Extinction Rebellion

[lgfualol]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Why not actually try and answer some of the points he's made rather than just come back to this tired old line?

I can't, I'm not going to pretend to know anything about her childhood and upbringing. Just find it weird there are people wetting themselves about a kid trying to do something which she believes will make a positive difference to lives/the world. I feel like people are just against Greta and this group because they need things in their lives to be outraged about, which I am aware happens on both sides of whatever one believes, but yes.

 

There is a boomer family friend who posts stuff about using their car more to spite Greta, I don't get that line of thinking. Weird times we live in.

[lgfualol]

woopsie - double post

Edited 9 October 2019 by lgfualol

[MC Prussian]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

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.

Well, there's your own bias speaking. You see the platform the publication is connected to and automatically draw your own conclusions - without having examined the report's content.

How is that a basis for a healthy debate?

On the very first page it says:

Quote

Views expressed in the publications of the Global Warming Policy Foundation are those of the authors, not those of the GWPF, its Trustees, its Academic Advisory Council or its Directors.

Now who's into "conspiracy theories"?

I present evidence of questionable going ons at the IPCC to you and you instantly dismiss it. You don't even offer counter points or proofs to the contrary.

 

"That's it, there's GWPF written on it, not going to bother with it, anyway". Don't you want to or can't you argue with it? No Skepticalscience/John Cook blog page at hand to solve this mystery?

 

This is to me an example of how we enforce political divisions these days. Instead of common ground, we simply attack the other side for being "other". Based on your argumentation, you seem to be a victim of groupthink, where everything outside your group simply cannot be. And I don't mean that as an insult or personal.

Where's the discourse gone?

[yorkie1999]

2 hours 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 didn't realise the were measuring CO2 output in the 18th century.

[MC Prussian]

7 minutes ago, Captain... said:

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.

That's one of the big issues of today. The simplification of a complex subject such as Climate Change.

This strategy leaves a lot to be desired and a lot of room for misinterpretation and misinformation, including withholding vital information to the public. And too many people are sadly falling for it, as well as the media.

 

And Twitter is by no means a credible or authentic source of information, either. It's a cesspit for most part, with too many people putting on masks and being much more aggressive, facetious or mean than they would be in real life.

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, Strokes said:

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

 

Cheers!

 

The suffragettes did some stuff that was at least partly directed at public opinion, not just the people who could make the change: running in front of racehorse, hiding in cupboard in Parliament for 1911 Census, chaining themselves to railing, blowing up postboxes etc. (not that I'm recommending any or all of those tactics - and I appreciate that I'm splitting hairs a bit).

 

As I suggested in my previous post, I tend to agree with your comment in bold - or, at least, I do from now on. I think the original big protest did successfully raise the profile of the issue and the campaign, although it caused a lot of disruption and annoyed those who were inconvenienced. But I reckon a law of diminishing returns applies now, if they keep repeating that same disruptive tactic.

 

Other, less disruptive forms of direct action can also be effective - some poignant, symbolic gesture at G20, UN or EU, as you suggest - or it could be something humorous that makes the point. There seem to be some creative people involved in the movement, so I hope they'll move on to stuff like that - repeated mass disruption will quickly alienate instead of promoting the cause. I'm also under no illusions that, as Matt suggested, some of those involved are nutters, obsessives, anti-democratic etc. But a lot aren't. Likewise, I've no illusions that just addressing the issue in the UK will solve the problem. It needs to be a global campaign and a global response....part of the reason why I tend to support multinational political institutions like the EU and UN, even if they often have major flaws. But physically most people are limited to campaigning in their own countries by cash and life's practicalities.

[MPH]

25 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

 

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

 

 

 

 

bad explanation. Sorry. She just simply hasn’t had her childhood stolen. Not in any context whatsoever.

Edited 9 October 2019 by MPH

[Guest MattP]

I'll tell you one thing that's more certain than climate change, she isn't getting a husband.

 

Imagine coming home an hour late from the pub to that, she'd probably have a lecturn and a speech written out ready for you.

 

[MC Prussian]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Cheers!

