Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Wymsey

Extinction Rebellion

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, MattP said:

Here's the full interview, Brillo on form with facts and the ER representative having no solutions and only emotion.

 

 

This may sound petty and infantile - but who in the world names their daughter Zion? Is Zion Lights even her real name?

 

I think she should quit ER and do something more sensible, her previous work suggests she's actually rather level-headed. Being part of this group isn't doing her any good.

 

The Maldives example is an interesting one - 30 years ago, there were plenty of scientists suggesting rising sea levels would swallow islands like it whole. Today, we're seeing an increase in land size in many areas, such as Tuvalu - despite rising sea levels:

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/43/6/515/131899/Coral-islands-defy-sea-level-rise-over-the-past?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

Edited by MC Prussian
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Erm. No.

 

I think your misconception here is based on a different understanding of what "climate change" means. There's this fundamental tendency to change the meaning of words for some strange reason. Or you didn't really get what I was saying and have been saying for a while now.

 

Denouncing the hysteria surrounding climate change activism or not blindly believing a one-sided argumentation does not make one a climate change denier.

Rather, it's called skepticism.

The basis of science.

I've said it before and I'll gladly saying it again. Climate changes. With or without us. Anyone denying that is out of his or her mind.

 

Sure, I'm all in for a reduction in air pollution, cleansing of the seas, promoting technology and advances in general. That doesn't mean one cannot simultaneously question the doomsday scenarios we're fed on a daily basis and the questionable methods used to promote climate change agendas - after all, we're talking prediction and computer models here. No one can foresee what the climate will look like in another ten, hundred or thousand years.

 

I'm interested, how should we go on about "preventing climate change" exactly? Because I do hope I've understood you correctly here.

There are different levels of denial, one is denying that the climate is changing which is becoming an untenable position based on all science and just by experiencing the changes that are clear to anyone.

 

The second level of denial is that none of this is down to man and it's happening naturally and would happen anyway.

 

You seem to think anyone disagreeing with you is immediately taking up the XR position and is spouting Doomsday rhetoric. I'm not, I have made the simple point that the extreme weather this summer has lead to fatalities in modern developed countries. MattP seemed to be drawing the line at climate change not killing anyone, all I did was point out he was wondering and stated a simple fact, nearly 1500 people died in France over the summer because of extreme heat caused by climate change. Why does that threaten you? Why does that devolve into scaring children and Doomsday scenarios?

 

Yes you have understood me correctly there may be a way to prevent climate change natural or man made, we are a pretty fantastic species, we have messed around with the natural order of things intentionally and unintentionally many times, if we can find a way to prevent our own planet from destroying us we will, whether or not it would be ethically right to alter our world sufficiently to prevent a natural extinction event is one for the philosophers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Captain... said:

There are different levels of denial, one is denying that the climate is changing which is becoming an untenable position based on all science and just by experiencing the changes that are clear to anyone.

 

The second level of denial is that none of this is down to man and it's happening naturally and would happen anyway.

 

You seem to think anyone disagreeing with you is immediately taking up the XR position and is spouting Doomsday rhetoric. I'm not, I have made the simple point that the extreme weather this summer has lead to fatalities in modern developed countries. MattP seemed to be drawing the line at climate change not killing anyone, all I did was point out he was wondering and stated a simple fact, nearly 1500 people died in France over the summer because of extreme heat caused by climate change. Why does that threaten you? Why does that devolve into scaring children and Doomsday scenarios?

 

Yes you have understood me correctly there may be a way to prevent climate change natural or man made, we are a pretty fantastic species, we have messed around with the natural order of things intentionally and unintentionally many times, if we can find a way to prevent our own planet from destroying us we will, whether or not it would be ethically right to alter our world sufficiently to prevent a natural extinction event is one for the philosophers.

Oh, no. Not at all. ER are just on the extreme side of the activist claim, I'm well aware that there is nuance and a much more broader range of opinions on both sides.

Sadly, these other people do not get that much exposure on TV or other media these days - above all, scientists from STEM fields in particular are truly lacking air time.

