Extinction Rebellion

[MC Prussian]

45 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

UK is a medium-sized player (not a pawn) so in a comparatively weak negotiating position vis-à-vis giants like USA, China or EU, but not vis-à-vis others necessarily.

 

This focus on China is intellectually dishonest. Of course, as a major source of emissions, it is important. But the West cannot just say: "We'll ignore the past 200 years when we were industrialising, urbanising, growing & pumping out  ever more emissions. We'll just focus on you lot because you're doing that now". From my limited knowledge, it seems China isn't doing that badly considering its extraordinary growth/transformation in the last 30 years.

 

Anyway, for practical reasons, most people seek to influence their own fellow citizens & national authorities (like Extinction Rebellion) or their own part of the world like Greta....

 

Or are you telling me that, as anti-Lefties, you post from downtown Caracas inbetween fighting Maduro's security forces, while @MattP is in Hong Kong with face mask & umbrella, fighting the Chinese for democracy? 

 

Bit of an odd comparison. And dishonest in its own way.

You could argue that the amount of emissions coming from places such as China today blow Europe's emissions during the Industrial Revolution out of the water or are at least on par with them.

 

As per 1750, example, the world population was at around 700 million people; in 1850 we stood at 1.2 billion, less than China today (1.4 billion). But remember - that was the global population, not all nations were as technologically advanced as - let's say - England back then. So very few countries or nations actually contributed or started adding CO2 to the atmosphere starting in the 1760ies.

 

The biggest rise in global population and global CO2 emissions took place in between 1950 and 2000, and by then, China was already heavily invested in fossil fuels, trying to catch up with Western Europe, the Soviet Union, Japan and the US:

As some suggest on Twitter, the numbers would probably be fairer if we'd take each nation's corresponding historical population into account.

The numbers are also a bit skewed because there's evidently and strangely enough no additional data for the time period between 1750 and 1850.

Also, the metrics used to define the "countries" in question are also not perfect - are the UK measured with or without the former colonies, the Soviet Union has ceased to exist, what numbers were used to create Germany's numbers (West/East Germany situation), Japan (Imperial Japan until WWII), India before 1947 (with or without today's Pakistan), etc.

Edited 9 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

For most part, you're dancing around the subject one more and then attack me on a rather personal level.

Then proceed by making lengthy statements about how "tiring" it is to regurgitate the same argument over and over again. Well, why bother in the first place?

Then proceed by labeling me and @MattP for example as people pushing some sort of "conspiracy theory". This is getting ridiculous.

If you have no other argument than badmouthing the opposing side, you have no argument at all. This is petty.

 

Or rather, they think they need a different type of government altogether? Compare that to Hallam's interview with the BBC, where he points at a bloody revolution and anarchism.

 

Because not everybody blindly accepts the words of a 16-year old, ten-year old "facts" on John Cook's blog or dubious IPCC reports as gospel. Many see behind the scheme, fortunately.

 

What kind of ageism is that? Old people are certainly more competent than children in many aspects, not at least due to experience and expertise.

Governments have been working together for a while now and they don't just consist of "old people" (where does "old" start for you? At 30? 40? 50?), and just because progress that we're making isn't the progress activists circles want, doesn't mean there is no progress.

It's a bit like a spoiled child at home, demanding instant gratification. These changes don't happen overnight and won't happen in eight, eleven or twenty, thirty years - maybe partially, but not fully. We still don't understand many factors in climate at all, it's as if you were predicting the lottery at times.

 

As for Sandmann, nothing to do with feelings - but facts. Video evidence. Watch it in full again.

I'm terribly, tragically sorry if pointing out rhetoric is engaging in a personal insult in your opinion - I will try to be more mindful in future.

 

I bother because I'll be damned if I let misinformation of the type spouted here go unanswered, even if it is going through the same old arguments again and again.

 

Don't want to have association with conspiracy theorists? Don't purport conspiracies of the type suggested about Greta - and yes, without proof, they are exactly conspiracies, nothing more.

 

I absolutely agree that this is all petty, and that the argument that one should trust the scientists involved and the data they have brought about should stand on its own merit. But folks don't want to buy that and so here we are. I wasn't the one who (by inference) labelled the scientists involved in all of this either incompetent or malicious.

 

I'm not big on the whole idea of massive changes in government, but quite frankly a government that applies these changes, encourages others to do the same while maintaining an at least somewhat free society would get my vote.

 

I'd absolutely agree that older people are usually more competent than children at keeping a society going, but I guess it comes down to the motivations of the adults in power. Not all adults are equal in that regard, and as such it doesn't have to be all adults not pulling their weight - just the ones with the capacity to make big decisions.

 

Regarding progress and timeframe, the reason for the urgency is that the sooner the changes are implemented, the better prepared humanity will be and therefore the less we will have to pay in both money and lives as a result of the consequences of whatever change occurs. Of course the change isn't going to happen overnight, but the longer it takes, the higher the cost will be.

 

WRT Sandmann, he could have withdrawn and foregone the confrontation rather than standing his ground - but of course the Hebrew Israelites did kick the whole thing off.

