Extinction Rebellion

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

What I'm pretty sure about is branding them nutcases without brain cells isn't going to resolve anything and most likely contributes to us being where we are

 

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

Of course there are still people who deny any notion of climate change and / or that mankind's contributing to it and this brainless, lack of intelligence line seems to be their standard retort to anything or anyone with whom they hold differing views.

Opinions are funny things arent they ?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Make your mind up!

[Raja Clavata]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

Opinions are funny things arent they ?

In your overwhelming desire to find fault / exception with just about anything and everything I post I think you've totally misread / misunderstood what I posted.

[Rewulf]

Just now, Raja Clavata said:

In your overwhelming desire to find fault / exception with just about anything and everything I post I think you've totally misread / misunderstood what I posted.

Not really, did you not see the contradiction ??

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, Rewulf said:

Not really, did you not see the contradiction ??

No contradiction whatsoever, wholly consistent, re-read what I posted with your own biases removed. But you just don't want to see it, do you.

[SpringDon]

Fair enough, but to really make a difference you’ll have to sit around with a bunch of keening harpies chained to something amusing.

The reference to amazon was a tangent but it’s one of my pet hates; people moaning about multinationals not paying tax but not being quite concerned enough to stop buying from Starbucks or using amazon.

 

dammed other people posting! This was a response to johnfromuk, in case anyone cares.

Edited July 26, 2019 by SpringDon

[Rewulf]

9 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

No contradiction whatsoever, wholly consistent, re-read what I posted with your own biases removed. But you just don't want to see it, do you.

Ill stand by what I quoted, without bias , it would appear to be a contradiction, but hey ho..

The rest of what you say regarding a peoples forum or assembly, do we not already have such a thing, called an electorate ?

Its all very well them saying they know better , and this is why they need to protest/stop traffic/ disrupt peoples everyday lives ?
But when do you see these 'braindead climate change deniers' protesting ?
What about their peoples forum/assembly?
Is it because they dont have the same type of agendas as the good people of E.R. ?

Ill leave you with this, if we have addressed OUR carbon 'targets' and dealt with 2 out of the 3 'demands' of the protesters, yet countries like India and China completely ignore theirs, why are they protesting here.
Surely they would be better placed, jumping on a plane 😲 or a boat 😆 or to be completely carbon neutral, walking, to China and India , and protesting there ?

Be far more effective no ?

[WestonSalop]

Even if we in the UK acted on and delivered tomorrow, all of the demands of these irresponsible idiots, it would not make a blind bit of difference to the impacts of global warming. The likes of China, the US, Brazil, India, Malaysia to name but a few, do not take the UK seriously on anything, so why should they say "Oh my word, look what the UK did - we'd better do the same". Get real folks.

[Raja Clavata]

10 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Ill stand by what I quoted, without bias , it would appear to be a contradiction, but hey ho..

Let me try to help you: "Of course there are still people who deny any notion of climate change and / or that mankind's contributing to it and this brainless, lack of intelligence line seems to be their standard retort to anything or anyone with whom they hold differing views.

Perhaps the grammar could have been better but I'm sure you of all people would not pull me up on that.

But when do you see these 'braindead climate change deniers' protesting ?

Your words not mine.
What about their peoples forum/assembly?

I would assume the whole purpose of the assembly would be to bring together people of opposing views, otherwise it's be just as pointless as something like the Brexit Party youtube channel.
Is it because they dont have the same type of agendas as the good people of E.R. ?

Clearly different agendas, don't think we need to go there.

Ill leave you with this, if we have addressed OUR carbon 'targets' and dealt with 2 out of the 3 'demands' of the protesters, yet countries like India and China completely ignore theirs, why are they protesting here.
Surely they would be better placed, jumping on a plane 😲 or a boat 😆 or to be completely carbon neutral, walking, to China and India , and protesting there ?

Be far more effective no ?

I actually don't believe it would be far more effective and I suspect neither do you.

As I stated at the beginning, I was playing DA a bit. I personally feel that the actions ER are undertaking are totally out of order and ridiculous but I can see both sides of the argument. I also do appreciate that doing so can be seen as a crime by some on here, but to coin your phrase, hey ho....

