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

Just Stop Oil

By Wymsey, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

grobyfox1990

grobyfox1990

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I assume all the protesters are leading by example in their own lives

 Controversial opinion incoming…I don’t think you have to live ‘perfectly’ to have an opinion on the matter. 21st century living means we’re almost always using oil products anyway. Granted you should try and reduce consumption 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxdiamond

Foxdiamond

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

 Controversial opinion incoming…I don’t think you have to live ‘perfectly’ to have an opinion on the matter. 21st century living means we’re almost always using oil products anyway. Granted you should try and reduce consumption 

Hopefully their carbon footprint is much lower than the average in the UK

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted

Perhaps there ought to be some sort of experiment to show us what life will be like under their ideals.  They appear to have plenty of willing volunteers, so perhaps set up a community of like minded people who will live without oil and gas and any products derived from same, for perhaps a year.  They can be set up with a proportionate number of wind farms and solar panels etc. and electric vehicles to transport goods.  (obviously being careful not to buy too many imports, especially not if they travelled by air.)

 

Put the reality cameras in there and we can see what would be expected of the rest of us who may (at present) be unimpressed by the idea.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, marbles said:

If you condone these types of actions for cause you believe in, you will have to accept the same types of actions for causes you disagree with

if im disagreeing with causes that stop the destruction of the planet and the premarure deaths of living creatures on this single planet we call home... accepted!
 

3 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

I assume all the protesters are leading by example in their own lives

i dont know of any that are mining in their back garden

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

TL;DR - disagree with their methods as you wish (and they clearly are ineffective in a democracy), but the laws of thermodynamics will not entertain delusion. The facts are obvious, the future consequences are likewise obvious.

 

Pick a side and be remembered in the future for which one you pick.

 

-----------------------------------

 

20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NA

 

co2_temp_1900_2008.gif

 

 

Human beings are interesting in a “makes me want to tear my hair out” kinda way. Most people love science until it picks on their pet belief system. Most people love science until scientific consensus says something they don’t quite like.
Most people love science until the double “c” word is uttered: Climate Change. Global warming being the cause, climate change being the result.
 
Yes, our climate is changing, both as a part of Earth’s natural cycle and due to human contributions. Human contributions have sped up our climate changing and are causing it to change at higher levels than what has occurred in the past. lose their absolute shits over this. You’d think I had walked into a room and announced that we should all have sex with cactuses or something.
 
Scientific consensus for climate change, much like vaccination technology, evolution, the origin of the Universe and genetically modified food (amongst others), have been built upon - not by a bunch of scientists in a room agreeing with each other but from hundreds and thousands of studies, thousands and millions of hours of data collection from multiple disciplines spanning hundreds of years.
 
Scientific consensuses are like puzzles that have been constructed from data contributed from many different disciplines to produce the big picture we have in regards to scientific theories. Each piece representing the large contributions from different fields and disciplines of study. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was the scientific knowledge we presently have.
 
Evolution, for example, has been constructed from the data presented by biology, palaeontology, biochemistry, geology and genetics (to name a few).Scientific consensus doesn't just support a theory - it is what has pieced the theory together into an explanation for a phenomena. Feel free to disagree with scientific consensus, but understand that you will need to support you disagreement with evidence. Understand that it isn’t just the theory itself you are disagreeing with, it is the findings from every different discipline that has contributed to the overall picture.
 
This also applies for climate change. Meteorology, geology, physics, chemistry, biology, geophysics, historical climatology, even paleontology and archaeological record have contributed to what we know of the early Earth’s climate vs now.
We have the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the scientific and intergovernmental body working under the auspices of the United Nations. It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organisations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme.
 
We also have (but not limited to): Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (Aus), Office of Global Change (US), Met Office (UK), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Aus), Council on Environmental Quality (US), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, APEC Climate Center (Korea), Center for Climate Systems Research, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (England), Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (Norway), Energy Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia), Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment (India), Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (Germany), Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Austria), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The Royal Society of the UK, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS).
I have even bothered to put NASA on the list. I haven’t finished listing down all of the government agencies, independent agencies, and organisations that are involved in climate research.
Each of the organisations have website, their publications and research are easily accessible. Go find their websites, click their links and read.
 