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m just pointing out the protest is pointless and won’t save the planet, in the same way you point out brexit is doomed to fail.

 

The suffragettes would disagree with you - whatever you think of the effectiveness or advisability of this particular protest....and I say that as someone who's now pretty cynical about the effectiveness of public protest, after going on the massive Iraq War protest that was ignored by the Blair Govt. If a protest wins enough support and is in tune with changing moods, it can be far from pointless.

 

It's sad if you're either accepting the end of human civilisation or reduced to hoping that technological inventions will save us.

 

I'm not sure that I do "point out that Brexit is doomed to fail". I express the opinion that, overall, it is a negative phenomenon - and that No Deal would be disastrous short-to-medium-term. I justify that opinion and anyone can agree or disagree. My opinions might be wrong. Things might turn out great over the longer-term, though I doubt it.

 

Anyway, I was just making the point that those who point at China or jeer at Thunberg are just seeking to deflect, as they don't want to address the main - global - issue, for whatever reason. Maybe because they're defeatist and fatalistic (as your comment sounds) or because they just enjoy the benefits of a high-carbon lifestyle, vrooming off in their motor to jump on a plane several times per year or whatever and don't give a shit about the rest of humanity or its future.

 

Returning to a lighter tone, Greta has been criticised for not lobbying the Chinese....but she went and addressed the UN, didn't she? The UN was a global organisation, last time I checked. And I can just imagine the sniping from certain quarters if she sailed her emissions-free yacht all the way to Shanghai. 

 

So, at 16 she's addressed the UN about her cause. What have you, @MattP and @MC Prussian done globally to promote your causes of nationalism, redistribution to the rich and the extinction of human civilisation? Back to Caracas and Hong Kong to get on with your good work, lads! 

[Leicester_Loyal]

Piers Morgan has just summed it up. He’s interviewing one of the people leading/involved in the protests and guess what, she uses a car, her children use iPads, they all have TVs and I’ll wager they use aeroplanes when going on holiday too. Once again it’s do as I say, not do as I do. If they were to be actively living the life that they’re trying to preach about, I’d take them much more seriously. 

[Alf Bentley]

22 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Bit of an odd comparison. And dishonest in its own way.

You could argue that the amount of emissions coming from places such as China today blow Europe's emissions during the Industrial Revolution out of the water or are at least on par with them.

 

As per 1750, example, the world population was at around 700 million people; in 1850 we stood at 1.2 billion, less than China today (1.4 billion). But remember - that was the global population, not all nations were as technologically advanced as - let's say - England back then. So very few countries or nations actually contributed or started adding CO2 to the atmosphere starting in the 1760ies.

 

The biggest rise in global population and global CO2 emissions took place in between 1950 and 2000, and by then, China was already heavily invested in fossil fuels, trying to catch up with Western Europe, the Soviet Union, Japan and the US.

 

As some suggest on Twitter, the numbers would probably be fairer if we'd take each nation's corresponding historical population into account.

The numbers are also a bit skewed because there's evidently and strangely enough no additional data for the time period between 1750 and 1850.

Also, the metrics used to define the "countries" in question are also not perfect - are the UK measured with or without the former colonies, the Soviet Union has ceased to exist, what numbers were used to create Germany's numbers (West/East Germany situation), Japan (Imperial Japan until WWII), India before 1947 (with or without today's Pakistan), etc.

 

I've partly responded to this in my reply to Strokes.

 

Re. taking account of higher population now, if you did that you'd also have to take account of our much greater ability to tackle major problems due to technological progress, much greater levels of global organisation and communications etc.

 

I'm not for a minute denying that China isn't an issue - as the world's most populous nation and one that has engaged in massive growth, development, industralisation and urbanisation over recent decades.

I'm just pointing out that a large amount of global warming occurred BEFORE China was a major factor and when we in the West WERE a major factor - and we should accept our share of responsibility.

People who just point at China now due to its recent history are just using a handy pretext to deflect from their own unwillingness to change & their own nations' share of the responsbility.

 

I'm not sure why you're mentioning 1750 & 1760s? I said "the past 200 years", which takes us back to 1819. I chose that date as an approximation of the start of the industrial revolution on a meaningful scale (even if some elements started earlier) and roughly the date from which global temperatures start rising (from memory, I may be out by a few decades on that).

 

Must work!

[Guest MattP]

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Both you and Matt have floated the "shadowy cabal" stuff with respect to this group on this page already - let's just hear that Soros is behind it all and I can tick another one off my Alex Jones-style bingo card.

 

45 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Then proceed by labeling me and @MattP for example as people pushing some sort of "conspiracy theory". This is getting ridiculous.

If you have no other argument than badmouthing the opposing side, you have no argument at all. This is petty.

 

16 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

So, at 16 she's addressed the UN about her cause. What have you, @MattP and @MC Prussian done globally to promote your causes of nationalism, redistribution to the rich and the extinction of human civilisation? Back to Caracas and Hong Kong to get on with your good work, lads! 

Well this has all got a bit cheap very quickly.

