CoolP wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 3:54pm:

I didn't take your statement as being Concorde related, it looked more like a general one to me. However, do you have any reference on this one? Quote: most things I have read on the Concorde do mention environmental concerns as a reason that SST's are not practical and why the Concorde is no longer in service. [quote] so you can imagine the kinds of protests the Concorde could stir up.

Well, lets say I know pretty much about the 'protests' and their topics within the Concorde era, maybe that's why your new fact base now raises questions. Maybe I was missing some vital data until now though.
I could name some environmental concerns regarding that old plane, but I'm mainly surprised about the context you are using them so far, which is a new one for me.  Hence the question regarding references.[/quote]


I agree with CoolP. Plus, since barely 1% of the world's carbon emissions are a result of all commercial aviation from around the world, I'd doubt even 200 SST's would budge anything.

In the 80's they thought the world was going to freeze over, now its melting. Our weather models (five of them here in the U.S) can't accurately predict the weather for a week from now half the time; how on earth are we supposed to be able to predict what the earth will do in 10 years, 100 years or 1,000 years? Its absurd. Politicians are making it like a religion, to get money, followers, and start a 'cause' that will lead them towards the office they seek. In 2009, when Britain's parliment approved the first major act that helps the environment to combat global warming, it snowed in London, in October, for the first time since like 1896. Yeah, global warming, a load of B.S I think.