 

I think Extinction Rebellion will soon die on its knees, unless they change their tactics and replace their spokespeople with more sensible and knowledgable ones.

 

As for the last bit, I think your argumentation borders a bit on the megalomaniac here - no offense. As far as I can tell, climate is made up from a plethora of influences:

Climate-System-Components.jpeg

We'd be foolish to think we could control it. It's an interesting thought, though - as a thought experiment - I just don't see why we would want to play God at some point in the future. Being able to control climate in theory poses in itself fundamental problems - he who can control the weather/climate has all the power...

 

The beauty and the beast of climate is its unpredictability. It knows no borders, no skin color, no class, no sex, no age, no fear.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, oxford blue said:

Population is another factor towards global warming. Expected to increase by 50% over next 80 years (predominantly due to some African nations and Pakistan predominantly). The individual 'carbon footprint' may be lower, but will nevertheless have a large impact as living standards and urbanisation increase)

Here:

 

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The global birth rate (and ergo the global population growth rate) is currently slowing down, and as more countries industrialise and infant mortality rates drop due to advances in medicine that will keep dropping.

 

The Malthusian line is one used by a lot of folks but I think it likely a global population tapering off at around 11 billion is sustainable given adequate logistics and tech.

 

6 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

No of course not but it’s the natural reaction isn’t it and you won’t change that.

 

It it is frustrating, if some arguments were put across in a better fashion rather than the unappealing, we are angry we are right and you will listen way they are we would probably not have quite so many people swinging the other way to try and counter balance it.

You're right on the "winning hearts and minds" part, when you need the consent of a plurality of people to do something you have to convince them it's the right thing to do, and what's happening now isn't the right way to do it, I agree.

 

Honestly though, at a fundamental level it is totally irrational and a mark of the instinctive lizard brain part of human thought that has served us well in the past but not so much now - seeing as it doesn't lend itself well to long term thought - and we need to think about being able to mitigate that natural reaction and develop better logical thought as a species as a whole if we want to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

This may sound petty and infantile - but who in the world names their daughter Zion? Is Zion Lights even her real name?

 

I think she should quit ER and do something more sensible, her previous work suggests she's actually rather level-headed. Being part of this group isn't doing her any good.

 

The Maldives example is an interesting one - 30 years ago, there were plenty of scientists suggesting rising sea levels would swallow islands like it whole. Today, we're seeing an increase in land size in many areas, such as Tuvalu - despite rising sea levels:

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/43/6/515/131899/Coral-islands-defy-sea-level-rise-over-the-past?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

The BBC needs to clone Andrew Neil - why don't they have any other journalists who can take apart these morons like he did? 

 

Maybe I'm cynical but perhaps they don't actually want to?

 

Meanwhile.....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ozleicester said:

So we know who creates 30% of emissions.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions

 

 

 

as an aside...I wonder how people feel about the Hong Kong protests?

We can complain all we want and call it reprehensible (which it is in terms or air pollution and the use of fossil fuels), yet...

 

... it's not just about the companies' profits (as suggested in the article), what has happened in the meantime is a rise in GDP all over the world, a rise out of poverty for millions of people, an increase in standard of living, people have gotten richer overall on average, people can afford more with their own money, the economy and thus all of us have profited in one way or another.

 

In between 1965 and today, there were simply no other or up until recently, very little other options in order to sustain that growth, to feed the demand for energy. Talks about renewable energies, apart from hydro power maybe, were still in their infancy days up until the mid- to late Nineties.

Instead of pointing out the obvious, that many companies have made profits from providing fossil fuels in a time where no other suitable options were available, we ought to ask ourselves what sensible things we can do in order to replace fossil fuel energy and whether or not nuclear power is really as bad as it's made out to be - as long as renewable energies are so low on energy-efficiency, solar, wind and hydro power won't be able to replace our hunger for energy/electricity.