 

The suffragettes did some stuff that was at least partly directed at public opinion, not just the people who could make the change: running in front of racehorse, hiding in cupboard in Parliament for 1911 Census, chaining themselves to railing, blowing up postboxes etc. (not that I'm recommending any or all of those tactics - and I appreciate that I'm splitting hairs a bit).

 

As I suggested in my previous post, I tend to agree with your comment in bold - or, at least, I do from now on. I think the original big protest did successfully raise the profile of the issue and the campaign, although it caused a lot of disruption and annoyed those who were inconvenienced. But I reckon a law of diminishing returns applies now, if they keep repeating that same disruptive tactic.

 

Other, less disruptive forms of direct action can also be effective - some poignant, symbolic gesture at G20, UN or EU, as you suggest - or it could be something humorous that makes the point. There seem to be some creative people involved in the movement, so I hope they'll move on to stuff like that - repeated mass disruption will quickly alienate instead of promoting the cause. I'm also under no illusions that, as Matt suggested, some of those involved are nutters, obsessives, anti-democratic etc. But a lot aren't. Likewise, I've no illusions that just addressing the issue in the UK will solve the problem. It needs to be a global campaign and a global response....part of the reason why I tend to support multinational political institutions like the EU and UN, even if they often have major flaws. But physically most people are limited to campaigning in their own countries by cash and life's practicalities.

Sure, I agree with you there. Question is what the mix looks like - are most of the leaders sensible enough or does the ER panel consist of nutters (eco-terrorists, anarchists, marxists, mentally unstable) mostly? Hallam in the BBC interview didn't leave the best of impressions on me, he seems to have a very poor grasp of climate change, tends to confuse a lot of things, has a rather poor rhetoric, simplifying things, making indirect (violent) threats to society in the process.

 

And once you have the nutters leading the peaceful pack... Well, we already know where that leads us to...

[MC Prussian]

10 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I didn't realise the were measuring CO2 output in the 18th century.

There have been attempts at reconstructing the data:

Edited 9 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[Alf Bentley]

47 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.

 

A good post on the whole.

 

Re. the bit in bold, though: even if you don't have kids yourself so far (I think?), wouldn't you like any nephews/nieces or children of friends to be able to enjoy life? Life can be crap, but is still a wonderful thing on the whole. There's also the likelihood that, if human civilization does break down and collapse, it could be a horrendous, drawn-out process, not some sudden disappearance (breakdown of law and order? international wars over resources/migration? widespread public violence? frequent natural disasters? disease?). If the more pessimistic predictions prove accurate, stuff like that could certainly happen during your lifetime, maybe even mine, never mind that of the next generation.

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Sure, I agree with you there. Question is what the mix looks like - are most of the leaders sensible enough or does the ER panel consist of nutters (eco-terrorists, anarchists, marxists, mentally unstable) mostly? Hallam in the BBC interview didn't leave the best of impressions on me, he seems to have a very poor grasp of climate change, tends to confuse a lot of things, has a rather poor rhetoric, simplifying things, making indirect (violent) threats to society in the process.

 

And once you have the nutters leading the peaceful pack... Well, we already know where that leads us to...

 

I haven't seen any interviews with ER bods during this latest protest so cannot respond, though I'd agree with your point if the spokespeople are as you describe.

 

I did see a TV programme about ER some weeks back. On that, at least some of those interviewed seemed decent and on the ball.

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Well, there's your own bias speaking. You see the platform the publication is connected to and automatically draw your own conclusions - without having examined the report's content.

How is that a basis for a healthy debate?

On the very first page it says:

Now who's into "conspiracy theories"?

I present evidence of questionable going ons at the IPCC to you and you instantly dismiss it. You don't even offer counter points or proofs to the contrary.

 

"That's it, there's GWPF written on it, not going to bother with it, anyway". Don't you want to or can't you argue with it? No Skepticalscience/John Cook blog page at hand to solve this mystery?

 

This is to me an example of how we enforce political divisions these days. Instead of common ground, we simply attack the other side for being "other". Based on your argumentation, you seem to be a victim of groupthink, where everything outside your group simply cannot be. And I don't mean that as an insult or personal.

