The General Drone-Related Thread

Messages
3,082
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
A thermometer 100 years ago was pretty much Identical to ones made today certainly accurate within a 1/10 of a degree. Even 200 years ago they were already standardised. and extremely accurate.
The first crude thermometers were invented in 1593, while the first standardised thermometer was by Fahrenheit in 1724, followed by the universal Centigrade scale in 1742. ( the USA is one of the very few countries that still use the older Fahrenheit scale) The first quick reading clinical thermometer was invented in 1866.

Al Gore has been proved right. The sea levels are rising and land is becoming flooded.

The fools are the deniers.

If it were not for the Flood defences and the Thames tidal Barrier London would indeed have been flooded long ago.
....and the proof this has been caused by humans?
Are statistics taken over 300 years a good sample of the last 5 billion years? (It's poorer statistically than asking one adult how they voted in the general election and taking his vote as the result!).
Is not believing Politicians foolish?

These are a good series of talks to show how 'The environmentalists' are causing a totalitarian belief on faked scientific research and miss quoted statistics:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGqcweY1a3I
 
Last edited:

arclight

Oooh that burglar's a cutie
Messages
10,766
Name
Doug
Edit My Images
Yes
the engines can be (they'd have to be hit just right) but losing one on final would be a disaster
No, not quite. A jet will land safely on one engine. Passenger jets with two engines are required to be able to maintain a safe take off if they lose one engine at the most critical time, i.e, right when they committed to take off (not enough runway left to stop). The remaining engine can produce more than sufficient thrust to climb safely.
Landing aircraft are using very low power and one engine can handle an aborted landing.

Although getting someone's Christmas turkey injested would not do much good for the digestion of those on board.
 
Messages
21,965
Edit My Images
Yes
No there isn't any video. The police have confirmed that is the case. Second paragraph in, and widely reported in other sources including the BBC article in this thread.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...igation-footage-couple-released-a8697306.html

They also commented about the eyewitnesses in the same article
Actually:

The suggestion there may not have been any drones at Gatwick Airport was a "miscommunication by police", a government source has told the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714
 
Messages
2,169
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
....and the proof this has been caused by humans?
Are statistics taken over 300 years a good sample of the last 5 billion years? (It's poorer statistically than asking one adult how they voted in the general election and taking his vote as the result!).
Is not believing Politicians foolish?

These are a good series of talks to show how 'The environmentalists' are causing a totalitarian belief on faked scientific research and miss quoted statistics:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGqcweY1a3I
You probably believe in fairies too :(
 
Messages
3,082
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
You probably believe in fairies too :(
I usually don't resort to insults in debates either! This is exactly one of the points raised; the environmentalists just result to throwing insults when their point of view is questioned! I did state in my first post that I am not convinced either way.

http://www.cfact.org/2017/11/30/stu...-acceleration-in-global-warming-for-23-years/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/12/satellites-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-8-months/

There are arguments supporting all theories; all valid, but there are very strong reasons for people making money from taxes to support the climate change theory.

.........oh, the Acid Rain of the 1970's & 80's:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...arming-hysteria-is-pouring-down/#21ae12d553fc
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,082
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
.........Something else to consider, this is all since 1970!

The Irish Times said:
Acid rain was succeeded by the "hole in the ozone layer" as the next environmental worry, which in turn was pushed off the stage by global warming. Oops, I forgot! Just before global warming we briefly worried about global cooling, causing drought, famine, frozen oceans etc, fears triggered by a small dip in average northern hemisphere temperatures from 1940 to mid-1970s. As the fella said - "You'd have to wonder".
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,082
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
Not really. As an example if (heaven forbid) you presented with meningitis, you’d be treated as if it had both a bacterial and a viral cause until tests had confirmed the cause.

That is exactly what I am saying though Hugh (I think I/We may have miss construed each others posts?) - you may be treated for possible infections but you wouldn't be told the actual diagnosis until the tests confirmed it.

Isn't that the same as the Police 'treating the threat as real' even though it might not be?

Keeping an open mind during an investigation usually leads to the best results.
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,496
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
The planet went through several climate changes well before we appeared.
All before cars, planes and industry came along.

I’d be far more worried about nuclear waste, air quality, material misuse, fracking in relation to subsidence, mining, landfill and plastic dumping.

Those truly concerned with CO2 should also be more mindful of the consequences of deforestation.
 
Messages
3,082
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
Miscommunication - more amateurism.

Seriously if a drone flies over someplace it shouldn’t be just shoot it.
Hitting a drone at several hundred yards is the stuff movies are made of Steve - it is as good as impossible to hit! that would look very amateurish! Not quite sure why you think the Police keeping an open mind is amateurish?
 
Messages
2,169
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I usually don't resort to insults in debates either! This is exactly one of the points raised; the environmentalists just result to throwing insults when their point of view is questioned! I did state in my first post that I am not convinced either way.

http://www.cfact.org/2017/11/30/stu...-acceleration-in-global-warming-for-23-years/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/12/satellites-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-8-months/

There are arguments supporting all theories; all valid, but there are very strong reasons for people making money from taxes to support the climate change theory.