An introduction to the Greenhouse effect and has this impacts on climate change: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/.../greenhouse_effect/01.shtml
There are two components in the greenhouse effect — a natural one caused by the amounts of greenhouse gases naturally found in the atmosphere — and a human-made one caused by the amounts of greenhouse gases that we add to the atmosphere as a result burning fossil fuels, deforestation, chlorofluorocarbons - to name a few. Greenhouse gases include water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3). (While methane is 23 times more effective and nitrous oxide is 296 times more effective than carbon dioxide, however we have more carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere than methane or nitrous oxide).
Greenhouse gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere and shine onto the Earth’s surface which is converted to heat, however they trap the heat that reflects back up into the atmosphere much like the glass walls of a greenhouse. This greenhouse effect keeps the Earth warm enough to sustain life.
 
In brief greenhouse gases are released in the atmosphere, not all of them stay in the atmosphere (an amount of CO2 will dissolve into the oceans), however due to the large amount of gases which are being released into the atmosphere, enough gas is staying within the atmosphere to cause an impact.
 
 
An everyday example of the greenhouse effect
 
If you open the door of a car that has been left parked in the sun for a couple of hours, you'll notice that the temperature inside the car is much warmer than the temperature outside. This is because the windows of the car allow the sunlight to enter. This light, once inside, is then partially converted into heat. However, these same windows do not allow the heat inside the car to pass through as easily as light, so some of this heat accumulates. The net effect is that more heat remains in than can come out, increasing the temperature inside the car (https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-effect).
 
The warming of the Earth’s atmosphere can cause a dramatic rise in sea level that will significantly impact to coastal communities. If the whole Greenland ice sheet melted, for example, this would lead to a global rise of 7 m (23 ft).(http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080416/full/452798a.html).
 
More energy in the atmosphere will lead to more active weather systems which has resulted in more frequent and more violent storms. Climate being the average weather in a place over many years - localised and long range climate changes have been impacted by the warming of the globe. Rainfall patterns have significantly changed, with floods in some places and droughts in others - this will impact crops (particularly in developing nations) and have an economic impact on the agricultural industry. Not just regular crops - coffee, tea, and chocolate.
 
Speaking of impact to food - Carbon dioxide dissolves in water by reacting to make H2CO3 (carbonic acid), causing great damage to fish, also to coral reefs (http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/.../FreshWater/acidrain.html). Other impacts to ecosystems will arise as a result of glaciers melting and causing floods - vectors that spread tropical diseases (mainly mosquitoes) will begin to move into new areas, spreading disease which will impact lives and health care. Habit change or loss will impact on ecosystem - species migration is slow and some habit may disappear completely. Losing polar climates will impact of polar bears, for example.
Because the glaciers are melting, the planet cannot reflect as much solar radiation back into space, leading to more warming. As the northern permafrost melts, organic material will decompose and release methane, again leading to more warming. As the oceans warm, their ability to dissolve carbon dioxide decreases, and if the ocean temperatures rises passed a certain point the methane stored under pressure on the seafloor will vaporise, leading to more ****ing warming (http://e360.yale.edu/.../as_arctic_ocean_ice_disappears...)
 
Are you sensing a theme here?
 
Even if you don't accept the scientific consensus on climate change - are you really that invested in fossil fuels which cause pollution and impact on our health, that you would rather stick your finger in your ears than do something about it?
Well then get your shit together, get it all together and put it in a backpack, all your shit, so it's together. And if you gotta take it somewhere, take it somewhere, you know, take it to the shit store and sell it, or put it in the shit museum. I don't care what you do, you just gotta get it together.
 
Get your shit together.
 
The research falls into several independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:
1. Simple chemistry – carbon dioxide (CO2) and the Greenhouse Effect: https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s): https://www.eia.gov/about/legislative_timeline.php
3. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it is increasing and that the levels are higher than anything we’ve seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s): http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/keeling_curve
4. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels: http://www.realclimate.org/.../how-do-we-know-that.../
6. Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s): http://www.ipcc.ch/publication.../ar4/wg1/en/figure-1-3.html
7. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
9. Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s): http://iopscience.iop.org/.../10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
More links:
More links to papers here: https
Impact on weather events:
The Climate Council in my country has even issued a publication providing information on how climate change impacts on weather: http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/.../1b331044fb03fd0997c4...
The IPCC also has every assessment report, and special report they have completed accessible here for free: https://www.ipcc.ch/.../publications_and_data_reports...
"Assessment Reports: These are published materials composed of the full scientific and technical assessment of climate change, generally in three volumes, one for each of the Working Groups of the IPCC, together with their Summaries for Policymakers, plus a Synthesis Report
Special Reports: These are materials that provide an assessment of a specific issue and generally follow the same structure as a volume of an Assessment Report"
 