Where's the discourse gone?

A convienient legal figleaf, as all disclaimers should be. Smart of them - but the intent of the group is quite clear and unless it's all a massive coincidence that Mr McKitrick went there rather than other organisations with perhaps more credibility in the field, I'm guessing there was a reason for him doing so.

 

I didn't dismiss the concerns out of hand, I addressed them 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."

 

The burden of proof is on you, and by extension McKitrick and those who think like them, to prove that the whole thing is bogus or flawed in some way - though if you like I could always grab some charts from NASA or somesuch to backup my points if that would bring this dog and pony show to a conclusion. (It won't, I guess.)

 

Honestly, for your own sake, please stop going all Ben Shapiro "debate me" here - such sealioning might appear neat to some folks but hollering "he/she/they won't have discourse about facts in evidence, so much for the tolerant X!" isn't helping your POV. (And I don't mean that as personal or an insult, either.)

 

For the last time: If you have legitimate, peer reviewed scientific journal papers detailing that the current climate change statistics and predictions WRT temperature and atmospheric gas levels are somehow wrong or being gamed, then cite them. Here. When you can.

 

I'm interested in the scientific data, not the politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited 9 October 2019 by leicsmac

[MC Prussian]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I haven't seen any interviews with ER bods during this latest protest so cannot respond, though I'd agree with your point if the spokespeople are as you describe.

 

I did see a TV programme about ER some weeks back. On that, at least some of those interviewed seemed decent and on the ball.

Draw your own conclusions.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

bad explanation. Sorry. She just simply hasn’t had her childhood stolen. Not in any context whatsoever.

I'd love an elaboration on why you think that to be true in "any" context, as context is a pretty far ranging thing.

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

That's one of the big issues of today. The simplification of a complex subject such as Climate Change.

This strategy leaves a lot to be desired and a lot of room for misinterpretation and misinformation, including withholding vital information to the public. And too many people are sadly falling for it, as well as the media.

 

And Twitter is by no means a credible or authentic source of information, either. It's a cesspit for most part, with too many people putting on masks and being much more aggressive, facetious or mean than they would be in real life.

But for many of us it is simple, reduce, reuse, recycle. 

 

That is the message that is getting lost in the battle to be right about what is wrong. 

 

I agree Twitter is a cesspool.

 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Re. the bit in bold, though: even if you don't have kids yourself so far (I think?), wouldn't you like any nephews/nieces or children of friends to be able to enjoy life? Life can be crap, but is still a wonderful thing on the whole. There's also the likelihood that, if human civilization does break down and collapse, it could be a horrendous, drawn-out process, not some sudden disappearance (breakdown of law and order? international wars over resources/migration? widespread public violence? frequent natural disasters? disease?). If the more pessimistic predictions prove accurate, stuff like that could certainly happen during your lifetime, maybe even mine, never mind that of the next generation.

Of course, I don't believe for one minute they won't. I'm sure this is going to cause problems long term but no one on the planet now is going to die of climate change, if we have war over resources and migration etc it won't be anything to do with this. This issue is only a serious concern to us in the West, go to the poorest countries in the third world and it's not an issue, all most of them want is to pull themselves out of poverty using the methods we have.

If anyone on the planet now is seriously going to suffer in these sort of extremes most experts wouldn't agree that 2050 is a target that is fine to be carbon neutral.

[Captain...]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Of course, I don't believe for one minute they won't. I'm sure this is going to cause problems long term but no one on the planet now is going to die of climate change, if we have war over resources and migration etc it won't be anything to do with this. This issue is only a serious concern to us in the West, go to the poorest countries in the third world and it's not an issue, all most of them want is to pull themselves out of poverty using the methods we have.

If anyone on the planet now is seriously going to suffer in these sort of extremes most experts wouldn't agree that 2050 is a target that is fine to be carbon neutral.

The extreme weather of recent years has claimed many lives Matt. 

[Guest MattP]

45 minutes ago, Captain... said:

The extreme weather of recent years has claimed many lives Matt. 

Extreme weather has always claimed many lives Captain. 

