Extinction Rebellion

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, BoyJones said:

The last 12 words fit ER to a "T".

 

Got accosted by two female green Eco warriors on Queens Road in the summer. Actually let them give me the doomsday spiel, then said can I ask two questions? Do you have children, they do. Do you use disposable nappies? Yes they do! Just walked away, couple of hypocrites.  

 

My experience of these people is they pick and choose what Eco / planet saving aspects suit them. 

Did you see that **** Cumberbatch yesterday joining the protest?

 

Same twat who rakes in £££ advertising cars in India.

 

As I've said before, for many of these types it's about protecting their own lifestyle rather than the planet and it always will be.

[leicsmac]

...evidently I am expecting too much to expect separation of messenger and message in analysis.

 

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-substantially-size-mid-century.html

 

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-co2-emissions-lost-labor-productivity.html

 

I know things have to be slickly packaged and delivered by folks who don't have the slightest bit of hypocrisy on their person...but hey.

[Guest MattP]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...evidently I am expecting too much to expect separation of messenger and message in analysis.

 

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-substantially-size-mid-century.html

 

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-co2-emissions-lost-labor-productivity.html

 

I know things have to be slickly packaged and delivered by folks who don't have the slightest bit of hypocrisy on their person...but hey.

Slight hypocrisy is fine, we all have that.

 

Total hypocrisy however is embarrassing and should be called out, whatever the message.

[Strokes]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...evidently I am expecting too much to expect separation of messenger and message in analysis.

 

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-substantially-size-mid-century.html

 

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-co2-emissions-lost-labor-productivity.html

 

I know things have to be slickly packaged and delivered by folks who don't have the slightest bit of hypocrisy on their person...but hey.

We understand the message Mac, but just like the messengers we only do so much, as we also have lives to live. What’s the point in saving the planet for my kids, if I cant drive my diesel van to work and earn some money to feed them? 

Nobody here is providing any real solutions or even leading the way, so what is the point?

Edited 12 October 2019 by Strokes

[Matt_Lcfc]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Well, never mind. Look on the bright side. When a combination of economic and environmental issues have caused the collapse of modern society, you probably won’t be able to afford the tech to follow what she’s doing, so perhaps she won’t be quite so annoying.

She makes unreasonable arguments in a confrontational manner and has no evidence to back it up with.

[Guest Markyblue]

4 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Well, never mind. Look on the bright side. When a combination of economic and environmental issues have caused the collapse of modern society, you probably won’t be able to afford the tech to follow what she’s doing, so perhaps she won’t be quite so annoying.

Trust me she will be.

[Wymsey]

'Animal Rebellion' now emerges..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50027111

[Vlad the Fox]

Trying not to repeat a lot of what has been said in this thread already but I don’t think they believe the shit they spout either. I think the questioning by Piers Morgan (far from being petty and off point regarding the ownership of a tv) highlights this, if they truly believed their hyperbole they’d be taking action themselves, leading by example. ‘We’ve unplugged our tv’s, deleted our online data and storage, sold our cars, we need to start to save the planet now’. But they haven’t, won’t, because they know it’s bullshit and a decision that was taken in a boardroom somewhere.

 

What concerns me is that this bullshit feeds the fire of the those that deny climate change, adds legitimacy to their arguments that it’s not that serious, and gives them evidence to prove their points. What also concerns me is that you feel there’s more to them than meets the eye, that something or someone is moving behind the scenes for whatever reason???

 

As mentioned above, science and cooperation between nations, helping those polluting nations to taking on greener intimidation’s to achieve their goals without adverse economic affects, and education, sensible rational education from primary school age onwards to change a mindset of the world. This mindset has changed hugely over the last couple of decades in this country and technology will speed things up even more over the coming years. 

 

But as for the ER, their actions alienate more than invigorate a debate about climate change, this thread proof in point. 

Edited 12 October 2019 by Vlad the Fox

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, MattP said:

Slight hypocrisy is fine, we all have that.

 

Total hypocrisy however is embarrassing and should be called out, whatever the message.

Fair enough. I've said all along the hypocrisy argument holds precisely zero water for me personally, but I know that it does for other people, and their perception matters as much as mine does.

 

9 hours ago, Strokes said:

We understand the message Mac, but just like the messengers we only do so much, as we also have lives to live. What’s the point in saving the planet for my kids, if I cant drive my diesel van to work and earn some money to feed them? 

Nobody here is providing any real solutions or even leading the way, so what is the point?

I'm sorry Strokes, but have you missed the Drawdown stuff that I have posted on here multiple times? (not saying that snarkily, genuine question)

 

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank

 

They, at least, have real solutions on offer - solutions that even if the problem is not as severe as people think it might be will still be a net benefit to humanity.