------------------------
 
If you don't think that JSO are going about things the right way (and that's fair enough to think), then lobby your own MP, and look at other legitimate ways for us to phase from oil and gas to renewables and other cleaner sources of energy generation as fast as possible. Or just sit and complain from the sidelines, but if things go horribly Pete Tong (and there's a good chance they will), don't expect history to remember those who didn't try much to change that well.
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbles

marbles

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

if im disagreeing with causes that stop the destruction of the planet and the premarure deaths of living creatures on this single planet we call home... accepted!
 

 

Doesn’t work that way though. 
If radical ways are shown to be effective, people with other beliefs (sane and insane) will employ the same types of radical ideas to get what they want - some people/places already do that, and are condoned for it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Perhaps there ought to be some sort of experiment to show us what life will be like under their ideals.  They appear to have plenty of willing volunteers, so perhaps set up a community of like minded people who will live without oil and gas and any products derived from same, for perhaps a year.  They can be set up with a proportionate number of wind farms and solar panels etc. and electric vehicles to transport goods.  (obviously being careful not to buy too many imports, especially not if they travelled by air.)

 

Put the reality cameras in there and we can see what would be expected of the rest of us who may (at present) be unimpressed by the idea.

This is a strawman IMO - or if it isn't, then they're wrong.

 

Oil is still required for the making of plastics and other products. What it is not required for is energy generation and oil should no longer be being extracted for that purpose - or if it is, it should be being drawn down rapidly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Sampson said:

It shouldn't even be an argument when it comes to climate science. That's the point. They should already have won the argument, the scientific consensus is pretty clear. The fact some people still dispute it isn't "not winning the arguments", it's people ignoring and burying their head in the same over stark realities because it affects their way of life.

 

People stubbornly make bad faith arguments about them being "middle class who don't understand the working man" all the time. Yes, we're going to have to disrupt our economy and the way we do things to slow down climate change, that's the reality of the situation, it probably is going to affect all classes of society, but people have been digging their head in the sand like ostriches for decades after people have gone through all the possible political routes.

Do you really think volunteering gets governments to take action? Of course it doesn't.

Quoted for emphasis.

 

Again - the laws of thermodynamics don't give a shit about what we think. They only care about what we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, nathan. said:

They are ****ing scum

 

Blocking emergency care.

 

I would see them as a speed bump

 

 

 

7 hours ago, tom27111 said:

Depends on how you look at it.

 

If its for a specific cause, Nigel Farage seemed to do alright.

 

7 hours ago, foxy boxing said:

Middle class people with too much time on there hands. If they want to do something productive and help the planet why don't they do some voluntary work and start living in the real world. It makes no sense at all disrupting ordinary hard working people who already do there bit for the environment. Most of the protesters are total hypocrites.

....so what exactly should be done to get the necessary action done in the timely fashion it needs to be to prevent a great many people suffering and dying?

 

Genuine question.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, marbles said:

Doesn’t work that way though. 
If radical ways are shown to be effective, people with other beliefs (sane and insane) will employ the same types of radical ideas to get what they want - some people/places already do that, and are condoned for it.

 

nahhh. thats just crap. and i suspect you know it

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

And to forestall a rather tired old strawman argument here that has already been trotted out:

 

The goal is transition from oil and gas products to ones that produce less carbon emissions while maintaining the same quality of life, not neo-Luddism. Screeds about faux-hypocrisy and "what about their air travel" are utterly irrelevant except in the minds of those looking to score cheap points and look to maintain the status quo because it selfishly suits them better, at the expense of the future.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbles

marbles

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

nahhh. thats just crap. and i suspect you know it

 

Why is it crap?

 

You really think that if violent protests work, no one else will follow suit?  
 

You have to be joking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, marbles said:

Why is it crap?

 

You really think that if violent protests work, no one else will follow suit?  
 

You have to be joking.

Yeah, sometimes change comes on a sea of violence and 99.99% of the time that isn't a good thing. It isn't here either (except where the choice is between that and the direct deaths and suffering of more people, and we're a ways from that yet).

