Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[MarkBrooks]

I often don't agree with your opinions on things on this forum, but this was hilarious and amazing.

Literally more than a dozen references cited, here is a condensed picture version for the instagram folks. But I am fascinated by what motivates your trolling? Why promote such a fallacy that no references where provided? Why are you not embarrassed?

most curious.

 

[Northern Light]

Literally more than a dozen references cited, here is a condensed picture version for the instagram folks. But I am fascinated by what motivates your trolling? Why promote such a fallacy that no references where provided? Why are you not embarrassed?

most curious.View attachment 335653

Stop!

Mark, if you don't understand that you have not one single accurate citation there, then you are beyond hope. If you do, then you're being willfully misleading.

A correct citation directly attributes each cited fact to a source.
As a starting point, you have not done that.
You've listed a raft of supposed sources without linking them to any particular item in your piece.

Read up on Foot Notes and End Notes and how they work.
You clearly lack the requisite understanding.

***

Secondarily, you've cited references which may support some of your assertions, but don't support your conclusions.
I don't understand what you fail to grasp here.

Watch this:

"Mark Brooks often spews irrelevant and misleading information { see post 1831 in this thread); therefore the Sun is purple with green polka-dots. "

Clearly, the first part of my statement is true, and directly supported by the evidence of your own words.
The second part, however, is absurd, because none of the evidence I have proffered supports that conclusion.
The fact of citing a source, about a fact, assuming you got that right, does not mean the conclusion you drew from that fact is correct.

Nothing you cite, we're it true, represents evidence that Pickering Airport should happen, or will happen.
It may happen one day, that's a different issue; but it won't happen because of anything you've posted, or on any timeline you've dreamed up.
Either way, none of us care about what you have to say; we care about the time and energy you waste trolling here.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Stop!

Mark, if you don't understand that you have not one single accurate citation there, then you are beyond hope. If you do, then your willfully being misleading.

A correct citation directly attributes each cited fact to a source.
As a starting point, you have not done that.
You've listed a raft of supposed sources without linking them to any particular item in your piece.

Read up on Foot Notes and End Notes and how they work.
You clearly lack the requisite understanding.

***

Secondarily, you've cited references which may support some of your assertions, but don't support your conclusions.
I don't understand what you fail to grasp here.

Watch this:

"Mark Brooks often spews irrelevant and misleading information { see post 1831 in this thread); therefore the Sun is purple with green polka-dots. "

Clearly, the first part of my statement is true, and directly supported by the evidence of your own words.
The second part, however, is absurd, because none of the evidence I have proffered supports that conclusion.
The fact of citing a source, about a fact, assuming you got that right, does not mean the conclusion you drew from that fact is correct.

Nothing you cite, we're it true, represents evidence that Pickering Airport should happen, or will happen.
It may happen one day, that's a different issue; but it won't happen because of anything you've posted, or on any timeline you've dreamed up.
Either way, none of us care about what you have to say; we care about the time and energy you waste trolling here.

I am here for one simple reason, to seek out and understand different points of view. We live in a fragmented world of extremes where censorship, or the shout down is considered acceptable ( see above). Where people go out of their way to avoid or shout down anything that does not reinforce their own views.

If our society is to function, these gaps need to be bridged.

Thank-you for demonstrating the problem For all to see.

 

[Northern Light]

I am here for one simple reason, to seek out and understand different points of view. We live in a fragmented world of extremes where censorship, or the shout down is considered acceptable ( see above). Where people go out of their way to avoid or shout down anything that does not reinforce their own views.

If our society is to function, these gaps need to be bridged.

Thank-you for demonstrating the problem For all to see.

Mark, I did not raise my voice, literally or figuratively.
I asked you, as I often have, to stop trolling.

You can read as many different views as you like w/o posting.

You can also post when you have actual news, real new information, facts that people don't already know, something that might contribute to the discussion..........

But that's not what you post. You regurgitate your own views again, and again, and again.

You gain nothing from the views of others; in which you have no demonstrable interest.
You only come here to proselytize and antagonize.

At any rate, I'll move along until you get banned here for this nonsense.........

 

[kEiThZ]

I wish the mods would ban this troll. He isn't here to discuss the Pickering Airport. He is here to advocate for it. And in the worst possible way too.

 

[kEiThZ]

@AlvinofDiaspar Could you please at least warn Mr. Brooks about this trolling, including promoting his own website?