 

I absolutely agree that we can't compromise the lifestyles we have right now as people wouldn't go for that, nor should we and we don't have to - it is perfectly possible, in my book, for action to be taken to switch energy infrastructures, transport networks and resource procurement networks to using non-combustion and more sustainable structures all over the Earth without having to take a hit lifestyle-wise. It just takes the political will to do so.

 

The idea that we have to somehow regress in order to save the planet is fallacious and when it's not being used by people who don't fully understand the situation it's being used by those who want to do nothing as a strawman.

 

 

9 hours ago, Matt_Lcfc said:

She makes unreasonable arguments in a confrontational manner and has no evidence to back it up with.

...but the scientists that she is telling people to listen to do. Unless one believes they're either incompetent or on the make themselves.

 

When it comes to the data itself (as opposed to what should be done with it), there's a serious inconsistency between trusting the science delivered by scientists and not trusting someone telling you to listen to those scientists (when they stick to telling you to listen to those scientists only, of course) - one either trusts both or neither, thinks the data is sound and trusts it or they don't. Which is it?

 

From what I can tell many of the arguments against Miss Thunberg are based purely on her tone, which while understandable in that people don't like being told what to do in the way that she often comes across, actually have nothing to do with the situation itself.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

As per usual, Peter Hitchins is spot on.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7567013/PETER-HITCHENS-Ill-tell-truth-fanatics-Extinction-Rebellion.html

 

Why are we indulging in this? Collective madness.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

As per usual, Peter Hitchins is spot on.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7567013/PETER-HITCHENS-Ill-tell-truth-fanatics-Extinction-Rebellion.html

 

Why are we indulging in this? Collective madness.

Perhaps Mr Hitchens should talk to a climate scientist or two about the necessity of dismantling coal-based power plants in the UK and around the world before going on what-about-the-Chinese tirades and purporting neo-Luddite strawmen.

 

And perhaps he should actually say whether he thinks climate change is an issue or not and whether or not he trusts the science, rather than hiding behind the fig leaf of "I won’t try to argue here on the rightness or wrongness of the Warmists’ theory about the causes of climate change." (Of course, his use of the term "Warmist" implies his POV pretty well without flat-out saying it.)

 

Unlike his brother, Peter seems to be a coward.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps Mr Hitchens should talk to a climate scientist or two about the necessity of dismantling coal-based power plants in the UK and around the world before going on what-about-the-Chinese tirades and purporting neo-Luddite strawmen.

 

And perhaps he should actually say whether he thinks climate change is an issue or not and whether or not he trusts the science, rather than hiding behind the fig leaf of "I won’t try to argue here on the rightness or wrongness of the Warmists’ theory about the causes of climate change." (Of course, his use of the term "Warmist" implies his POV pretty well without flat-out saying it.)

 

Unlike his brother, Peter seems to be a coward.

He doesn't deny climate change - he just isn't prepared to see his country and it's people suffer because of hysteria from groups who are ignoring the best scuetific research the World has to offer at the UN.

 

His analogy is perfect, a thirsty man refusing to drink from the tap whilst water leaks elsewhere. 

 

Solutions > pointless gestures every time.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

He doesn't deny climate change - he just isn't prepared to see his country and it's people suffer because of hysteria from groups who are ignoring the best scuetific research the World has to offer at the UN.

 

His analogy is perfect, a thirsty man refusing to drink from the tap whilst water leaks elsewhere. 

 

Solutions > pointless gestures every time.

Of course he doesn't say that he disagrees with the scientific evidence - he knows that's a tricky position to take. But the inference is obvious.

 

I would rather folks like that simply be honest: no more innuendos, no more weasel words about how of course they care for the environmental future but we can't go forward this way, just a simple honest admission: "We don't want to take any kind of necessary action against climate change. We believe this because we simply value the present time and how our nation-state is more than the future of our planet, and/or we believe the scientific data to be incorrect and the scientists involved either incompetent or corrupt."

 

At least then things would be clearer.

 

NB. I'm not quite sure how you get the point of view that groups advocating for change (ER being just one) are ignoring the scientific evidence - if anything, it may be that some of them are taking it too much to heart. For clarity's sake, what do you think the scientific evidence is?

[Sampson]

The main issue with ER is protests have always historically been against politicians, governments, monarchs or nobles from poor, starving or repressed people.

 

ER seem to be a bunch of middle-class people (who seem to have plenty of leisure time on working days) disrupting working class people just trying to go about their jobs or going on their hard-earned holidays.

 

They're targeting and causing disruption to the wrong people and of course they're not going to get working class people on their side and are going to only put across an image of being spoilt brats, when all they do is disrupt ordinary people trying to make a living.

 

They should be going on hunger strikes outside parliment - that's how you protest - not going after fishmarkets, bridges affecting commuters or airports.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Sampson said:

The main issue with ER is protests have always historically been against politicians, governments, monarchs or nobles from poor, starving or repressed people.