 

And as much as I'd like countries such as China and India to become more eco-friendly as soon as possible, you can also concur that the more people we pull out of poverty, the better. The question is how we get there and by what means.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

We can complain all we want and call it reprehensible (which it is in terms or air pollution and the use of fossil fuels), yet...

 

... it's not just about the companies' profits (as suggested in the article), what has happened in the meantime is a rise in GDP all over the world, a rise out of poverty for millions of people, an increase in standard of living, people have gotten richer overall on average, people can afford more with their own money, the economy and thus all of us have profited in one way or another.

 

In between 1965 and today, there were simply no other or up until recently, very little other options in order to sustain that growth, to feed the demand for energy. Talks about renewable energies, apart from hydro power maybe, were still in their infancy days up until the mid- to late Nineties.

Instead of pointing out the obvious, that many companies have made profits from providing fossil fuels in a time where no other suitable options were available, we ought to ask ourselves what sensible things we can do in order to replace fossil fuel energy and whether or not nuclear power is really as bad as it's made out to be - as long as renewable energies are so low on energy-efficiency, solar, wind and hydro power won't be able to replace our hunger for energy/electricity.

 

And as much as I'd like countries such as China and India to become more eco-friendly as soon as possible, you can also concur that the more people we pull out of poverty, the better. The question is how we get there and by what means.

Im pretty sure this is what ER are trying to do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ozleicester said:

Im pretty sure this is what ER are trying to do

I'm pretty sure it is not.

 

Unless you consider silly dancing, being high on drugs, making indirect threats of violence, talk about a revolution, trying to block Heathrow airport with drones, spraying red food color on a facade and everywhere else around it or blocking streets as "sensible" and attempts at offering sensible solutions for the fossil fuel issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

We can complain all we want and call it reprehensible (which it is in terms or air pollution and the use of fossil fuels), yet...

 

... it's not just about the companies' profits (as suggested in the article), what has happened in the meantime is a rise in GDP all over the world, a rise out of poverty for millions of people, an increase in standard of living, people have gotten richer overall on average, people can afford more with their own money, the economy and thus all of us have profited in one way or another.

 

In between 1965 and today, there were simply no other or up until recently, very little other options in order to sustain that growth, to feed the demand for energy. Talks about renewable energies, apart from hydro power maybe, were still in their infancy days up until the mid- to late Nineties.

Instead of pointing out the obvious, that many companies have made profits from providing fossil fuels in a time where no other suitable options were available, we ought to ask ourselves what sensible things we can do in order to replace fossil fuel energy and whether or not nuclear power is really as bad as it's made out to be - as long as renewable energies are so low on energy-efficiency, solar, wind and hydro power won't be able to replace our hunger for energy/electricity.

 

And as much as I'd like countries such as China and India to become more eco-friendly as soon as possible, you can also concur that the more people we pull out of poverty, the better. The question is how we get there and by what means.

I do agree with you that energy is key. With unlimited, cheap, clean energy, practically anything is possible, including starting to clean up the environment. Nuclear energy has rightly earned a bad reputation, but the real issues are with use of the Pressurised Water Reactor, originally pressed into service in connection with the production of material for nuclear weapons. Other options do exist and look very promising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

This may sound petty and infantile - but who in the world names their daughter Zion? Is Zion Lights even her real name?

 

I think she should quit ER and do something more sensible, her previous work suggests she's actually rather level-headed. Being part of this group isn't doing her any good.

 

The Maldives example is an interesting one - 30 years ago, there were plenty of scientists suggesting rising sea levels would swallow islands like it whole. Today, we're seeing an increase in land size in many areas, such as Tuvalu - despite rising sea levels:

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/43/6/515/131899/Coral-islands-defy-sea-level-rise-over-the-past?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

 

Just watched it, brilliant.

 

The “We put a man on the moon” comment always makes me laugh, yes we did put a man on the moon.......using a shit ton off Rocket fuel!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I do agree with you that energy is key. With unlimited, cheap, clean energy, practically anything is possible, including starting to clean up the environment. Nuclear energy has rightly earned a bad reputation, but the real issues are with use of the Pressurised Water Reactor, originally pressed into service in connection with the production of material for nuclear weapons. Other options do exist and look very promising.