 

@Alf Bentley I certainly support our government doing what it can to help the people of Hong Kong and as a signatory to the agreement in 1997 we should be bring vocal and pro-active.

 

I don't really understand what comparison you are trying to make though - I'd understand you asking why I'm not in Hong Kong if I was protesting outside the US embassy about democracy, but I'm not. I believe this is a job for government, not for me to go and block people going to work to try and stop them buying Chinese goods.

 

@leicsmac I assumed eventually we'd have to mention Soros - I have absolutely no idea if he is funding her and I wouldn't make the accusation he has.

 

There is nothing wrong on a wider point though of asking questions about him and the influence he has with his wealth - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-is-not-antisemitic-to-ask-questions-about-george-soros-gs6xwhbhm

 

I do wonder if you'd question someone of the right using their influence and wealth if they were promoting their own policies in places they didn't live? (I don't wonder btw, I know exactly what the answer would be)

Edited 9 October 2019 by MattP

[MC Prussian]

57 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The suffragettes would disagree with you - whatever you think of the effectiveness or advisability of this particular protest....and I say that as someone who's now pretty cynical about the effectiveness of public protest, after going on the massive Iraq War protest that was ignored by the Blair Govt. If a protest wins enough support and is in tune with changing moods, it can be far from pointless.

 

It's sad if you're either accepting the end of human civilisation or reduced to hoping that technological inventions will save us.

 

I'm not sure that I do "point out that Brexit is doomed to fail". I express the opinion that, overall, it is a negative phenomenon - and that No Deal would be disastrous short-to-medium-term. I justify that opinion and anyone can agree or disagree. My opinions might be wrong. Things might turn out great over the longer-term, though I doubt it.

 

Anyway, I was just making the point that those who point at China or jeer at Thunberg are just seeking to deflect, as they don't want to address the main - global - issue, for whatever reason. Maybe because they're defeatist and fatalistic (as your comment sounds) or because they just enjoy the benefits of a high-carbon lifestyle, vrooming off in their motor to jump on a plane several times per year or whatever and don't give a shit about the rest of humanity or its future.

 

Returning to a lighter tone, Greta has been criticised for not lobbying the Chinese....but she went and addressed the UN, didn't she? The UN was a global organisation, last time I checked. And I can just imagine the sniping from certain quarters if she sailed her emissions-free yacht all the way to Shanghai. 

 

So, at 16 she's addressed the UN about her cause. What have you, @MattP and @MC Prussian done globally to promote your causes of nationalism, redistribution to the rich and the extinction of human civilisation? Back to Caracas and Hong Kong to get on with your good work, lads! 

Aaah, the leftie arguing against the "upper class"...

 

Criticize the empty message of a 16-year old pawn? That's not defeatist in the slightest, just pointing out the obvious holes in a teenager's prepared statement.

I personally am fairly optimistic about our future, humans are an equally strange and fascinating species, don't you think? Think of all the lows and highs we're capable of.

I'll cheer for Greta if she did travel to China and protested there. Or India. Or Nigeria. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Egypt for that matter.

You do know that her boat trip to the US included flying five, six crew members back to Europe? How is that in any shape or form more ecologically friendly than her flying back and forth once? It's utterly hypocritical in itself.

 

Just because some people don't join in with the climate activist hysteria doesn't mean they do not care about the environment. I can only speak for myself, but I'm by no means an example of a hypocrite in that regard. I use regional products as often as I can, don't shop excessively, try to avoid food waste, don't fly that often (not at all as of late), don't have a car (public transport is great over here) and recycle wherever I can, for instance. At the same token, I don't go around, preaching to the choir here in Europe, trying to impose my views onto others. Society on the whole is already making great progress, we're becoming gradually more and more aware to change of habits, and we're doing so.

 

Maybe you want to formulate yourself what the main (global) issue is and how we go on about it?

 

As for the last bit in your post, I'm neither a conservative, nor a nationalist, nor in favour of (forced) redistribution to the rich (redistribution in general, as it is a socialist, some would say Marxist means of equality, and we all know how that worked out... *cough* Stalin *cough*). And the "extinction" part - again, I'm fairly optimistic we'll adapt, in parts to nature regulating itself and in parts because we'll make the necessary technological advances to prevail. We've made great strides in technological progress in the past 50 years alone, and we'll continue to do so.

Edited 9 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[ozleicester]

 

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom

Edited 9 October 2019 by ozleicester

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

 

 

Well this has all got a bit cheap very quickly.

 

@leicsmac I assumed eventually we'd have to mention Soros - I have absolutely no idea if he is funding her and I wouldn't make the accusation he has.

 

There is nothing wrong on a wider point though of asking questions about him and the influence he has with his wealth - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-is-not-antisemitic-to-ask-questions-about-george-soros-gs6xwhbhm

 

I do wonder if you'd question someone of the right using their influence and wealth if they were promoting their own policies in places they didn't live? (I don't wonder btw, I know exactly what the answer would be)

Ah, fair enough. Mere mentions of the "shadowy cabal" rather than mentioning Soros by name will have to do, then. Apologies if things have gotten a bit petty, but with respect -- I didn't start the fire, as I have said before I would expect the scientists and the data they have to stand on their own without politics coming into it either way.

