Jump to content

Gotta love Extinction Rebellion


Bob The Badger

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

The sad thing in all this Crewton is a good proportion do not know which Country they are going to, Some are being forced into the boats to cross the channel at gun point, Gangmasters paid, Deliver the person to the UK...as there's a free taxi service, Then a promise of accommodation and food, Then once this is achieved block the legal system up with appeal after appeal against deportation and hope either they can mooch out of the detention centres or get permission to stay, That way the gangs get money 2 fold, Paid at leave then paid at point of work...Albanians persecuting Albanians. 

I agree Alf, ultimately it's the traffickers that deserve the greatest attention, and the most draconian of punishments, particularly those who extort and force their victims to make those journeys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

An interesting graph in the Museum of London showing the temperature rising and falling over hundreds of thousands of years. Some would claim the periodicity is due to the Milankovitch cycles (though the degree of the effect is hard to explain despite it being a pleasing theory). The key questions is whether the temperature is nearing a similar peak to previous cycles or if it's going to continue to rise...

1526084918_MuseumofLondonclimate.thumb.jpg.c484a3efea4e186603855ae0ae65ec2f.jpg

Officially we're in an interglacial period in the middle of an ice age, which is why there is just so much uncertainty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial. Earth's climate is just a hugely complex system.

Isn't this just more of same old argument again, that the climate has always changed...so how do we know it's humans that are changing it now?

Yes,  it's indisputable that the climate changes naturally due to the various orbital and earth's rotational cycles you've mentioned as well as variations in ocean currents, vegetation density and so on.  There are natural predictable cycles as well as some layers of unpredictability there.  All that is known and well established.  

The fact is without greenhouse gases the Earth would be 30 °C colder than it is now. Not 2 or 3 degrees,  but at least 30 degrees.  That's the effect of greenhouse gases here on Earth, without them the planet would be literally uninhabitable, for humans anyway. Since the industrial revolution we have raised the atmospheric level of CO2 from a steady 280ppm, to a current level of 414ppm, as well as simultaneously raising the atmospheric concentrations of other GHGs, such as methane.  There is only one reasonable extrapolation to make given those facts.  And they are facts.  The climate changes naturally AND we can also change it.

Ironically it was your namesake Carl Sagan, who explained all this, better than anyone, nearly 40 years ago to the US congress. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Isn't this just more of same old argument again, that the climate has always changed...so how do we know it's humans that are changing it now?

Yes,  it's indisputable that the climate changes naturally due to the various orbital and earth's rotational cycles you've mentioned as well as variations in ocean currents, vegetation density and so on.  There are natural predictable cycles as well as some layers of unpredictability there.  All that is known and well established.  

The fact is without greenhouse gases the Earth would be 30 °C colder than it is now. Not 2 or 3 degrees,  but at least 30 degrees.  That's the effect of greenhouse gases here on Earth, without them the planet would be literally uninhabitable, for humans anyway. Since the industrial revolution we have raised the atmospheric level of CO2 from a steady 280ppm, to a current level of 414ppm, as well as simultaneously raising the atmospheric concentrations of other GHGs, such as methane.  There is only one reasonable extrapolation to make given those facts.  And they are facts.  The climate changes naturally AND we can also change it.

Ironically it was your namesake Carl Sagan, who explained all this, better than anyone, nearly 40 years ago to the US congress. 

You seem to think I'm disagreeing with you when I largely agree except I'm always wary of people who bandy around the word "fact" with quite such abandon. Yes the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is clear. And stronger greenhouse gases such as methane will likely begin to play a more significant role, especially due to permafrost melting. But I'm saying (and many climate scientists I meet and discuss these things have made this point to me) that the Earth is such a complex system there remains a huge degree of uncertainty what it will lead to. There are vast numbers of factors to take into account and we cannot model them all, so we're trying to model what we consider are most important, but there is disagreement over this. 

Presuming temperatures continue to rise I'd expect we'll either begin geoengineering within the stratosphere (adding aerosols) to bring temperatures down or beyond it by creating a solar shield in space to bring temperatures down. Or else the Greenland ice sheet will fully melt, cutting off the Atlantic circulation which in turn will bring temperatures down (dramatically in that case). None of these three things are great options but they all suggest climate change wouldn't end up being catastrophic in the way the extremists of extinction rebellion suggest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Spot on. The lack of empathy for human beings so desperate that they are paying money to gangsters to try and make a dangerous illegal boat crossing is saddening. Albania is a very poor country which has bred these conditions. People living in poverty under a mafia-state underworld. Can any one of us imagine how desperate you must have to be to risk your own life and your families life? Blame the gangsters for exploiting the situation  but don't dehumanise the asylum seekers as somehow being freeloaders and the enemy who must be defeated slash sent to Rwanda as punishment

 

Rwanda punishment ?