[SpringDon]

 

26 minutes ago, WestonSalop said:

Even if we in the UK acted on and delivered tomorrow, all of the demands of these irresponsible idiots, it would not make a blind bit of difference to the impacts of global warming. The likes of China, the US, Brazil, India, Malaysia to name but a few, do not take the UK seriously on anything, so why should they say "Oh my word, look what the UK did - we'd better do the same". Get real folks.

Hmm, I like to think I am a real folk and the argument that there’s no point in doing anything because “they” might not do it is the same as saying we might as well all drop litter because someone will do it.

I don’t expect governments to look at the uk and do the same, because governments (including our own) serve business and growth. I want people to change. Nothing will happen if left to government; look at the absurd idea that electric cars enmasse are anything other than an environmental disaster.

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Let me try to help you: "Of course there are still people who deny any notion of climate change and / or that mankind's contributing to it and this brainless, lack of intelligence line seems to be their standard retort to anything or anyone with whom they hold differing views.

Perhaps the grammar could have been better but I'm sure you of all people would not pull me up on that.

Okay, but you must admit that could easily be read as I perceived it ?
Therefore I mark you 6/10 for that 😃

 

6 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Your words not mine.

Please state for the record Mr Clavata, that you have never referred to climate change deniers as being of lower intelligence , or words to that effect ?
Please note you under oath and in a court of Pigeons.

 

8 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I would assume the whole purpose of the assembly would be to bring together people of opposing views, otherwise it's be just as pointless as something like the Brexit Party youtube channel.

Do you seriously believe that ?
The simple fact that you believe that the Brexit party youtube channel is pointless should seal your answer to that.
To DEBATE you need to respect the opposing view surely ?

 

11 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I actually don't believe it would be far more effective and I suspect neither do you.

No because theyd all get a good whipping then locked up !
Before whimpering down the phone for mater and pater to come and fetch them right now 

[WestonSalop]

1 minute ago, SpringDon said:

 

Hmm, I like to think I am a real folk and the argument that there’s no point in doing anything because “they” might not do it is the same as saying we might as well all drop litter because someone will do it.

I don’t expect governments to look at the uk and do the same, because governments (including our own) serve business and growth. I want people to change. Nothing will happen if left to government; look at the absurd idea that electric cars enmasse are anything other than an environmental disaster.

There is merit in what you say but I maintain that our powers of persuasion over other nations is next to nil, so we shouldn't expect to achieve anything more than patting ourselves on the back for being good world citizens. If the predictions are true (!) then we are all b**ggered anyway.  But all of that is irrelevant in respect of the topic in hand. Extinction Rebellion have committed collectively hundreds of criminal acts and they need to be treated as criminals, rather than exotic, eccentric, middle class wannabee hippies. They are criminals and need to be treated as such.

[SpringDon]

16 minutes ago, WestonSalop said:

<snip>

If the predictions are true (!) then we are all b**ggered anyway. 

<snip>

On this we can agree. If we are beginning to see anthropogenic change then it’s late to stop and it may not even be possible to slow down the overshoot.

[henry d]

1 hour ago, SpringDon said:

On this we can agree. If we are beginning to see anthropogenic change then it’s late to stop and it may not even be possible to slow down the overshoot.

So does the orchestra continue to play while the Titanic sinks?

[SpringDon]

6 minutes ago, henry d said:

So does the orchestra continue to play while the Titanic sinks?

Don’t see why not; the film did very well. Every cloud and all that.

[henry d]

Hopefully tongue in cheek 😉

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, henry d said:

So does the orchestra continue to play while the Titanic sinks?

Bad analogy, there was nothing to stop the Titanic sinking, the orchestra could play or not play, the outcome was never going to change.
What COULD have changed, was more lives could have been saved with less panic, and better planning.

We are told over and over that we have passed the point of 'no return' when it comes to climate change, no doubt in 10 years time we will once again pass the 'point of no return' again ?

The funny thing is , back in the mid 70s there was also a climate change 'emergency' 
Oil companies were blamed , along with capitalism, for bringing about an apocalyptic ICE AGE !
Although Time magazines front cover for for January 1977 featured an article entitled 'How to survive the coming ice age ' I dont recall it ever actually happening ?
No doubt there was scientific proof for predicting it ?