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

Of course, I don't believe for one minute they won't. I'm sure this is going to cause problems long term but no one on the planet now is going to die of climate change, if we have war over resources and migration etc it won't be anything to do with this. This issue is only a serious concern to us in the West, go to the poorest countries in the third world and it's not an issue, all most of them want is to pull themselves out of poverty using the methods we have.

If anyone on the planet now is seriously going to suffer in these sort of extremes most experts wouldn't agree that 2050 is a target that is fine to be carbon neutral.

 

I assume you hope to live beyond 2050? Hell, I might even make that myself (though I don't rate my chances). Those who are kids today could well live beyond 2100. 

That makes it a bit risky to accept that we can carry on increasing carbon levels for another 30 years and no-one living will die, doesn't it? No point setting unrealistic targets, but not good for us to be under-ambitious either.

 

As Captain points out, the increased number of extreme weather events have already claimed lives. Then there could be - and already are - all sorts of indirect impacts from rising sea levels, saltwater infiltration, desertification & loss of farmland, breakdown of ecosystems affecting health/disease, water temperatures impacting fish stocks etc. As I understand it, a lot of that stuff will happen even if we get carbon neutral quickly, but why accept it being exacerbated for 30 more years? Not to mention the risk of exceeding tipping points, beyond which the upward momentum can no longer be halted at levels compatible with the survival of humanity....

 

I appreciate that it's a complicated business - and one that I'm not well-informed about. All sorts of factors can affect migration, health, food/water stocks, likelihood of war etc. Likewise, other remedies can be applied to some of those problems (e.g. development, GM foods, forestation, flood defences). But remedies cost resources - and there's already the prospect of all these problems getting worse over coming decades, without us adding to the problem unnecessarily by allowing our govts to be too passive. Just think of the tensions already caused by migration, alone (various causes, I know) - and imagine the sort of instability that could be caused if the flows get much larger and are combined with resource issues, more frequent natural disasters etc.

 

Sorry if this comes across as lecturing or sanctimonious (I'm in no position to lecture as I don't do any more than you & am under-informed). It just amazes me that so many intelligent, sentient people can seem so blase about the risks to themselves, the children of family & friends and, yes, plenty of people alive now & in future. Imagine us being the generations who allowed human civilisation to come to an end and shrugged our shoulders about it?

[Captain...]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

Extreme weather has always claimed many lives Captain. 

Exactly and we are seeing more extreme weather in recent years as a result of climate change ergo people are dying because of climate change. The French put the number of deaths in France due to the extreme heat wave this summer at nearly 1500. Now I know the counter argument is they were mainly elderly, some would have died anyway in a normal summer, they're French who really cares. The fact remains we are seeing increases in extreme weather which results in loss of life.

Edited 9 October 2019 by Captain...

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

But for many of us it is simple, reduce, reuse, recycle. 

Everyone should, it's just basic common sense... but in reality, if we all keep breading at the rate we are, then no amount of recycling a bit of plastic is going to save us. 

[Captain...]

10 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Everyone should, it's just basic common sense... but in reality, if we all keep breading at the rate we are, then no amount of recycling a bit of plastic is going to save us. 

No, but if it becomes a change in attitude it will filter through to companies that what the consumer wants is more sustainable products, easier to recycle packaging, and not excessive mixed packaging. 

 

We have seen some small victories with the war on plastic, more loose veg offered in supermarkets, Morrison's now provide paper bags for loose veg not plastic, Waitrose trailing a bring your own packaging option, Burger King has stopped giving away plastic toys, each individual thing is small, as is each individual change but it all adds up. We are going to see the end of pure petrol/diesel cars in our lifetime, which is great, but all of this comes from pressure and the greatest pressure is consumer pressure.

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Everyone should, it's just basic common sense... but in reality, if we all keep breading at the rate we are, then no amount of recycling a bit of plastic is going to save us. 

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.

[Leicester_Loyal]

4 hours ago, ozleicester said:

 

 

Fair enough for that one. But others in London haven't been as lucky. One cancer patient had to walk through them all rather than getting a lift there.