 

Climate change readiness is also a job for government - that's rather the point of this whole thing.

 

The Koch brother (brothers up until recently) do pretty much exactly what you say when it comes to wealth and influence, but that's not to say that power and wealth isn't misused across the board - I'm sure numerous examples can be found of rich and influential people from the left side of the political spectrum abusing power - it does corrupt, after all.

 

On this particular matter, however, I'll make my point clear: this issue extends beyond any money, any power, any semblance of politics simply because it concerns the survival of human civilisation itself and as such I simply do not understand why some folks are so keen to make it a political issue. Prussian may have a bit more faith in humans to get the job done on the clock to counter this threat than I do judging by the reply to Alf above, but personally I think such a laissez-faire approach is a gamble with the highest of stakes that shouldn't be taken, and, more importantly, doesn't need to be taken.

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Well this has all got a bit cheap very quickly.

 

@Alf Bentley I certainly support our government doing what it can to help the people of Hong Kong and as a signatory to the agreement in 1997 we should be bring vocal and pro-active.

 

I don't really understand what comparison you are trying to make though - I'd understand you asking why I'm not in Hong Kong if I was protesting outside the US embassy about democracy, but I'm not. I believe this is a job for government, not for me to go and block people going to work to try and stop them buying Chinese goods.

 

 

It was intended as a humorous response to your criticism of Thunberg for only "shouting at Western Govts" and not going to China and India. If she should be haranguing distant nations, shouldn't you? - that was the idea.

 

But, as I then pointed out, she's addressed China and the whole world at the UN, so she's already ahead of you - and me. 

 

Most people protest in the countries where they live for financial/practical reasons. The Extinction Rebellion people in London are trying to influence public opinion in this country so as to impact democratic politics in the UK.

You're entitled to your view that they should be seeking to influence the autocratic govt of China instead - or additionally. Not sure how effective that would be.

 

While I have a lot of sympathy for their cause, and some for their methods, I reckon they might need to diversify their campaigning tactics or they could alienate more people than they win over.

There's also the fact that many seem to be hippies. As an old punk rocker, they're supposed to be the enemy!    

[Leicester_Loyal]

29 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

 

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom

Go and protest outside number 10 then? Don’t inconvenience hospital patients and ensure that it’s difficult for cancer patients to get their treatment (both of which has happened during this ridiculous protest). 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

It was intended as a humorous response to your criticism of Thunberg for only "shouting at Western Govts" and not going to China and India. If she should be haranguing distant nations, shouldn't you? - that was the idea.

 

But, as I then pointed out, she's addressed China and the whole world at the UN, so she's already ahead of you - and me. 

 

Most people protest in the countries where they live for financial/practical reasons. The Extinction Rebellion people in London are trying to influence public opinion in this country so as to impact democratic politics in the UK.

You're entitled to your view that they should be seeking to influence the autocratic govt of China instead - or additionally. Not sure how effective that would be.

 

While I have a lot of sympathy for their cause, and some for their methods, I reckon they might need to diversify their campaigning tactics or they could alienate more people than they win over.

There's also the fact that many seem to be hippies. As an old punk rocker, they're supposed to be the enemy!    

That's up for debate. Rupert Read yesterday was on the Daily Politics and he was saying the intention is for a citizens assembly to be called and then the decision from that to be implemeted - that sounds to me like it's bypassing democracy rather than using it. If I want to go down the ER rebellion route I can vote for the Green party.

There is nothing democratic about these lot, if the people voted against them they would still carry on - unless we agree to their targets they will continue to disrupt peoples lives.

I don't think the comparisons with the Suffragette movement are helpful either as many historians believe they did harm their own cause, World War One did far more for the campaign that running in front of horses, Hollywood obviously tells us differently, but it's something up for debate, not settled. By the time the laws had changed in 1918, the Emmeline Pankhurst had called a ceasefire for a few years when that happened.

[Captain...]

A simple question for @MC Prussian and @MattP and onhers on this thread are you climate change deniers or do you think we as a species, people the world over are damaging our environment irreversibly and we cannot sustain our levels of growth and consumerism without a dramatic shift? Is your issue just the way in which people are protesting? If it is the way they are protesting then how do we get the message across?

 

I don't believe you think the amount of carbon in our atmosphere and plastic in our oceans is a good thing. Do you think our government is doing enough and the various other governments and global organisations are doing enough? Are you doing enough?

 

Ok that's a few more questions but on a basic level I think there is a lot of common ground on here, but we spend so much time arguing semantics and engaged in a bizarre battle to be absolutely right that the basic things we all agree on get lost.

[Guest MattP]

11 minutes ago, Captain... said:

A simple question for @MC Prussian and @MattP and onhers on this thread are you climate change deniers or do you think we as a species, people the world over are damaging our environment irreversibly and we cannot sustain our levels of growth and consumerism without a dramatic shift? Is your issue just the way in which people are protesting? If it is the way they are protesting then how do we get the message across?

