what the fad will be in another 10 years? Whatever it is, I bet the government will find a way to make money out of it.

Bette not read the latest story...

Plane crashed at Bournemouth Airport after instructor's mistake
7:00pm Thursday 9th July 2009

I was horrified to hear about the night flights. I already get woken up at 5 am most mornings by a flight over Talbot Village. This means I will only get about 3 hours of unbroken sleep in the future! Is there a petition or group against this?

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Dont see the problem with aircraft noise; 30 seconds or less and its gone, bournemouth is never going to be like Gatwick. What is objectionable is the almost constant noise of emergancy vehicles. You can hear them when they are on the other side of town! I sit in my garden and the din is almost constant. Are all these responses entirely necessary! When I was a lad emergency vehicles had a bell on them, you heard them when they were 100 yds away and that was it!

The Bleeding Obvious wrote " When I was a lad emergency vehicles had a bell on them, you heard them when they were 100 yds away and that was it!"
But we never had 100 watt sound systems in our cars then.

nike wrote:
I was horrified to hear about the night flights. I already get woken up at 5 am most mornings by a flight over Talbot Village. This means I will only get about 3 hours of unbroken sleep in the future! Is there a petition or group against this?

Buy some ear plugs or shut your windows!!!

Do your research when you buy a home. If you don't like jet noise (which, to me, is the sound of freedom) then don't buy a home on the approach line to an airport. Before anyone says anything challenging where I live, I would say I live close to the south-east entry point to Bournemouth controlled airspace and the aircraft can fly over me anytime they like...24-7.

Ef the ref wrote:

Zzzz wrote:
No, there's absolutely no scientific evidence that the average temperature was 4 degrees higher in medieval times. And even if it was warmer, it has absolutley no impact on current climate change theory - which does not rely on whether today's temperatures are unprecedented (clearly they are not).

You said it! THEORY! Which means it's NOT proven.
Tree rings, ice cores, ancient writings, the Venerable Bead ...the evidence is endless and conclusive for a much warmer medieval period. The point of this is that if the earth was warmer 1000 years ago and mankind was NOT responsible then it's quite possible that the same process is repeating itself. The temperature over the last 1000 years has actually been lower than it should be and we are only now returning to more like the average and therefore NORMAL temperatures.

As a global warming believer you may not like it but facts are facts.

I'm old enough to recall when so called 'climate experts' said we were heading for another ice-age and London would be under a mile of ice. Then others said we would all be dead by now because of the ozone hole or we would all die of aids. Well, we're still here...I wonder what the fad will be in another 10 years? Whatever it is, I bet the government will find a way to make money out of it.

Actually, in science, a 'theory' is something that is accepted as being proven, unlike a hypothesis or conjecture. Oops.

Anyhow, the vast majority of climate scientists believe this theory to be true. Why you think you know better is anyone's guess. As for your 'ice age' nonsense, it's debunked on the following website…

http://tinyurl.com/c
f8nrf

At the end of the day, you can choose to read it and educate yourself, or continue making a fool of yourself by spouting more ill-informed nonsense.

according to Bournemouth Airport they get between 20 and 30 complaints each month about noise.
Judging by the comments there are a lot of people who just suffer in silence. If there was an issue about noise people should complain to the right people and not just whinge when it becomes a hot topic.

More people complaining will make the authorties think twice before agreeing any change to the status quo

.The Bleeding Obvious wrote..
" What is objectionable is the almost constant noise of emergancy vehicles... I sit in my garden and the din is almost constant."

Perhaps you should stop dialing 999 every 5 minutes !

My two penny worth.

Airport.
So. If you live under the flight path and there is more flight traffic at night, it is annoying.
Until you get used to it, then it becomes acceptable. (Until the next increase).
Move next to a railway station and you cant sleep either, until you get used to it.
A bit like the film “Blues Brothers” really…..

Military Jet Noise
The sound of freedom, and the price too.