 

ER seem to be a bunch of middle-class people (who seem to have plenty of leisure time on working days) disrupting working class people just trying to go about their jobs or going on their hard-earned holidays.

 

They're targeting and causing disruption to the wrong people and of course they're not going to get working class people on their side and are going to only put across an image of being spoilt brats, when all they do is disrupt ordinary people trying to make a living.

 

They should be going on hunger strikes outside parliment - that's how you protest - not going after fishmarkets, bridges affecting commuters or airports.

Lobbying government directly would certainly be a better way to do things, yes. A better-communicated understanding of why things need to change would be helpful, too - evidently though the situation appears to be quite clear a lot of people need to know more about the topic.

[Guest MattP]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Of course he doesn't say that he disagrees with the scientific evidence - he knows that's a tricky position to take. But the inference is obvious.

 

I would rather folks like that simply be honest: no more innuendos, no more weasel words about how of course they care for the environmental future but we can't go forward this way, just a simple honest admission: "We don't want to take any kind of necessary action against climate change. We believe this because we simply value the present time and how our nation-state is more than the future of our planet, and/or we believe the scientific data to be incorrect and the scientists involved either incompetent or corrupt."

 

At least then things would be clearer.

 

NB. I'm not quite sure how you get the point of view that groups advocating for change (ER being just one) are ignoring the scientific evidence - if anything, it may be that some of them are taking it too much to heart. For clarity's sake, what do you think the scientific evidence is?

The scientific evidence suggests we have to act and the consensus is to try and get to a carbon neutral output by 2050.

 

I am listening to the science - ER are not - they are listening to more radical agendas that agrees with their own opinion, making ridiculous claims of billions dying within decades. 

Edited 13 October 2019 by MattP

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

The scientific evidence suggests we have to act and the consensus is to try and get to a carbon neutral output by 2050.

 

I am listening to the science - ER are not - they are listening to more radical agendas that agrees with their own opinion, making ridiculous claims of billions dying within decades. 

Thank you for clarifying your own position on the matter.

 

I don't disagree that there are elements among the green movement (in ER and elsewhere) that are both neo-Luddite and neo-Malthusian; neither of which are acceptable. However, I would like to think that most of the people who want change want to see it done on the terms you state here (try to get things stable by the midpoint of the century or at least have viable contingencies for dealing with the consequences if we can't) - but the chief concern for many of them (and myself included here) there are still those who think we can sit on our hands and wait and see further, either because they don't trust the science or they don't want to blink first in some daft game of realpolitik. And a lot of those people occupy positions of power all around the world, essential for making something like this happen or not.

 

Mr Hitchens, unless he clarifies his own position, could well be in that category.

[Strokes]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Of course he doesn't say that he disagrees with the scientific evidence - he knows that's a tricky position to take. But the inference is obvious.

 

I would rather folks like that simply be honest: no more innuendos, no more weasel words about how of course they care for the environmental future but we can't go forward this way, just a simple honest admission: "We don't want to take any kind of necessary action against climate change. We believe this because we simply value the present time and how our nation-state is more than the future of our planet, and/or we believe the scientific data to be incorrect and the scientists involved either incompetent or corrupt."

 

At least then things would be clearer.

 

NB. I'm not quite sure how you get the point of view that groups advocating for change (ER being just one) are ignoring the scientific evidence - if anything, it may be that some of them are taking it too much to heart. For clarity's sake, what do you think the scientific evidence is?

Hang on a minute, you’re ok with people not always doing the right thing, as long as they are making the right sounds but then you won’t critique this guys arguments, based on the feeling that he might be a denier even though he isn’t actually saying that and it’s not the crux of his argument. 

It seems like a deflection.

[Claridge]

Just walked through Trafalgar Square. They are all frightfully posh, even the scruffy ones. 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Hang on a minute, you’re ok with people not always doing the right thing, as long as they are making the right sounds but then you won’t critique this guys arguments, based on the feeling that he might be a denier even though he isn’t actually saying that and it’s not the crux of his argument. 

It seems like a deflection.

Personally I think it obvious that he is a "denier" (though I use that term loosely, scientific sceptic is better IMO) given the language he uses, but of course it can't be proven courtroom-style either way as he is smart enough to not be that blatant about it in print.

 

"What-about-the-Chinese" and treating the entirety of the green movement (yes, I know he's talking about ER only here but again the inference is obvious) as neo-Luddites and hypocrites in a classic strawman are arguments that have already been discussed and debunked on here and in other places too - if you want me to do it again I will, though I don't really see the need.

 

If Mr Hitchens really wanted to make himself useful and actually understood concerns about climate future he'd be suggesting ways that the British government and Western governments in general might get the Chinese further on board with green initiatives, rather than suggesting we should indulge them in a communal race to the bottom.