 

I don't believe you think the amount of carbon in our atmosphere and plastic in our oceans is a good thing. Do you think our government is doing enough and the various other governments and global organisations are doing enough? Are you doing enough?

 

Ok that's a few more questions but on a basic level I think there is a lot of common ground on here, but we spend so much time arguing semantics and engaged in a bizarre battle to be absolutely right that the basic things we all agree on get lost.

It's quite sad that anyone who even shows dissent now is considered to be a "climate change denier" and needs to answer to it - I believe we are doing immense damage to our planet and need to do as much as we can within reason. I also recognise it has to be a global effort and I won't live in poverty while people like Stephen Fry fly around in private jets, which is the intention of many of these sort of people long term.

That said, I'm also not absolutely desperate to save the human race, if the planet returns to an equalibrium, as it has many times before after mass extinction, so be it.

 

Am I doing enough? I'd say yes, I don't drive which is a huge thing, I take the train 50 times a year (which do EXreb shut down train networks as well btw?), I recycle and I almost always walk if I'm within a couple of miles of the destinantion, I don't fly as much but I eat a lot of meat, I put a jumper on instead of the heating when I can - in terms of my own country I'd certainly be in the lower end of the people doing the damage.

I'll tell you one thing though - when I see these protestors it makes me not give a shit, I feel like buying a Range Rover, the complete opposite effect I have when I see David Attenboroughs ducmentaries on the BBC - I hope the campaigners can see that, but I think they have gone past that point and they see this as a deeper war against cultural and captalism, within months they'll be blocking people from buying meat and I can see them taking it to extremes when it comes to airports - that's when the shit will really hit the fan.

Edited 9 October 2019 by MattP

[MC Prussian]

45 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, fair enough. Mere mentions of the "shadowy cabal" rather than mentioning Soros by name will have to do, then. Apologies if things have gotten a bit petty, but with respect -- I didn't start the fire, as I have said before I would expect the scientists and the data they have to stand on their own without politics coming into it either way.

 

Climate change readiness is also a job for government - that's rather the point of this whole thing.

 

The Koch brother (brothers up until recently) do pretty much exactly what you say when it comes to wealth and influence, but that's not to say that power and wealth isn't misused across the board - I'm sure numerous examples can be found of rich and influential people from the left side of the political spectrum abusing power - it does corrupt, after all.

 

On this particular matter, however, I'll make my point clear: this issue extends beyond any money, any power, any semblance of politics simply because it concerns the survival of human civilisation itself and as such I simply do not understand why some folks are so keen to make it a political issue. Prussian may have a bit more faith in humans to get the job done on the clock to counter this threat than I do judging by the reply to Alf above, but personally I think such a laissez-faire approach is a gamble with the highest of stakes that shouldn't be taken, and, more importantly, doesn't need to be taken.

But that's the issue here precisely:

 

You mourn the interference of politics when it comes to climate change and climate science...

 

Well, the IPCC - THE source of information for a majority of climate activists - is in fact a political entity, not a scientific one. Scientists only do the initial work, then are reduced to watch from the sidelines, as politicians, diplomats, bureaucrats, activists, economists finalize the IPCC reports, changing them to suit political agendas in the process. The criticism of the IPCC is real and deserved.

Quote

Three concerns make it particularly timely to consider reforms to the IPCC process. First, while the IPCC has long had critics, their number is growing and their ranks include new members who have in the past been advocates on its side. Second, the IPCC plays a very influential role in the world, and it is imperative that its operations be unimpeachable. Yet the oversight mechanisms of the IPCC simply do not appear to be adequate to assure this. Third, there is a wide misunderstanding about the IPCC assessment process, such that it is often considered more formal and rigorous than it actually is.

...

The Bureau has, effectively, a free hand in picking Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors and Contributing Authors of the report.

...

The language in IPCC procedures requiring comprehensiveness of the reports is vague and inadequate.

...

Lead Authors regularly review their own work and that of their critics, thereby operating in an intellectual conflict of interest.

A large number of Lead Authors, including ones connected to half the chapters in the Working Group I report and all the chapters in the Working Group II report, are employed by or serve as advisors to environmental activist organizations.

...

Lead Authors can defeat the review process either by overruling reviewers or by waiting until after the close of expert review and then rewriting the text. Material changes to important sections of text have been made in this way in past assessment reports.

...

Government review is virtually non-existent. About 90 percent of countries in the IPCC did not submit any review comments on the last assessment report and, of the comments received, half were from only two countries. Likewise only a handful of countries provided written comments on the recent Task Group recommendations for reforms of IPCC procedures. The existence of a 195-member plenary Panel thus creates a false impression of extensive oversight activity.

...

Because so many governments are involved, no one person or agency is in a position to provide effective leadership. Since there are 195 member governments in charge of the IPCC, the oversight function may suffer a “tragedy of the commons”: even if all member states would benefit from its occurrence, no one state would benefit enough to justify unilaterally taking on the job.

...

Lead Authors of Working Group reports have the authority both to force acceptance of their contributions even if reviewers oppose their claims, and to rewrite the text after the review process has closed. Consequently the review process is much weaker than that which occurs in normal academic journals, where neither of these practices are allowed.