 

[Irishmonk]

His posts and the rebuttals he elicits are amusing in a clown slipping on a banana peel kind of way. I think he must enjoy the attention and considers all the derision a form of applause. Unfortunately this thread is no longer about the Pickering Airport proposal but, rather, a solo stage performance signifying nothing..

Perhaps the entire thread should be shut down for a few months or until there is some actual news about the topic.

 

[micheal_can]

Disprove my sources, you can start with the ICAO numbers. ( International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations Agency) or perhaps with the NACC (.National Airlines Council of Canada ).

If You posted unbiased sources, I would then have something to be able to work with. Remember how the Tobacco industry got sued for ling? The oil companies are in the midst of that too. So, an airline source that is from another airline, like United, is not a credible source. Did you fail High School English?

Some good questions:

The advantages of air transportation over road is stark on both a regulatory and a technology level.

Air travel is governed by a high regulated combination of federal authorities from each country working together at an international level through ICAO. Long term this enables enforcement of strict operating guidelines and emissions targets. For instance while the CORSIA offset program is voluntary today it become mandatory in 2028.

The SAF ramp up target is ambitious but doable and has long term financial benefits as well as emissions ones. This includes secure locally produced fuel supplies from waste products, and the fact that SAF is just a better fuel with a better energy density per pound.

On the technology front, while electric cars have made great strides, and some states and even nations will enforce that all new road vehicles will need to be electric, this is still a minority of vehicles worldwide. There is no international authority enforcing or providing incentives to move completely to electric. I am a long term EV owner ( one of the original Chevy volts in Canada) and the lack of progress has been discouraging, but at least there is progress.

Electric and hybrid electric Aviation is on its way, and could dominate new aircraft delivery’s by 2040, but Aviations real road to carbon neutrality is the not so secret ability of existing jets engines to burn almost anything.

While today’s gasoline powered piston engine cars and trucks require a highly refined fuel supply, (automotive biofuels eat into food production feed stock such as corn ethanol), SAF can be made from everything from sewage to wood waste.

While diesel cars and trucks have less stringent tolerances, you still have the problem that road transportation consumes 10 times the fuel that aviation does. Also gasoline powered cars and trucks are the dominate type in production today with no end in sight. These legacy gasoline powered vehicles would require a huge agricultural land foot print to support. Given that people like to eat, and that legacy gasoline cars and trucks are still being produced around the world with no way to mandate an end to production, there is no point in the future where road transportation can achieve net carbon zero.

In contrast the ICAO road map for net carbon zero by 2050 is backed by the teeth of an international United Nations agency and federal aviation regulators around the world. While shifting a trillion dollar aviation industry to net carbon zero will be a historic feat, it is doable. Not so much for road transportation.

Show me an aircraft that can carry over 100 people and have the range to cross the Pacific nonstop that is 100% electric and I will agree with you. Right now, in you Chevy, you could drive to Vancouver and make it without needing a tow or charge outside of normal charging stations. That is net zero. Planes are not there yet, and we all know it.

I often don't agree with your opinions on things on this forum, but this was hilarious and amazing.

Thank you?

I am here for one simple reason, to seek out and understand different points of view. We live in a fragmented world of extremes where censorship, or the shout down is considered acceptable ( see above). Where people go out of their way to avoid or shout down anything that does not reinforce their own views.

If our society is to function, these gaps need to be bridged.

Thank-you for demonstrating the problem For all to see.

Do you understand what the points of views we have? Could you list 5 different ones? If you can''t, then you have been doing more posting than reading.

I wish the mods would ban this troll. He isn't here to discuss the Pickering Airport. He is here to advocate for it. And in the worst possible way too.

Sadly advocating it is part of a discussion on it. The problem is that he does not want to hear how his ''research' is flawed.

 

[MarkBrooks]

I'm not sure how Pickering Airport factors in to making net-zero carbon emissions any more likely. SAF fuels have a similar challenge to the ethanol and other bio-fuel revolutions that were expected decades ago and didn't materialize, namely a source for the bio-matter to turn into fuel. It competes with food production, it isn't as environmentally sound as marketed due to fertilizer, transport, and refining, and it isn't as cheap as the fuel created by pumping oil out of the ground. Not to say that production of SAF fuels in the quantities required and without other significant environmental impacts will never occur, but I don't think a few demonstration projects on SAF fuels is a green light to Pickering Airport being a green option.