They could teach us a lesson in how to keep their country clean why don’t ER have a clean litter up once a month same as Rwanda, instead of disrupting everyone.

The banned plastic bags years in 2008.

https://arbiterz.com/why-rwanda-is-africas-cleanest-country-2/

Stock market very healthy as well an up and coming country that will do very well in the future.

Foreign aid has helped Rwanda but unlike some other countries they have put it good use.

https://institute.global/advisory/20-years-after-genocide-rwanda-beacon-hope

image.thumb.png.c9421f976b287e85cd01c4e2ff04e162.png

Edited by cstand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cstand said:

Rwanda a punishment ? 
Reading this article they have lots of ambitions plans now and for the future. It’s a far better country than people give them credit for.

https://www.warpnews.org/innovation/rwanda-the-singapore-of-africa/

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2019/10/21/kagames-rwanda-is-still-africas-most-inspiring-success-story

10 big improvements in Rwanda one of best in gender equality.
https://borgenproject.org/improvements-in-rwanda/

2nd fastest African growing economy in 2021

https://www.visitrwanda.com/basketball-africa-league/basketball-in-rwanda/

 If everything is so rosy in Rwanda, maybe we should ask if they've got any spare politicians we can borrow, to come and show our incompetent lot how to run a country

Edited by 1of4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, cstand said:

Rwanda punishment ?

They could teach us a lesson in how to keep their country clean why don’t ER have a clean litter up once a month same as Rwanda, instead of disrupting everyone.

The banned plastic bags years in 2008.

https://arbiterz.com/why-rwanda-is-africas-cleanest-country-2/

Stock market very healthy as well up and coming country that will do very well in the future.

 

image.thumb.png.c9421f976b287e85cd01c4e2ff04e162.png

Look how it rose even as one half of the country tried to wipe out the other half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

You seem to think I'm disagreeing with you when I largely agree except I'm always wary of people who bandy around the word "fact" with quite such abandon. Yes the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is clear. And stronger greenhouse gases such as methane will likely begin to play a more significant role, especially due to permafrost melting. But I'm saying (and many climate scientists I meet and discuss these things have made this point to me) that the Earth is such a complex system there remains a huge degree of uncertainty what it will lead to. There are vast numbers of factors to take into account and we cannot model them all, so we're trying to model what we consider are most important, but there is disagreement over this. 

Presuming temperatures continue to rise I'd expect we'll either begin geoengineering within the stratosphere (adding aerosols) to bring temperatures down or beyond it by creating a solar shield in space to bring temperatures down. Or else the Greenland ice sheet will fully melt, cutting off the Atlantic circulation which in turn will bring temperatures down (dramatically in that case). None of these three things are great options but they all suggest climate change wouldn't end up being catastrophic in the way the extremists of extinction rebellion suggest. 

And is therefore a fact.  

And that greenhouse gases warm up planet. Not just ours...all of them. That's what they do in conjunction with sunlight.  Also a fact.

I don't think highlighting that either of these are facts is reckless.  You agree with the first, and I assume with the second, so what's the problem in pointing those out?

I agree entirely that the climate is complex, and that the models do vary.  But they all point in the same direction, significant warming and nowadays their predictions are really remarkably good when compared to the empirical evidence as we gather it.  

Pumping aerosols in the atmosphere sounds like a last gasp 'Hail Mary' to me.  I'd much rather try to draw the CO2 out of the atmosphere before trying anything like that, as it could well have unforeseen consequences.  

I don't see how shutting off the Atlantic circulation brings global temperatures down.  Sure it will have local effects in Northwest Europe...but globally, where is the evidence for that?  Also the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet would have a 7 metre sea level rise on it's own, but presumably it would also be concurrent with melting in Antarctica.  Exactly the sort of dramatic sea level rise we want to avoid.  

I don't follow your last sentence, it seems like a non sequitur to me.  A fully melted Greenland ice sheet would be pretty catastrophic by most people's standard's I would say.  I'm sure many in the Extinction Rebellion go too far...but a 10 meter plus sea level rise...that would be disastrous. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Highgate said:

And is therefore a fact.  

And that greenhouse gases warm up planet. Not just ours...all of them. That's what they do in conjunction with sunlight.  Also a fact.

I don't think highlighting that either of these are facts is reckless.  You agree with the first, and I assume with the second, so what's the problem in pointing those out?

I agree entirely that the climate is complex, and that the models do vary.  But they all point in the same direction, significant warming and nowadays their predictions are really remarkably good when compared to the empirical evidence as we gather it.  