...

...the review process does not provide adequate checks and balances, therefore the choice of LAs predetermines the contents of the report.

...

The centralized nature of the author selection process, and the absence of a meaningful requirement to include proponents of the full range of scientific views, means that the IPCC Bureau can predetermine the content of the report by making the appropriate selection of CLAs and LAs.

...

Past IPCC authors made many submissions to the IAC Review panel,22 expressing concerns about the
extent to which LAs are selected on political rather than scientific grounds. A common complaint was that the mandate to obtain geographic balance led to inclusion of many incompetent and untrained scientists, and political considerations often seemed to rank above scientific credentials.

...

...if a topic is assessed in which there are two clearly identifiable sides or points of view, a LA can invite an expert from one side but not the other to provide text for the chapter.

...

... scientists who openly ally themselves with environmentalist organizations like Greenpeace and the WWF thereby increase their likelihood of being recruited to serve as IPCC Lead Authors

https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf

A must-read.

 

So, the very same thing I've been complaining about for a while now - you actually seem to share the sentiment. Amazing! Welcome to the club!

 

Instead of letting scientists dictate the debate, we let politicians and activists wreak havoc! They are destroying faith in humanity and sciences in the process, creating division, pushing irrational fear of the unknown.

Edited 9 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[MPH]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Go on then...what is the point here?

 

 

The point is i have spent a lot of time actually helping out at a humanitarian mission in Nicaragua.  i have posted about it several times before. part of our time down there has been spent at a place near the capital managua called ‘ la chureca’ ( sp!?) it’s basically the big city trash dump. I help out at a feeding program there when i go. there’s families that literally live on the trash dump and the girls as young as 10 prostitute themselves to the trash dump truck drivers.. not for money, but so that they can have first look through the trash that they just brought in... 

 

Anyway my ‘ try again’ was aimed at his attempt to say i was pretending to momentarily care about someone to make a cheap point. 

[ozleicester]

22 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Go and protest outside number 10 then? Don’t inconvenience hospital patients and ensure that it’s difficult for cancer patients to get their treatment (both of which has happened during this ridiculous protest). 

 

 

[MC Prussian]

17 minutes ago, Captain... said:

A simple question for @MC Prussian and @MattP and onhers on this thread are you climate change deniers or do you think we as a species, people the world over are damaging our environment irreversibly and we cannot sustain our levels of growth and consumerism without a dramatic shift? Is your issue just the way in which people are protesting? If it is the way they are protesting then how do we get the message across?

 

I don't believe you think the amount of carbon in our atmosphere and plastic in our oceans is a good thing. Do you think our government is doing enough and the various other governments and global organisations are doing enough? Are you doing enough?

 

Ok that's a few more questions but on a basic level I think there is a lot of common ground on here, but we spend so much time arguing semantics and engaged in a bizarre battle to be absolutely right that the basic things we all agree on get lost.

I think I've made it clear on numerous occasions in various threads that no one in their right state of mind can deny Climate Change.

We have made damage, some damage. And we should fix it or at least try to fix it in order to soothe our collective conscience.

Renewable energy sources are a great idea - sadly, their energy conversion rate is still laughably low, wind turbines take up too much space, are ugly and destroy natural habitats, solar energy expensive still, hydro energy dependent on ebb and flow and rain. It's for that reason that I think trying to abandon coal plants or nuclear plants immediately is a short-sighted idea. Where will all the energy required for an ever-growing population come from instead?

I share the basic sentiment that in an ideal world, we should quit the nuclear and coal plants asap - but this world is not ideal, never was and never will be - unless you think playing some sort of Don Quixote will change the way we act and think, and that immediately, just the way you (not you personally) want it.

 

I just don't buy into the hysteria, the 8-year, 11-year, 20-year (FFS, can't you settle for one date?) timeline leading to "extinction".

These people and organizations feed on a basic human condition - fear.

Let's just say that I don't see fear being a very good companion when trying to make sensible decisions that could impact our future way of living or Planet Earth.

 

The UK are doing relatively well in lowering CO2 emissions. Western Europe in general is doing rather well in that regard. I'm personally doing as much as I can (apart from wasting time protesting).

 

I'd rather see more open panels with scientists leading the debate, instead of clueless 16-year olds or ill-informed, rage- or hysteria-filled protesters. I do only trust politicians to do well here to an extent.

[Strokes]

54 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The suffragettes would disagree with you - whatever you think of the effectiveness or advisability of this particular protest....and I say that as someone who's now pretty cynical about the effectiveness of public protest, after going on the massive Iraq War protest that was ignored by the Blair Govt. If a protest wins enough support and is in tune with changing moods, it can be far from pointless.

I don’t think the suffragette’s would disagree with me. They directed their protest at people who could make the change. This protest, even if successful here and we as a nation become carbon neutral, will not change a thing. We don’t emit enough carbon for it to make a difference. If the heavyweight pollutants continue, and the scientists are right it’s completely pointless. 