 

NB. If anyone wants to discuss actual  possible solutions here rather than just complaining about the nature of the protests, I'm here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, marbles said:

Why is it crap?

 

You really think that if violent protests work, no one else will follow suit?  
 

You have to be joking.

JSO are NOT violent.... stop trying to spread lies and misinformation

We have already seen the violent fvckwits of the type you mention, EDL etc. That sort of violent "anti decent society "protesters have been on the streets for years and anyone half decent and intelligent can tell the difference and the law reacts (usually) appropriately.

Have you considered that what JSO  are doing is really important?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbles

marbles

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

JSO are NOT violent.... stop trying to spread lies and misinformation

We have already seen the violent fvckwits of the type you mention, EDL etc. That sort of violent "anti decent society "protesters have been on the streets for years and anyone half decent and intelligent can tell the difference and the law reacts (usually) appropriately.

Have you considered that what JSO  are doing is really important?

FFS

Did you just pick out certain words that I posted, and concentrate on those?

 

I was referring to protests in general, and the fact that regardless of what they are for, it is a horrible idea to condone them turning to violence.  I never said JSO were violent.

I was using violence as an example as a worst case scenario.

 

My argument is that the ends do not justify the means.  Regardless of the protest.

 

 

Edited by marbles
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sir Shep

Sir Shep

Posted
Posted

They're not violent, but they get no sympathy from me when they are disrupting working people from getting from A to B and ruining what little enjoyment we are allowed these days. Ivory tower brigade might sip their lattes and politely clap because they can afford their electric cars or can work from home or live in a city with good transport links. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sir Shep said:

They're not violent, but they get no sympathy from me when they are disrupting working people from getting from A to B and ruining what little enjoyment we are allowed these days. Ivory tower brigade might sip their lattes and politely clap because they can afford their electric cars or can work from home or live in a city with good transport links. 

So push for solutions that allow these options to be available to many more people, then.

 

Let's take on the inequality that allows for the aforementioned "ivory tower" brigade and actually secure a much less risky future for human civilisation at the same time.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
grobyfox1990

grobyfox1990

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Sir Shep said:

They're not violent, but they get no sympathy from me when they are disrupting working people from getting from A to B and ruining what little enjoyment we are allowed these days. Ivory tower brigade might sip their lattes and politely clap because they can afford their electric cars or can work from home or live in a city with good transport links. 

Spot on, hence ‘transition’ is the most important word not ‘just stop’ as these uneducated lunatics believe, because in the meantime chumps like us still need to get to work and pay our bills. And global inequalities are the biggest threat facing the world right NOW, not climate.

 

Granted this isn’t a policy making forum but a football one, the only thing we should be talking about is what happens between 4.30 and 6.30 today 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Spot on, hence ‘transition’ is the most important word not ‘just stop’ as these uneducated lunatics believe, because in the meantime chumps like us still need to get to work and pay our bills. And global inequalities are the biggest threat facing the world right NOW, not climate.

 

Granted this isn’t a policy making forum but a football one, the only thing we should be talking about is what happens between 4.30 and 6.30 today 

Speak for yourself man. :ph34r:

 

But in all seriousness, yes, transition, hopefully rapid enough to prevent horrible things, is the key word here.

 

NB. I would say that the consequences of climate change in terms of death and suffering may well far outstrip those posed by global inequality - but the latter is critically important as it does massively impede progress on the former and so focusing on both is the only way to go.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil Bowman

Phil Bowman

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Spot on, hence ‘transition’ is the most important word not ‘just stop’ as these uneducated lunatics believe

But isn't this more a case, much like 'Defund the Police,' of an arguably poorly-chosen slogan making it too easy for people to distract attention from the very real (and perfectly justifiable) issues being raised.

 

Of course 'Let's seriously look at finding, developing and implementing ways to move away from our excessive, unsustainable and damaging reliance on products derived from oil' isn't quite as snappy, so I do understand why over-simplistic slogans are chosen...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sir Shep

Sir Shep

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

So push for solutions that allow these options to be available to many more people, then.

 

Let's take on the inequality that allows for the aforementioned "ivory tower" brigade and actually secure a much less risky future for human civilisation at the same time.

Sure, in an ideal world but this is not that world. Oh and I'm definitely not a denier, I absolutely am on board making this world less fire more Ice (if that makes sense) but I won't sympathise with the haves who think it's ok to disrupt the have nots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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