Global Warming.
Not matter what the cause, natural or man- made, it is happening. It may be a blip on the historical scale, but surely it can’t hurt to do your best to stop it? Especially if it saves you money at the same time!

Emergency Vehicle Noise Reduction
Put you name down in control and tell them that you DO NOT want them to respond to any emergency you may have at greater than road speed. No problem, no sirens, easy! (Sirens are for the drivers safety, not yours).

Global warming is just the earth evolving, same as it has done for years.

Some things nature has done we all accept as being a good thing like making the IOW so people could marry their sisters in peace.

For the record I dont believe that five extra night time flights in itself will cause flooding in Christchurch but if I understand many of your contributors correctly it would not matter if it did
My point was to widen the argument and point to the crucial role of modern science in our lives; we all enjoy its benefits and ignore its findings on the evidence for global warming.

Allowing for a 30 - 45 minute turn around at the aircrafts destination, all the incoming flights with the exception of Corfu will have taken off sometime in the late afternoon and early evening. The Corfu flight allowing for the same turn around, will have taken off around 1030 - 1100pm, all well inside airport guide lines.

I am intrigued by some comments on new flight paths, there are only two directions into Bournemouth, one is 080 degrees, ie, from the east, and the other is 260 degrees, from the west. Another is about the commercial aspect of the airport, it has been on commercial use for much longer than 30 years. Besides Heathrow, and Farnborough, BIA was in the main the only other airport that could take Concorde with a 2.3K meter runway.

For those against it, or whinge at living under the noise, it is called progress, and it will be good for the area both in work, travel, etc.

Happy Holidays from Bournemouth.

Emulated wrote:
Quote.A spokesperson for Thomson said: “Whilst we always try to minimise the amount of night flights through any airport, we need to balance this with offering an excellent choice of destinations to our customers.” Translation. More profits for a 2nd rate company using old heaps of planes.

You are obviously totally ignorant and know nothing about either of these two airlines.
They both use aicraft only a few years old.
Get your facts right.

Gordon Cann wrote:
For the record I dont believe that five extra night time flights in itself will cause flooding in Christchurch but if I understand many of your contributors correctly it would not matter if it did My point was to widen the argument and point to the crucial role of modern science in our lives; we all enjoy its benefits and ignore its findings on the evidence for global warming.

We can't even get the weather right for the next 20 mins !!
How can we predict what will be happening in a few years time.

You have been conned by those who live in trees and eat beans.

Gordon Cann wrote:
For the record I dont believe that five extra night time flights in itself will cause flooding in Christchurch but if I understand many of your contributors correctly it would not matter if it did My point was to widen the argument and point to the crucial role of modern science in our lives; we all enjoy its benefits and ignore its findings on the evidence for global warming.

There is just as much scientific evidence that Global Warming is a myth and plans to reduce green house gas will not work.

How many of you complaining people took the time to protest at the plannning stage ? .
This is only the start as soon as its open at night in comes the freight planes and they are noisy . Speak out at get heard at the earliest time .Dont wait for them to tell you what is happening. Someone has invested 39p in a new arrivals and departure and they want payback .

Once people believed in gods, then they believed in God spelt with a capital G. now, it seems , they believe in Progress spelt with a capital p
500 years ago it was considered heretical to deny or even question the existence of God; the modern heresy seems to be to question the concept of Progress;so have we really made that much progress . spelt with a small p!!?

I think we should say thanks to the owners of Bournemoutrh Airport for investing a lot of money to make our local airport one to be proud to use , i doubt there is any airport in the country investing in new buildings at the present time, and it may have esaped many people that there have been night flights at bournemouth for many years, the Royal mail flights and flights to jersey take place throughout the night, and now and then late arrivals of passenger jets.
but it will never be another gatwick.

Zzzz wrote:

Ef the ref wrote:

Zzzz wrote:
No, there's absolutely no scientific evidence that the average temperature was 4 degrees higher in medieval times. And even if it was warmer, it has absolutley no impact on current climate change theory - which does not rely on whether today's temperatures are unprecedented (clearly they are not).