Instead if blocking roads that lead to hospitals, I’d have more respect if they did something poignant at the g20 or the UN or towards the EU. It seems like it’s just another anarchy for anarchy sake protest.

54 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It's sad if you're either accepting the end of human civilisation or reduced to hoping that technological inventions will save us.

 

I'm not sure that I do "point out that Brexit is doomed to fail". I express the opinion that, overall, it is a negative phenomenon - and that No Deal would be disastrous short-to-medium-term. I justify that opinion and anyone can agree or disagree. My opinions might be wrong. Things might turn out great over the longer-term, though I doubt it.

My original post wasn’t really directed at yourself, I do think you generally give a balanced view even if I disagree most of the time.

54 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Anyway, I was just making the point that those who point at China or jeer at Thunberg are just seeking to deflect, as they don't want to address the main - global - issue, for whatever reason. Maybe because they're defeatist and fatalistic (as your comment sounds) or because they just enjoy the benefits of a high-carbon lifestyle, vrooming off in their motor to jump on a plane several times per year or whatever and don't give a shit about the rest of humanity or its future.

I don’t really have any issue with Thunberg, she directed herself in the right place in my opinion.

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

But that's the issue here precisely:

 

You mourn the interference of politics when it comes to climate change and climate science...

 

Well, the IPCC - THE source of information for a majority of climate activists - is in fact a political entity, not a scientific one. Scientists only do the initial work, then are reduced to watch from the sidelines, as politicians, diplomats, bureaucrats, activists, economists finalize the IPCC reports, changing them to suit political agendas in the process. The criticism of the IPCC is real and deserved.

https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf

A must-read.

 

So, the very same thing I've been complaining about for a while now - you actually seem to share the sentiment. Amazing! Welcome to the club!

 

Instead of letting scientists dictate the debate, we let politicians and activists wreak havoc! They are destroying faith in humanity and sciences in the process, creating division, pushing irrational fear of the unknown.

...is this one of those peer-reviewed scientific papers that were asked for in the Sci/Tech thread?

 

Damn, nope, just a policy document by an economist, published by a  political thinktank whose stated aim is to eliminate the "extremely damaging and harmful policies envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming."

 

If there is evidence from other scientific sources and/or a legitimate scientific study body that the IPCC data is flawed and that evidence is peer-reviewed, then it's worth looking at, and because the scientific method is the scientific method, the consensus will likely shift - as it has done with a multitude of scientific discoveries in the past. Until then, this is so much unconfirmed hot air, as much as Mr (he's a Professor of Economics so he's a Mr when it comes to this science) McKitrick might tell a very good story.

 

NB. In any case, the IPCC is hardly the only source for raw data or even processed data concerning temperature and atmospheric gas records.

[Captain...]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's quite sad that anyone who even shows dissent now is considered to be a "climate change denier" and needs to answer to it - I believe we are doing immense damage to our planet and need to do as much as we can within reason. I also recognise it has to be a global effort and I won't live in poverty while people like Stephen Fry fly around in private jets, which is the intention of many of these sort of people long term.

That said, I'm also not absolutely desperate to save the human race, if the planet returns to an equalibrium, as it has many times before after mass extinction, so be it.

 

Am I doing enough? I'd say yes, I don't drive which is a huge thing, I take the train 50 times a year (which do EXreb shut down train networks as well btw?), I recycle and I almost always walk if I'm within a couple of miles of the destinantion, I don't fly as much but I eat a lot of meat, I put a jumper on instead of the heating when I can - in terms of my own country I'd certainly be in the lower end of the people doing the damage.

I'll tell you one thing though - when I see these protestors it makes me not give a shit, I feel like buying a Range Rover, the complete opposite effect I have when I see David Attenboroughs ducmentaries on the BBC - I hope the campaigners can see that, but I think they have gone past that point and they see this as a deeper war against cultural and captalism, within months they'll be blocking people from buying meat and I can see them taking it to extremes when it comes to airports - that's when the shit will really hit the fan.

I'm not calling you a climate change denier but it is an issue with the polarisation of all arguments and a problem with XR. We lose sight of the fact we probably all agree on the big picture but differ on the methods to tackle it.

 

I don't agree with you on the human race not being worth saving and that the planet would return to an equilibrium, previous mass extinction events have not been man made and have not been preventable, whilst there will inevitably be another mass extinction event we should be doing as much as we can to not accelerate the process so it happens in our lifetime or the lifetimes of our kids/grandchildren. Also the human race despite all it's flaws is pretty magnificent but it is that balance between progress and preservation.

 

Regarding how much we do individually it is a similar balance that I struggle with, maintaining a decent quality of life for me and my family without placing a huge burden on the environment. 

[MC Prussian]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

...is this one of those peer-reviewed scientific papers that were asked for in the Sci/Tech thread?

 

Damn, nope, just a policy document by an economist, published by a  political thinktank whose stated aim is to eliminate the "extremely damaging and harmful policies envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming."