Edited 13 October 2019 by leicsmac

[Strokes]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Personally I think it obvious that he is a "denier" (though I use that term loosely, scientific sceptic is better IMO) given the language he uses, but of course it can't be proven either way.

 

"What-about-the-Chinese" and treating the entirety of the green movement (yes, I know he's talking about ER only here but again the inference is obvious) as neo-Luddites and hypocrites in a classic strawman are arguments that have already been discussed and debunked on here and in other places too - if you want me to do it again I will, though I don't really see the need.

 

If Mr Hitchens really wanted to make himself useful and actually understood concerns about climate future he'd be suggesting ways that the British government and Western governments in general might get the Chinese further on board with green initiatives, rather than suggesting we should indulge them in a communal race to the bottom.

What he is saying is ‘THIS IS FUTILE!’ (Yes I’ve used capitals because the message is clearly lost). Without the big polluters on board there is no point this country doing what ER demand. Not that there would be much point even if they were as it’s all so extreme, they won’t be happy unless we become Amish.

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What he is saying is ‘THIS IS FUTILE!’ (Yes I’ve used capitals because the message is clearly lost). Without the big polluters on board there is no point this country doing what ER demand. Not that there would be much point even if they were as it’s all so extreme, they won’t be happy unless we become Amish.

 

I get that.

 

I think it's defeatist and if someone were using a similar argument to not do something about a human based threat to the UK (say, from another nation) then he would be among the first to be lining up scathing criticism in his column, even if it were equally as futile as he believes this to be.

 

I agree that buying into the neo-Luddism that some (but not all) of ER purport isn't going to do any good, but other, better, solutions do exist that the UK can take and encourage others to take, and there is no excuse for dismissing the movement and the science as a whole because of the arguments he states here - it's facile and shallow.

 

And before it might be said that he is only referring to ER rather than the people calling for change as a whole...he had every chance to say that he trusts the science but the way ER do things isn't correct and thus separate the two matters. He did not do so - in fact the implication was that the entire idea, science and all, was merely a cult. Which, considering the man belongs to one of the biggest faith-based cults this planet knows, is irony of the highest order.

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I get that.

 

I think it's defeatist and if someone were using a similar argument to not do something about a human based threat to the UK (say, from another nation) then he would be among the first to be lining up scathing criticism in his column, even if it were equally as futile as he believes this to be.

 

I agree that buying into the neo-Luddism that some (but not all) of ER purport isn't going to do any good, but other, better, solutions do exist that the UK can take and encourage others to take, and there is no excuse for dismissing the movement and the science as a whole because of the arguments he states here - it's facile and shallow.

 

And before it might be said that he is only referring to ER rather than the people calling for change as a whole...he had every chance to say that he trusts the science but the way ER do things isn't correct and thus separate the two matters. He did not do so - in fact the implication was that the entire idea, science and all, was merely a cult. Which, considering the man belongs to one of the biggest faith-based cults this planet knows, is irony of the highest order.

It doesn’t change the crux of his argument whether he believes in science or not, it’s similar to whataboutery to even use it.

 

If someone had skin cancer that had spread and was bordering terminal and the patient himself decided although it wouldn’t stop the spread or cure the cancer, to cut off his own nose. Because although the nose had almost none cancerous cells, it was always in the sun and getting burnt. We would all say poor guy, he has gone mental. 

 

Note, the nose is Britain, the cancer is pollution and the poor mental twat is ER.

Edited 13 October 2019 by Strokes

[Jon the Hat]

https://youtu.be/pO1TTcETyuU

Edited 13 October 2019 by Jon the Hat

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It doesn’t change the crux of his argument whether he believes in science or not, it’s similar to whataboutery to even use it.

 

If someone had skin cancer that had spread and was bordering terminal and the patient himself decided although it wouldn’t stop the spread or cure the cancer, to cut off his own nose. Because although the nose had almost none cancerous cells, it was always in the sun and getting burnt. We would all say poor guy, he has gone mental. 

 

Note, the nose is Britain, the cancer is pollution and the poor mental twat is ER.

I'm sorry, Strokes, but I'm really not getting the logic behind his argument here and I'm not sure why it merits such a staunch defence.

 

Of course he can criticise ER and their methods (and renewable energy at the same time, it seems), but the crux of it seems to be that in order to preserve the economic stability of the UK we must maintain the status quo in terms of fossil fuel power generation, because other countries are doing the same. (He mentions nothing about other options, simply that we shouldn't follow ER's stated solutions.)

 

In practically every future scenario imaginable that is going to end badly, if not sooner then later. And I don't see how one can possibly think it's a good argument at all, unless one either values the present much, much higher than the future or thinks everyone is screwed anyway so we may as well go down having a party.