It certainly is key and quite frankly I'm not sure where the misconception that a lot of folks in the green movement (rather than just the vocal minority) are neo-Luddites who would reject nuclear power out of hand - pretty much all the conventional widsom on the topic says that technological advancement is the way we address this, not regression.

 

53 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Just watched it, brilliant.

 

The “We put a man on the moon” comment always makes me laugh, yes we did put a man on the moon.......using a shit ton off Rocket fuel!

I think perhaps they were referring to the capacity for human ingenuity in generalities there rather than making a specific point...but yeah.

 

That being said, humanity seems to spend at least as much time grubbing in the mud as it does reaching for the stars right now - more, probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Just watched it, brilliant.

 

The “We put a man on the moon” comment always makes me laugh, yes we did put a man on the moon.......using a shit ton off Rocket fuel!

It's amazing how much of a free run they have had with the media and as Neil proved last night - the science isn't with these people at all.

 

They've done very well in convincing people they are moderate defenders of the planet rather that anti-capitalist extremists though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It certainly is key and quite frankly I'm not sure where the misconception that a lot of folks in the green movement (rather than just the vocal minority) are neo-Luddites who would reject nuclear power out of hand - pretty much all the conventional widsom on the topic says that technological advancement is the way we address this, not regression.

 

I think perhaps they were referring to the capacity for human ingenuity in generalities there rather than making a specific point...but yeah.

 

That being said, humanity seems to spend at least as much time grubbing in the mud as it does reaching for the stars right now - more, probably.

 

Yes.....obviously.  I'm making the point that she's totally ignorant to exactly how many of those ingenuity's are totally reliant on technology that is damaging the planet and/or nature at some point in it's creation or use in one capacity or another. Or indeed how long it takes produce these brilliant feats.

 

She's on about switching off something we literally require to survive at the moment, in six measly years, and ironically claiming it's in the name of saving our civilization. Brilliant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Yes.....obviously.  I'm making the point that she's totally ignorant to exactly how many of those ingenuity's are totally reliant on technology that is damaging the planet and/or nature at some point in it's creation or use in one capacity or another. Or indeed how long it takes produce these brilliant feats.

 

She's on about switching off something we literally require to survive at the moment, in six measly years, and ironically claiming it's in the name of saving our civilization. Brilliant.

 

Quite. Sadly, empty vessels make the most noise but as above the sensible viewpoint is that we replace oil, gas and other combustible forms of energy generation, transportation and resource processing tech with never, more efficient tech rather than phasing it out entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Just watched it, brilliant.

 

The “We put a man on the moon” comment always makes me laugh, yes we did put a man on the moon.......using a shit ton off Rocket fuel!

Not completely sure, but I think they use hydrogen and oxygen as rocket fuel, which combines to form harmless water. Presumably something more toxic in the solid stages though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Not completely sure, but I think they use hydrogen and oxygen as rocket fuel, which combines to form harmless water. Presumably something more toxic in the solid stages though.

 

They produce a shed load of Alumina do they not, which errordes the O-zone layer.

 

I mean they are numerous different types of Rocket fuel but I'll think you'll struggle to find one that's completely free of an emission that at least slightly bad for the environment 

Edited by Manwell Pablo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

They produce a shed load of Alumina do they not, which errordes the O-zone layer.

 

I mean they are numerous different types of Rocket fuel but I'll think you'll struggle to find one that's completely free of an emission that at least slightly bad for the environment 

 

6 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

My friend google suggests that you are correct 

http://asbronomers.com/are-rocket-launches-bad-for-the-environment/

 

Here's the lowdown - liquid fuel and solid fuel rockets both have their own drawbacks, the former in terms of soot, the latter in terms of alumina.

 

However, the emissions of both of these things from total launches pale in comparison to emissions from air transportation, car transportation, or practically any other form of internal combustion transportation to be honest, given the sheer infrequency of launches by comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...