.........oh, the Acid Rain of the 1970's & 80's:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...arming-hysteria-is-pouring-down/#21ae12d553fc
Sorry, I missed your earlier post and haven’t read it yet. “Fairies” was not meant as an insult but I do notice that people who don’t “believe” in climate change (anthropogenic or not) do tend to be those who believe in fairies - of various kinds;)

I’m not sure how we got to climate change from drones but I think it doesn’t really matter whether.we “believe” in it because our behaviour should be the same either way, particularly investing in renewables, conservation of natural resources etc. especially because rage oil, gas and coal are owned by the likes of Russia, Saudi and China - Australia may own the coal but a China is on the way to buying Australia :( .
 
Messages
1,238
Edit My Images
Yes
That depends on which side of the argument you listen to! There are as many (in fact more) arguments to say that global warming is a myth and is being encouraged by Western governments so they can heavily tax all fossil fuels etc (hence all studies supporting it get massive Govt. funding but those stating its not happening get no funding what so ever!) - who knows what the real truth is - I don't believe anything I'm told anymore.

Remember David Bellamy who was 'ostracised' for stating climate change was all 'poppycock!':

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-shunned-they-didnt-want-to-hear-8449307.html
Bellamy has since accepted that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times in 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming"
So, the basis for his climate change denial was wrong. In fact the article he quoted did not exist.

News this week that the Greenland ice shelf at great risk.

Climate change deniers would probably have burned witches a few hundred years ago.
 
Messages
2,274
Name
Rick
Edit My Images
No
I'm not sure anyone is denying climate change is happening are they, the facts (as they are portrayed) are as they are, the but for me is, this has happened before, and thousands of years before cars, planes and other man made pollutants. As has been stated elsewhere, the question is what contribution the human race is having on this?

It's clearly an emotive subject, and is probably worth a thread on its own for those who want to argue about it.

I'm not sure it's necessary to rubbish other people's opinions as they differ, but I guess that is the prerogative of users on a forum :)
 
Messages
1,410
Edit My Images
Yes
Any chance we can take this thread back to drones ??
 
Messages
2,169
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
That depends on which side of the argument you listen to! There are as many (in fact more) arguments to say that global warming is a myth and is being encouraged by Western governments so they can heavily tax all fossil fuels etc
The problem I have with this is that you conspiracy theorists think governments are engaged in huge complex operations to deceive us and yet we can see that most of them, especially ours, can’t organise a p*** up in a brewery ;) .
 
Messages
2,169
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I'm not sure anyone is denying climate change is happening are they, the facts (as they are portrayed) are as they are, the but for me is, this has happened before, and thousands of years before cars, planes and other man made pollutants. As has been stated elsewhere, the question is what contribution the human race is having on this?

It's clearly an emotive subject, and is probably worth a thread on its own for those who want to argue about it.

I'm not sure it's necessary to rubbish other people's opinions as they differ, but I guess that is the prerogative of users on a forum :)
The problem here is that you claim that climate has always been changing but what is your basis got this? Oh! ... climate scientists have discovered it;) but then you rubbish their other findings because you don’t like them :(
 
Messages
3,082
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
2,274
Name
Rick
Edit My Images
No
The problem here is that you claim that climate has always been changing but what is your basis got this? Oh! ... climate scientists have discovered it;) but then you rubbish their other findings because you don’t like them :(
I think it's different to show that climate has changed in the past, to then saying it has been caused by humans. I don't like or dislike the findings, I am just not 100% convinced that it is as clear cut as made out. I am currently studying for a degree, which includes an Environmental Management element, and the spin that different tutors put on things can vary immensely, as can the perception of the students on the course from lesson to lesson.

It reminds me of something else which has been in the news for the last couple of years! ;)
 
Messages
9,300
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
....and the proof this has been caused by humans?
Are statistics taken over 300 years a good sample of the last 5 billion years? (It's poorer statistically than asking one adult how they voted in the general election and taking his vote as the result!).
Is not believing Politicians foolish?

These are a good series of talks to show how 'The environmentalists' are causing a totalitarian belief on faked scientific research and miss quoted statistics:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGqcweY1a3I

Well, I'm half way through the Good Lord's speech and I don't think I've ever heard such a load of drivel in my life.

I wonder what his background is?
 
Messages
1,410
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
2,169
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Well, I'm half way through the Good Lord's speech and I don't think I've ever heard such a load of drivel in my life.

I wonder what his background is?
According to Wikipedia he’s a ‘kipper, fantasist (or liar) and snake oil salesman, great combination ;)

Edit: to add missing apostrophe ;)
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,300
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
According to Wikipedia he’s a kipper, fantasist (or liar) and snake oil salesman, great combination ;)

Yes, I did have a look at that. Life's too short to look at the second half of his speech. Or maybe it's a comedy routine?

incidentally, the link to the new thread doesn't work for me.......
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,496
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
The problem I have with this is that you conspiracy theorists think governments are engaged in huge complex operations to deceive us and yet we can see that most of them, especially ours, can’t organise a p*** up in a brewery ;) .
That’s the big deception. ;)

Our government, despite our wishes, is on a very deliberate course of action. Be seen to do one thing, but do quite another.
 
Messages
2,169
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
That’s the big deception. ;)

Our government, despite our wishes, is on a very deliberate course of action. Be seen to do one thing, but do quite another.
I prefer the cock-up to the conspiracy theory of politics and that has been borne out by history, sadly :mad: . Look for example at The Great War, or WW1 as it turned out to be.
 
Messages
6,194
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
The planet went through several climate changes well before we appeared.
Absolutely.... and we know why, and what caused them. they are not just random happenings.
We also know why we are going through the present warming, and it is down to changes made by man.
 
Top