You said it! THEORY! Which means it's NOT proven.
Tree rings, ice cores, ancient writings, the Venerable Bead ...the evidence is endless and conclusive for a much warmer medieval period. The point of this is that if the earth was warmer 1000 years ago and mankind was NOT responsible then it's quite possible that the same process is repeating itself. The temperature over the last 1000 years has actually been lower than it should be and we are only now returning to more like the average and therefore NORMAL temperatures.

As a global warming believer you may not like it but facts are facts.

I'm old enough to recall when so called 'climate experts' said we were heading for another ice-age and London would be under a mile of ice. Then others said we would all be dead by now because of the ozone hole or we would all die of aids. Well, we're still here...I wonder what the fad will be in another 10 years? Whatever it is, I bet the government will find a way to make money out of it.

Actually, in science, a 'theory' is something that is accepted as being proven, unlike a hypothesis or conjecture. Oops.

Anyhow, the vast majority of climate scientists believe this theory to be true. Why you think you know better is anyone's guess. As for your 'ice age' nonsense, it's debunked on the following website…

http://tinyurl.com/c

f8nrf

At the end of the day, you can choose to read it and educate yourself, or continue making a fool of yourself by spouting more ill-informed nonsense.

NO! You are wrong AGAIN! A theory is UN PROVEN. When/if it is proven it becomes a FACT. Look up the definition in a dictionary...
"Supposition of ideas...independent of the facts...speculative thought" etc.

I've read your biased website, by the way, and it's mainly nonsense...

Let me put this in very simple terms that even you can understand...

About 1000 years ago the Earth entered a cooling period called the mini ice age. FACT. Temperatures eventually dropped by about 4 degrees. (That's why it is called an ice age. Get it?)
This caused rivers to freeze over (remember reading about the ice fairs on the Thames?), high altitude pastures to remain snow covered year round, crops to fail, animals to die and millions to starve. It caused what is now known as the Dark Ages. Fortunately, mankind was able to adapt albeit with a drastically reduced population. This cooling period lasted until approximately the end of the 19th Century. Temperatures are now simply rising again to the levels they were before we entered this ice age. FACT.

UNDERSTAND NOW?

No, Ef the Ref, what you're spouting is a mishmash of fact and fiction. Basically, it's pub talk, isn't it? Whereas the New Scientist website that you proclaim as 'biased' (after merely skimming through it) is the product of some of the finest scientific minds around. Funnily enough, I find them more believable than you.

Also, if you HAD read the website properly, you'd have discovered that the Little Ice Age was not a single global event but a serious of regional cold spells. So I think we can rule out your (unscientific) theory on that one.

One thing that is FACT: your beliefs are clearly set in stone and so you are not open to reason. Even if every single scientist in the world proclaimed that man-made emissions were a large contributory factor to global warming, you'd still believe otherwise. And I'll tell you why: because you want to. I'm not even 100% certain of man-made global warming causing catastrophic climate change myself, but the probability is high enough, and the possible outcome horrifying enough, to be deeply concerned about it and to try and do something about it. But you would rather bury your head in the sand. Ah well.

BTW You're right about a theory not necessarily being proven. I was thinking of a mathematical theorem. However, there are still strict requirements for something to attain the rank of a 'theory'. And is Newton's universal theory of gravitation 'just a theory'? Mind you, there are even sceptics about that!…
http://www.bringyou.
to/apologetics/p67.h
tm

david barbara wrote:

Gordon Cann wrote:
For the record I dont believe that five extra night time flights in itself will cause flooding in Christchurch but if I understand many of your contributors correctly it would not matter if it did My point was to widen the argument and point to the crucial role of modern science in our lives; we all enjoy its benefits and ignore its findings on the evidence for global warming.

There is just as much scientific evidence that Global Warming is a myth and plans to reduce green house gas will not work.

No there isn't. LOL

If the denial of the evidence for man made global warming, over and above any long term natural cause, is to be stated and accepted as a serious contribution to this debate can those people please tell us what evidence they would require for them to accept the view that human activity has and continues to contribute significantly to global warming .If they cannot do that then there can be no rational argument.