 

If there is evidence from other scientific sources and/or a legitimate scientific study body that the IPCC data is flawed and that evidence is peer-reviewed, then it's worth looking at, and because the scientific method is the scientific method, the consensus will likely shift - as it has done with a multitude of scientific discoveries in the past. Until then, this is so much unconfirmed hot air, as much as Mr (he's a Professor of Economics so he's a Mr when it comes to this science) McKitrick might tell a very good story.

 

NB. In any case, the IPCC is hardly the only source for raw data or even processed data concerning temperature and atmospheric gas records.

Did you go into the matter, the message - or attack the messenger instead?

The report clearly quotes multiple scientists and former advisors, it is a comprehensive study of what is going wrong at the IPCC.

 

Not one paragraph spent on examining the valid criticism of the IPCC as a political organization, rather than a scientific one... Not one attempt at sharing at least some of the criticism.

All is fine with the IPCC, nothing to see here... We're doomed!

Just...

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

The point is i have spent a lot of time actually helping out at a humanitarian mission in Nicaragua.  i have posted about it several times before. part of our time down there has been spent at a place near the capital managua called ‘ la chureca’ ( sp!?) it’s basically the big city trash dump. I help out at a feeding program there when i go. there’s families that literally live on the trash dump and the girls as young as 10 prostitute themselves to the trash dump truck drivers.. not for money, but so that they can have first look through the trash that they just brought in... 

 

Anyway my ‘ try again’ was aimed at his attempt to say i was pretending to momentarily care about someone to make a cheap point. 

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

 

In that case, addressing the meme itself and why it's full of it:

 

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

I'm sure that Greta's upbringing was considerably more comfortable than that of many other children her age, but that has pretty much the square sum of naff all relevance to the point she's trying to make and most folks who use that "argument" know that too - it is, once again, a convenient obfuscation to dismiss what she is saying. I think there's something of a pattern there.

 

[leicsmac]

Just now, MC Prussian said:

Did you go into the matter, the message - or attack the messenger instead?

The report clearly quotes multiple scientists and former advisors, it is a comprehensive study of what is going wrong at the IPCC.

 

Not one paragraph spent on examining the valid criticism of the IPCC as a political organization, rather than a scientific one... Not one attempt at sharing at least some of the criticism.

All is fine with the IPCC, nothing to see here... We're doomed!

Just...

Why bother with clearly biased sources? If McKitrick can only find an organisation like the GWPF to float his thoughts rather than less partial scientific organisations then perhaps it's possible that what he says doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific process that he claims to like so much? Unless the whole scientific community involved is corrupt - is that what is being implied here?

 

I'm sure the IPCC has its internal politics, as does practically every large quasi-governmental organisation. But that doesn't indicate, doesn't indicate at all, that such politics are being used to actively manipulate temperature and atmospheric gas data at a fundamental level - that is a serious accusation and requires serious proof.

 

In any case, as I said - the IPCC is not the only organisation with data on this topic, anyhow.

 

NB. I actually agree with you in that Gen II and IV fission power should be the backbone of future developments for the time being because renewable sources can't meet the demand currently, and I'd love to see more scientists taking centre stage - but I'm not in any way confident that they would be listened to any more than the people speaking now. They haven't really been up to now, after all.

[Captain...]

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I think I've made it clear on numerous occasions in various threads that no one in their right state of mind can deny Climate Change.

We have made damage, some damage. And we should fix it or at least try to fix it in order to soothe our collective conscience.

Renewable energy sources are a great idea - sadly, their energy conversion rate is still laughably low, wind turbines take up too much space, are ugly and destroy natural habitats, solar energy expensive still, hydro energy dependent on ebb and flow and rain. It's for that reason that I think trying to abandon coal plants or nuclear plants immediately is a short-sighted idea. Where will all the energy required for an ever-growing population come from instead?

I share the basic sentiment that in an ideal world, we should quit the nuclear and coal plants asap - but this world is not ideal, never was and never will be - unless you think playing some sort of Don Quixote will change the way we act and think, and that immediately, just the way you (not you personally) want it.

 

I just don't buy into the hysteria, the 8-year, 11-year, 20-year (FFS, can't you settle for one date?) timeline leading to "extinction".

These people and organizations feed on a basic human condition - fear.

Let's just say that I don't see fear being a very good companion when trying to make sensible decisions that could impact our future way of living or Planet Earth.

 

The UK are doing relatively well in lowering CO2 emissions. Western Europe in general is doing rather well in that regard. I'm personally doing as much as I can (apart from wasting time protesting).

 

I'd rather see more open panels with scientists leading the debate, instead of clueless 16-year olds or ill-informed, rage- or hysteria-filled protesters. I do only trust politicians to do well here to an extent.

I must admit I haven't read all your posts on the subject, some of them are really long and I don't understand half of it not have the time to read around the subject.

 

Hence the simple question.

 

I think open panels and agenda free debate is great but most people don't have the time for that, they need simple digestible chunks whether it is a teenage soundbite reminding us that the impact of our actions will be felt by generations long after our death, or a crustie gluing themselves to the houses of parliament. The message is clear something must be done. Likewise a tweet from Piers Morgan or Jeremy Clarkson can do just as much to confirm some people's belief that it is all nonsense and poppycock.