Pumping aerosols in the atmosphere sounds like a last gasp 'Hail Mary' to me.  I'd much rather try to draw the CO2 out of the atmosphere before trying anything like that, as it could well have unforeseen consequences.  

I don't see how shutting off the Atlantic circulation brings global temperatures down.  Sure it will have local effects in Northwest Europe...but globally, where is the evidence for that?  Also the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet would have a 7 metre sea level rise on it's own, but presumably it would also be concurrent with melting in Antarctica.  Exactly the sort of dramatic sea level rise we want to avoid.  

I don't follow your last sentence, it seems like a non sequitur to me.  A fully melted Greenland ice sheet would be pretty catastrophic by most people's standard's I would say.  I'm sure many in the Extinction Rebellion go too far...but a 10 meter plus sea level rise...that would be disastrous. 

You say "their predictions are remarkably good" but where is the evidence for this? It seemed to be that the global Covid shutdown was the perfect opportunity to test quantitative predictions by the many different models to see how they fared, but alas I haven't seen evidence that attempts to falsify any of the models were made.

Pumping aerosols into the atmosphere might not suit you, but it's partly a cost-benefit analysis and it's partly about the need to continue economic growth. Without which extinction is certain.

If the Greenland ice sheet melts it will likely produce a situation similar to the Younger Dryas, but you're correct this ice age would probably be localized to the Northern Hemisphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas But such a situation would see more ice locked up.

I'm not saying that some elements of climate change won't be bad, but I am saying they won't be the end of the world, so long as we continue to grow and be rich enough to develop and implement the technological solutions we might end up needing. It's by adopting an antigrowth platform as Extinction Rebellion does that dooms us.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

You say "their predictions are remarkably good" but where is the evidence for this? It seemed to be that the global Covid shutdown was the perfect opportunity to test quantitative predictions by the many different models to see how they fared, but alas I haven't seen evidence that attempts to falsify any of the models were made.

Pumping aerosols into the atmosphere might not suit you, but it's partly a cost-benefit analysis and it's partly about the need to continue economic growth. Without which extinction is certain.

If the Greenland ice sheet melts it will likely produce a situation similar to the Younger Dryas, but you're correct this ice age would probably be localized to the Northern Hemisphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas But such a situation would see more ice locked up.

I'm not saying that some elements of climate change won't be bad, but I am saying they won't be the end of the world, so long as we continue to grow and be rich enough to develop and implement the technological solutions we might end up needing. It's by adopting an antigrowth platform as Extinction Rebellion does that dooms us.

 

There is a lot of evidence for that. In fact, loads of it. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions

https://news.yale.edu/2022/03/07/core-aspects-climate-models-are-sound-proofs-plankton

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-climate-models-got-so-accurate-they-earned-a-nobel-prize

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

Suffice to say there is no shortage of evidence pointing out, that while no model is perfect, they are extremely valuable indicators of our climate future.

I'm not saying that the aerosol solution won't become necessary at some stage, I just that I hope it never comes to that.  Messing around with the chemistry of our only atmosphere is a drastic measure and unwelcome side effects are almost certain.  The sunshield option, while far more expensive actually sound potentially less damaging to me.  Incidentally I definitely don't agree that not maintaining economic growth is a guarantee of extinction. That sounds like a perfect example of what you would call 'catastrophizing'. 

I agree entirely, that technology is the way out of this, along with prudent governance, subsidizing the technologies that will solve problems rather than maintaining the policy of subsidizing the fossil fuel industries that are creating the problem.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cstand said:

Well looks like ER are failing to get their message across in Europe 

https://amp.dw.com/en/germany-reactivates-coal-fired-power-plant-to-save-gas/a-62893497

But what about the windmills, makes you wonder if all those millers of yesteryear were on to something when they connected to the national grid??‍♂️, how much time and money has germany spent on renewables? 
the girl who did the captain Tom protest was on gb news last night and it was sad to watch , what I saw was a kid totally lost and in a mess and if she was my child I would be worried sick about her mental and emotional state with a foreboding that it wasn’t going to end well,

ive said it before in half jest that this is a cult but the more I watch the more cult like it appears with obviously vulnerable people being brainwashed and whipped up into a state of panic and frenzy that we are all going to die in a few short years ,

there really needs to be serious investigation into who is funding and pushing these movements, if I was that girls parent I would be extremely angry at the people pushing this rhetoric 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Archied said:

But what about the windmills, makes you wonder if all those millers of yesteryear were on to something when they connected to the national grid??‍♂️, how much time and money has germany spent on renewables? 
the girl who did the captain Tom protest was on gb news last night and it was sad to watch , what I saw was a kid totally lost and in a mess and if she was my child I would be worried sick about her mental and emotional state with a foreboding that it wasn’t going to end well,

ive said it before in half jest that this is a cult but the more I watch the more cult like it appears with obviously vulnerable people being brainwashed and whipped up into a state of panic and frenzy that we are all going to die in a few short years ,

there really needs to be serious investigation into who is funding and pushing these movements, if I was that girls parent I would be extremely angry at the people pushing this rhetoric 

This is a deeply ironic post, if only you were capable of recognising it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Crewton said:

This is a deeply ironic post, if only you were capable of recognising it. 