Zzzz wrote:
No, Ef the Ref, what you're spouting is a mishmash of fact and fiction. Basically, it's pub talk, isn't it? Whereas the New Scientist website that you proclaim as 'biased' (after merely skimming through it) is the product of some of the finest scientific minds around. Funnily enough, I find them more believable than you.

Also, if you HAD read the website properly, you'd have discovered that the Little Ice Age was not a single global event but a serious of regional cold spells. So I think we can rule out your (unscientific) theory on that one.

One thing that is FACT: your beliefs are clearly set in stone and so you are not open to reason. Even if every single scientist in the world proclaimed that man-made emissions were a large contributory factor to global warming, you'd still believe otherwise. And I'll tell you why: because you want to. I'm not even 100% certain of man-made global warming causing catastrophic climate change myself, but the probability is high enough, and the possible outcome horrifying enough, to be deeply concerned about it and to try and do something about it. But you would rather bury your head in the sand. Ah well.

It would seem that you are very selective in the facts you choose to believe!

One MORE fact you might find unpalatable...
There is not one shred of evidence that CO2, methane or any other gas except water vapour causes global warming. Check it out!
Many scientists are government sponsored. And how do you get government funding? By doing research into global warming and toeing the government line. So, of course, they are going to perpetuate the myth, otherwise they would be out of job!
As for your comments on the mini ice age...call it what you want but temperatures were still LOWER than today and now they are rising back to what they were.
Try reading all the facts from both sides of the argument and you might learn a thing or two.

Is man-made global warming a scientific fact? No. Most scientists agree that the Earth’s atmosphere warmed by about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C) between 1850 and 1940, then cooled enough to make many scientists worry about another ice age, and finally warmed slightly since 1980 in Siberia and a few other high latitude areas. However, the Earth was much warmer 1000 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period. In fact, when Leif Ericson colonized Greenland in 980 AD, it really was green. But by 1300, the world had entered what historian James Burke calls the “frozen centuries,” which lasted until the middle of the 19th century. In other words, catastrophic man-made global warming is only a theory. It is not supported by evidence, and is backed up only by a few computer models and vast amounts of heated rhetoric.

Ef the ref, I HAVE listened to both sides of the argument… and I conclude that I am 99% sure that man-made global warming is real. But even if it were 25%, I'd still be concerned, considering the possible catastrophic outcome.

To persuade me otherwise, you'd have to come up with something much better than the hackneyed (and easily refuted) points you've made so far.

For example, you state with absolute certainty that the earth was warmer 1,000 years ago, yet in reality there are no accurate temperature records going back that far (only about 150 years), so you're relying on spurious anecdotal evidence (such as the northern English vineyards). Not a good start. Must try harder!

Ef the ref, it's not a fact that only water vapour causes global warming either! True, it is responsible for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect. But since CO2 accounts for 25%, it's clear that the massive increase in emissions in the past few decades will have caused extra warming. Not only that, but this warming then causes MORE WATER VAPOUR to be absorbed into the atmosphere, causing further warming - by your own admission! Also, while water vapour will eventually fall as rain or snow, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 50-200 years.

In short, the argument you make about water vapour is misleading.

Zzzz wrote:
Ef the ref, I HAVE listened to both sides of the argument… and I conclude that I am 99% sure that man-made global warming is real. But even if it were 25%, I'd still be concerned, considering the possible catastrophic outcome.

To persuade me otherwise, you'd have to come up with something much better than the hackneyed (and easily refuted) points you've made so far.

For example, you state with absolute certainty that the earth was warmer 1,000 years ago, yet in reality there are no accurate temperature records going back that far (only about 150 years), so you're relying on spurious anecdotal evidence (such as the northern English vineyards). Not a good start. Must try harder!

Well, you've stuck with it this far so here goes...