The SAF discussion is an important one to have, although difficult on this forum do to the political background noise and trolling. Unfortunately a common problem for anyone pointing out the advantages of aviation.

I would like to highlight its relevance to Pickering Airport. The number of flights is expected to double in the next several decades. A worldwide trend, even in Europe It is projected to increase by at least 50%. Local accessible aviation capacity is important to make these flights as efficient as possible. Efficiency is not just landing slots, it is ground support buildings, taxiways etc. The more efficient our aviation infrastructure, the less fuel burned.

these flights need to be carbon neutral, and although electric flight is on its way, the majority of aircraft flights between now and 2050 will utilize jet fuel. SAF is a drop in replacement fuel able to reduce emissions , potentially to net zero depending on how the SAF is produce.

Canada used 7 billion litres of Jet A in 2019
the US produced 9 billion litres of bio diese fuel of all types in 2019.
Canada, although it has the potential to out produce the US in BioDiesel, produced less than 400 million lites in 2019 and almost none of that was utilized as SAF.

We need to do better, starting with a recognition of the importance of local production of SAF.
right now our efforts are inhibited but a misapplied carbon tax on SAF, politics of the far left that want to shut down aviation due to its role in the global economy.

Some of the provinces get it, for instance

Airbus Joins Canada’s SAF+ Sustainable Fuel Consortium

Europe’s dominant airframe maker has committed to invest in SAF development and production in North America.

www.ainonline.com

What is needed now is federal leadership with production incentives and for the industry to switch over to SAF.

 

[kEiThZ]

What is needed now is federal leadership with production incentives and for the industry to switch over to SAF.

And yet you routinely advocate on other forums for parties that vote against acknowledging climate change. So where exactly do you expect this federal leadership to come from?

I would like to highlight its relevance to Pickering Airport.

There's no relevance to an airport that doesn't exist and could never commit to exclusively using SAFs.

 

[micheal_can]

The SAF discussion is an important one to have, although difficult on this forum do to the political background noise and trolling. Unfortunately a common problem for anyone pointing out the advantages of aviation.

I would like to highlight its relevance to Pickering Airport. The number of flights is expected to double in the next several decades. A worldwide trend, even in Europe It is projected to increase by at least 50%. Local accessible aviation capacity is important to make these flights as efficient as possible. Efficiency is not just landing slots, it is ground support buildings, taxiways etc. The more efficient our aviation infrastructure, the less fuel burned.

these flights need to be carbon neutral, and although electric flight is on its way, the majority of aircraft flights between now and 2050 will utilize jet fuel. SAF is a drop in replacement fuel able to reduce emissions , potentially to net zero depending on how the SAF is produce.

Canada used 7 billion litres of Jet A in 2019
the US produced 9 billion litres of bio diese fuel of all types in 2019.
Canada, although it has the potential to out produce the US in BioDiesel, produced less than 400 million lites in 2019 and almost none of that was utilized as SAF.

We need to do better, starting with a recognition of the importance of local production of SAF.
right now our efforts are inhibited but a misapplied carbon tax on SAF, politics of the far left that want to shut down aviation due to its role in the global economy.

Some of the provinces get it, for instance

Airbus Joins Canada’s SAF+ Sustainable Fuel Consortium

Europe’s dominant airframe maker has committed to invest in SAF development and production in North America.

www.ainonline.com

What is needed now is federal leadership with production incentives and for the industry to switch over to SAF.

Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF)

www.icao.int

" In its Resolution A40-18 (2019), the ICAO Assembly acknowledged the need for SAF to be developed and deployed in an economically feasible, socially and environmentally acceptable manner and requested States to recognize existing approaches to assess the sustainability of all alternative fuels in general, including those for use in aviation which should: achieve net GHG emissions reduction on a life cycle basis; respect the areas of high importance for biodiversity, conservation and benefits for people from ecosystems, in accordance with international and national regulations; and contribute to local social and economic development, and competition with food and water should be avoided. "

In other words - SAF does not exist.

 

[kEiThZ]

SAF exists. In the same way that graphene batteries exist. It's a real thing. Just not at any commercial scale that matters.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Can this thred be closed by the mods until there is an actual anouncmet of somethig hapenig?

 

[micheal_can]

Can this thred be closed by the mods until there is an actual anouncmet of somethig hapenig?

Why? I enjoy poking holes in our resident lobbyist.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Why? I enjoy poking holes in our resident lobbyist.

I think many of us do but does it really make sense for this thread to remain open if there's no official information on it?