I’m capable of seeing a human being in a mess rather than an enemy spouting a different view and hope I always will be , not too bothered by the aloof I’m intellectually superior and capable than you kind of stuff posted above , it obviously makes you feel righteous so crack on ??‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Archied said:

the more I watch the more cult like it appears with obviously vulnerable people being brainwashed and whipped up into a state of panic and frenzy 

It's everywhere in modern society isn't it? Almost this exact sentence could have been written in the Covid thread about the antivaxxers and the covid deniers

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/publications/covid-19-vaccine-misinformation-and-disinformation-costs-an-estimated-50-to-300-million-each-da

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

It's everywhere in modern society isn't it? Almost this exact sentence could have been written in the Covid thread about the antivaxxers and the covid deniers

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/publications/covid-19-vaccine-misinformation-and-disinformation-costs-an-estimated-50-to-300-million-each-da

 

 

Yep it is ,,, extremists on both sides and no balance , gov whipping people into a frenzy of fear anti gov doing much the same ,,, anyone with half a brain can figure there’s bs comming from both sides  , was that what you genuinely meant or was the post a sneaky jibe? Never quite sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Archied said:

Yep it is ,,, extremists on both sides and no balance , gov whipping people into a frenzy of fear anti gov doing much the same ,,, anyone with half a brain can figure there’s bs comming from both sides  , was that what you genuinely meant or was the post a sneaky jibe? Never quite sure

No that is exactly what I meant. It's everywhere

People pouring poo on statues, people fire-bombing detention centres, people killing MPs, people injecting themselves with bleach, people taking horse-worming tablets, people being radicalised to essentially trust no one and nothing etc etc

These are all vulnerable people being driven crackers by the modern world. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Archied said:

there really needs to be serious investigation into who is funding and pushing these movements, if I was that girls parent I would be extremely angry at the people pushing this rhetoric 

While the people doing the actual protests probably have genuine concerns about global warming, the ones providing the money are part of the establishment that runs the world and has done for decades.

A chap named Trevor Neilson, along with members of the Kennedy and Getty families are the main donors. Neilson was involved in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as their Director of Communications and runs an investment firm with the grandson of Warren Buffett. He also worked for the Clinton government and was chosen as a future young leader by the World Economic Forum. He also founded a business called Waste Fuel "a company that "produces renewable fuels using proven technologies to address the climate emergency and revolutionize mobility."

I'm sure the above folk have good intentions at heart but they also have the power and clout to address the worlds problems without encouraging students to chuck a bucket of poo over a tribute to an old soldier in a field in Tutbury or glue themselves to a road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/11/2022 at 10:55, Stive Pesley said:

No that is exactly what I meant. It's everywhere

People pouring poo on statues, people fire-bombing detention centres, people killing MPs, people injecting themselves with bleach, people taking horse-worming tablets, people being radicalised to essentially trust no one and nothing etc etc

These are all vulnerable people being driven crackers by the modern world. 

 

 

There's an important difference though - one is supported by the vast bulk of informed scientific opinion and the other is debunked by it. The question is, do you agree with the informed scientific opinion or not, and on what basis? Is it from an informed position (and informed in what way and by whom?), from a distrust of authority (which authority? For what reason) or just a preference to believe a viewpoint without any significant informed authority behind it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

There's an important difference though - one is supported by the vast bulk of informed scientific opinion and the other is debunked by it. The question is, do you agree with the informed scientific opinion or not, and on what basis? Is it from an informed position (and informed in what way and by whom?), from a distrust of authority (which authority? For what reason) or just a preference to believe a viewpoint without any significant informed authority behind it? 

It's a good point, but I suppose I was thinking that there is no scientific evidence that pouring poo on a statue of a deceased soldier is a fix for man-made climate change ?

It's just another example of people being driven to an unhealthy state of mind by the news media.

The news wants to monetize our greatest asset: attention. So they bombard us with everything that they can to try and elicit our strongest feelings. That happens, they get out attention, but nothing changes for the better and it's easy to feel hopeless.

I don't think we can win. If we disengage from the news, we become much happier. But it's happy ignorance and people can get away with anything if we stop caring

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...