What about recent scientific reports? There’s a big difference between what the full reports say, and what the summaries, press releases and news stories say. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council) used the words “uncertain” and “uncertainty” 43 times in a 28-page April 2001 report; its basic conclusion was that “a causal linkage between the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.”
The summary and news release, however, left out most of this uncertainty and claimed global temperatures could rise significantly by 2100, triggering floods, droughts, rising sea levels and other calamities. The news media trumpeted these worst-case scenarios, ignored sceptical scientists, and proclaimed that global warming is real, is getting worse, is due to man, and requires immediate drastic action. The same thing happened in October 2000, when a dramatic press release claimed the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had predicted that global temperatures “could” rise by “as much as” 10 degrees F by 2100.

Don’t temperature records show significant warming? Satellite, weather balloon and non-urban ground data reveal no appreciable atmospheric warming since 1979, except in Alaska and Siberia, at night, in mid-winter. The observed warming cited by news stories, certain scientists and many environmental groups is very likely tainted by errors associated with “urban heat island” effects that come from taking ground-based measurements near airports or heavily populated areas.

But don’t climate models predict much higher temperatures? Terrifying predictions that global temperatures could soar as much as 10 degrees F (5.8 degrees C) by the end of this century are based on worst case scenarios that assume soaring worldwide energy demands will be met primarily by burning fossil fuels (rather than with new technologies), causing air emissions to skyrocket. These numbers are then used in climate models that cannot even replicate last year’s temperatures, or forecast global or regional climate one year in the future. Finally, out of 245 possible outcomes from various climate models, a small cadre of scientists and political appointees have chosen the ones with the highest temperature forecasts, and used these projections in press releases and “summaries for policy makers.”
In reality, existing climate models are useless as predictors, and even more worthless as a basis for public policy. Our atmosphere, weather and climate are so complex that meteorologists have only a rudimentary grasp of what actually causes storms, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps and climate conditions that have changed many times over the centuries.
Satellites, weather balloons and other instruments have provided consistently accurate data about temperature, carbon dioxide, precipitation, jet streams and storm severity for only the last 25 years. And as astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas and other experts have pointed out, even our best computers are not powerful enough to model the planet’s atmosphere accurately, even if we did have the meteorological knowledge and long-term climate data that we currently lack.

Is global warming melting glaciers and polar ice caps? No. The World Glacier Monitoring Service says most glaciers have been receding for some 150 years, since global temperatures began rising around 1850. However, since 1989 (when global warming theory argues that more glaciers should be retreating), half of 627 mountain glaciers the Service has been measuring have been advancing. The West Greenland glacier – the largest block of ice in the Northern Hemisphere – has grown seven feet in depth since 1980, according to a paper in Geophysical Research Letters. Claims that open waters were observed in the Arctic Ocean for the first time in recorded history were retracted after the U.S. Navy pointed out that this happens every summer, and a melting Icelandic glacier turned out to be due, not to global warming, but to volcanic activity beneath the glacier.

Is there a scientific consensus that global warming is real? No. An American Viewpoint poll found that a majority of U.S. state climatologists disagree with the statement that “human activities are already disrupting the global climate.” By a 44% to 17% margin, they stated that global warming is a “natural phenomenon,” and 60% say reducing man-made carbon dioxide will do nothing to prevent global temperatures from rising because CO2 and other ‘so called’ greenhouse gasses are the RESULT of global warming, NOT the CAUSE of it. Indeed, more believe there is a better chance of another “ice age” than global warming. A study by the Meteorologists Institute Universitat Hamburg and GKKS Forchungszentrium targeted 400 climatologists in Germany, Canada, and the U.S. Only 23% in Canada, 13% in Germany, and 3% in the U.S. “strongly agree” that the “global warming process is already underway.” Nearly 100 scientists have signed the Leipzig Declaration, expressing their doubts about the validity of computer-driven global warming forecasts. And Over 17,000 scientists (including hundreds of climate experts) have signed the Oregon Petition, saying they see “no convincing scientific evidence” that humans are disrupting the earth’s climate. The truth is, there are fewer consensuses today than there has ever been.

Is global warming causing more severe weather? No. After examining relevant historical weather data, interviewing scientists and reviewing pertinent literature, the respected Accu-Weather, Inc., concluded that “no convincing evidence exists that hurricanes, violent tornadoes, and other extreme events are any more common today than they were 50 or 100 years ago.” The worst tornado ever to hit the U.S. was the mile-wide tri-state twister; it lasted 3 hours, killed 700 people and levelled entire communities along its 220-mile path – in 1925. The greater attention being paid to severe weather events may simply reflect the fact that the news media can now report more quickly on storms all over the globe – and are strongly inclined to promote catastrophic global warming theories. In fact, a recent study by the Media Research Center found that 86% of U.S. network television news reporters and sources expressed the view that global warming is a dire threat. European news stories are even more likely to view global warming theory as reality.

OK?

Zzzz wrote:
Ef the ref, it's not a fact that only water vapour causes global warming either! True, it is responsible for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect. But since CO2 accounts for 25%, it's clear that the massive increase in emissions in the past few decades will have caused extra warming. Not only that, but this warming then causes MORE WATER VAPOUR to be absorbed into the atmosphere, causing further warming - by your own admission! Also, while water vapour will eventually fall as rain or snow, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 50-200 years.

In short, the argument you make about water vapour is misleading.

Not at all misleading as CO2 and methane are the result of global warming, NOT the cause of global warming. Don't put the cart before the horse!

One crucial point seems to have been overlooked in this discusaion on whether the increase in the earth's temperature over the past few years is a man made phenomena or arises from natural causes. and that is the fact, according to the UN Environment Programme Report published earlier this year, that the world's glaciers are melting rapidly and that this spells diaaster for the millions of people whose rivers and water supplies are so closely iinked to the water stored in these glaciers which feed their rivers and agriultural systems. Call it man made or a natural phenomena it spells disaster for many millions of people, not least those whose rivers , as in China are the essential condition for their food supply.

If those who believe in the man made theory are correct the worst their opponents will experience is a delay in realising their economic expectations. but if they are wrong then the trend towards the total meltdown of the world glaciers will continue with all the social and economoic misery that will follow and from which this country will not be isolated as world food prices rise. .

For both scientific and moral reasons I believe the man made theory should command the support of all those concerned with the future of our planet.

Re: the point about global cooling since 1940s, it can be accounted for by a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, which have a cooling effect as they reflect the sun's energy back into space. The rise in sulphate aerosol levels was mainly due to increased industrial activity after World War II. Various clean air acts in the 1960s and 1970s resulted in much reduced sulphate aerosol levels, which could account for the rapid warming since, as the greenhouse effect was no longer mitigated by this cooling effect.

Gordon Cann wrote:
One crucial point seems to have been overlooked in this discusaion on whether the increase in the earth's temperature over the past few years is a man made phenomena or arises from natural causes. and that is the fact, according to the UN Environment Programme Report published earlier this year, that the world's glaciers are melting rapidly and that this spells diaaster for the millions of people whose rivers and water supplies are so closely iinked to the water stored in these glaciers which feed their rivers and agriultural systems. Call it man made or a natural phenomena it spells disaster for many millions of people, not least those whose rivers , as in China are the essential condition for their food supply.

If those who believe in the man made theory are correct the worst their opponents will experience is a delay in realising their economic expectations. but if they are wrong then the trend towards the total meltdown of the world glaciers will continue with all the social and economoic misery that will follow and from which this country will not be isolated as world food prices rise. .

For both scientific and moral reasons I believe the man made theory should command the support of all those concerned with the future of our planet.

But ARE they melting (ALL of them?)?

QUOTE:
Is global warming melting glaciers and polar ice caps? "No. The World Glacier Monitoring Service says most glaciers have been receding for some 150 years, since global temperatures began rising around 1850. However, since 1989 (when global warming theory argues that more glaciers should be retreating), half of 627 mountain glaciers the Service has been measuring have been advancing. The West Greenland glacier – the largest block of ice in the Northern Hemisphere – has grown seven feet in depth since 1980, according to a paper in Geophysical Research Letters. Claims that open waters were observed in the Arctic Ocean for the first time in recorded history were retracted after the U.S. Navy pointed out that this happens every summer, and a melting Icelandic glacier turned out to be due, not to global warming, but to volcanic activity beneath the glacier."

Zzzz wrote:
Re: the point about global cooling since 1940s, it can be accounted for by a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, which have a cooling effect as they reflect the sun's energy back into space. The rise in sulphate aerosol levels was mainly due to increased industrial activity after World War II. Various clean air acts in the 1960s and 1970s resulted in much reduced sulphate aerosol levels, which could account for the rapid warming since, as the greenhouse effect was no longer mitigated by this cooling effect.

So, temperatures back to near normal then.

No, Ef the ref, that ISN'T good enough! Why not answer my points rather than copying and pasting a ream of text? The fact that you are trying to pass this off as your own work, rather than giving it a proper credit and source, says a lot about your character and the way you seek to mislead.

Zzzz wrote:
No, Ef the ref, that ISN'T good enough! Why not answer my points rather than copying and pasting a ream of text? The fact that you are trying to pass this off as your own work, rather than giving it a proper credit and source, says a lot about your character and the way you seek to mislead.

You really are becoming a pain in the a**, aren't you!

I NEVER said all the info was mine did I? Please show me where I did. If you can't then I suggest you shut up!

I obtain information the same as everyone else...by reading, surfing the web and listening to all the evidence, then I make up my own mind.
But there's obviously no point in presenting any evidence to you that undermines/contradic
ts your precious global warming nonsense. And what points did you make that want answering?

Gordon Cann: “If those who believe in the man made theory are correct the worst their opponents will experience is a delay in realising their economic expectations. but if they are wrong then the trend towards the total meltdown of the world glaciers will continue with all the social and economoic misery that will follow and from which this country will not be isolated as world food prices rise.”

Spot on, Gordon. The sceptics are mainly selfish people who don't want to change their lifestyles one iota. As I said, even if man-made climate change was to be proven 100%, they would still deny it.

They shouldn't be taken any more seriously than holocaust deniers or moon-landings deniers. Let these selfish overgrown children throw their silly tantrums, while we the grown-ups get on with trying to deal with a very serious challenge.

Ef the ref wrote:

Zzzz wrote:
No, Ef the ref, that ISN'T good enough! Why not answer my points rather than copying and pasting a ream of text? The fact that you are trying to pass this off as your own work, rather than giving it a proper credit and source, says a lot about your character and the way you seek to mislead.

You really are becoming a pain in the a**, aren't you!

I NEVER said all the info was mine did I? Please show me where I did. If you can't then I suggest you shut up!

I obtain information the same as everyone else...by reading, surfing the web and listening to all the evidence, then I make up my own mind.
But there's obviously no point in presenting any evidence to you that undermines/contradic

ts your precious global warming nonsense. And what points did you make that want answering?

You never said it wasn't your own work! If you make a post containing someone else's work, you have a duty to credit the source.

I've countered numerous points that you've made, yet it appears that you have no comeback other than to hurl insults. Oh dear.

We seem to be approaching checkmate - the world's glaciers are retreating (see the UN report already referred to )

I know one thing that has been overlooked. The story is about additional night flights into and out of Bournemouth International Airport. However, once again, it has been commandeered by that ever bleeting story of Global Warming.

Can we get back to the correct story please, if anyone can remember what it was.

Incidentally, Manchester Airport Group (MAG) is a serious bidder for Gatwick Airport when it is sold off. MAG also own Bournemouth. No doubt in future times to come we will see more aircraft coming in and out of Bournemouth.

But then of course the other story tellers know that only 4% of pollution is attributed to air travel.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS. I am going to drive my car to the airport, take a plane, and hire a care when I get there. lol lol

Chris... wrote:
I know one thing that has been overlooked. The story is about additional night flights into and out of Bournemouth International Airport. However, once again, it has been commandeered by that ever bleeting story of Global Warming.

Can we get back to the correct story please, if anyone can remember what it was.

Incidentally, Manchester Airport Group (MAG) is a serious bidder for Gatwick Airport when it is sold off. MAG also own Bournemouth. No doubt in future times to come we will see more aircraft coming in and out of Bournemouth.

But then of course the other story tellers know that only 4% of pollution is attributed to air travel.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS. I am going to drive my car to the airport, take a plane, and hire a care when I get there. lol lol

Enjoy it while you can. Air travel is likely to get a whole lot more expensive after oil production peaks.

I live in the flight path of Bournemouth Airport and we have planes pass over our home already at 01:30 every morning/night as well as others later and earlier. Was at the Farnborough airshow and the new double decker air bus is vitually noiseless which I founs truly amazing. So if the future is of these air crafts then you would not even know you lived near an airport.

In our ultra competitive world where "profit is king", it is a requirement of Airline owners for all their aircraft to be airborne for as long and as often as possbile. The airlines pay taxes to the Government, it follows that the government also want the aircraft in the air for as long and as often as possible. The issue of night landing/take off noise is not unique to Bournemouth Airport. The Governement defines "night" as 11pm to 7am, the current measured "night quota" at Heathrow runs from 11.30pm to 6am 7 days per week. During this 6 1/2 hours Heathrow is allowed an average of 16 landings per night, with no scheduled take-offs permitted. As far as I am aware Bournemouth has no restrictions at all on night-flights, take-offs or landings, be warned!

The 2002 European Noise Directive requires Governments to measure aircraft noise at night. The World Health Organisation says the maximum noise from a passing aircraft at night should be no more than 60 decibels. If our Government implemented this directive it would prevent all night flights in the UK. Our Government has signed up to World Health Organisation standards but for the time being seems to cherry pick only those directives which suit its own purpose. The Human Rights Convention guarantees a person's "right to respect for private and family life and home" and for the "peaceful enjoyment" of their home.

The Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch conurbation which has 350,000 residents who may all be affected by nightime aircraft noise ought to be a powerful lobby, in reality however it is not. Our representatives in Government will, like as not, spend what's left of their terms in office adding up their receipts to justify expenses claims or thinking up ways to convince the electorate they are worth re-electing, if only for the sake of their servants.

Another point worth noting is that the New Forest which lies to the east of the airport is now a National Park and will enjoy the highest level of protection, that is to say that night-time aircraft noise is unlikely to be tolerated at all, requiring the pilots to climb quickly/noisily when taking off in that direction. This would increase the percentage of flights over areas such as Kinson, High Howe and Canford Heath and Poole.

Our government argues that business (airlines) will be adversely affected by preventing night flights. In 2001 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that night-flights between 2330 and 0600 violated the human rights of eight people living around the Heathrow by disturbing their sleep, but our government has won an appeal against that ruling. It said an end to night flights would have a major impact on British airlines (16 landings per night), and give rival European companies an unfair advantage. This not withstanding the fact that Zurich, Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Tokyo enjoy full night-time passenger curfews of 7-8 hours. If a case were presented now on behalf of those residents of Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole affected by night flights this "major impact' argument couldn't stand.

Those potentially affected by night flights from Bournemouth should consider their options: Contact their local councillors, Lobby their MP's (for what that might be worth), contact Friends of the Earth who have also shown an interest in political lobbying on the night-flight issue, perhaps even start their own Clear Skies (whose chairman John Stewart said: “There is much less background noise at night so aircraft shatter the silence even if they have been equipped with quieter engines.”). They may also voice their opinions to Thomson Holidays and First Choice.

I don't live under the flightpath and am unlikely to be affected by the noise generated by nightflights from Bournemouth. However, I think It would be nice if those who don't suffer from insomnia and/or stressful sleep patterns spared a thought for and supported those who do.