Al Gores oscar winning 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth, painted a shocking picture of man made GLOBAL WARMING , making claims of a completely melted Arctic ice cap and a flooded New York within 10 years !
Apart from the 10 s of millions of dollars flooding into Mr Gores bank account, no floods and a very existant ice cap.
Queue new film moving the 'definite' forward another 10 years- same outlook, Gores accounts swell again !

Is the global mean temperature rising ? Yes, a bit ,1.5 c in 150 years
Is it down to man ? Yes , a bit,   but to say its all down to man, rather than look at historical temp fluctuations that had NOTHING to do with man, is NOT scientific.
Can we stop/slow it down ? No I dont believe we can, we could stop using fossil fuels, cut our population, plant more trees, what we cant do is stop orbital shifts, solar activity, volcanic activity and polar shifts, we simply do not have that capacity.
The 'science' says its down to man, well most of it does, but completely ignores any other reason ?

Thats not scientific .

[Penelope]

8 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Bad analogy, there was nothing to stop the Titanic sinking, the orchestra could play or not play, the outcome was never going to change.
What COULD have changed, was more lives could have been saved with less panic, and better planning.

We are told over and over that we have passed the point of 'no return' when it comes to climate change, no doubt in 10 years time we will once again pass the 'point of no return' again ?

The funny thing is , back in the mid 70s there was also a climate change 'emergency' 
Oil companies were blamed , along with capitalism, for bringing about an apocalyptic ICE AGE !
Although Time magazines front cover for for January 1977 featured an article entitled 'How to survive the coming ice age ' I dont recall it ever actually happening ?
No doubt there was scientific proof for predicting it ?

Al Gores oscar winning 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth, painted a shocking picture of man made GLOBAL WARMING , making claims of a completely melted Arctic ice cap and a flooded New York within 10 years !
Apart from the 10 s of millions of dollars flooding into Mr Gores bank account, no floods and a very existant ice cap.
Queue new film moving the 'definite' forward another 10 years- same outlook, Gores accounts swell again !

Is the global mean temperature rising ? Yes, a bit ,1.5 c in 150 years
Is it down to man ? Yes , a bit,   but to say its all down to man, rather than look at historical temp fluctuations that had NOTHING to do with man, is NOT scientific.
Can we stop/slow it down ? No I dont believe we can, we could stop using fossil fuels, cut our population, plant more trees, what we cant do is stop orbital shifts, solar activity, volcanic activity and polar shifts, we simply do not have that capacity.
The 'science' says its down to man, well most of it does, but completely ignores any other reason ?

Thats not scientific .

I think at this point you shout house and collect your winnings.

[Rewulf]

12 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I think at this point you shout house and collect your winnings.

[Dave-G]

18 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

The issue here is that we should not ever give in to their demands; the idea that anyone who creates sufficient noise/disruption/inconvenience will gain their demands is obviously wrong.  In my view giving in to minorities who shout loudly and or make threats (whether they be terrorists, blackmailers, kidnappers, violent, disruptive or lawbreaking protesters) is plain wrong and simply encourages others to follow their example...

But to be fair its well known to produce results where an assembly of minority groups have got rights skewed in their favour and are even helped by police because it suits them to oblige rather than tackle the path of more resistance. It's a proven tactic that any group who kicks off will mostly get their grievance addressed while better behaved traceable counter protesters will be moved away. It's being nice that doesn't get a result.

I deleted the rest of this post before pressing the submit reply button to avoid risk of the thread being closed and needing a Henry hat. 

Edited July 27, 2019 by Dave-G

[SpringDon]

8 hours ago, Penelope said:

I think at this point you shout house and collect your winnings.

Well, perhaps. But should we take the chance? If a large part of the scientific community is wrong, we risk higher taxes and cleaner environment. If the “it’s just weather and we demand the right to run our heated melon ballers 24/7” community are wrong, we risk the collapse of the developed world.

There no spare planet on which to experiment so we will only know who “wins” in hindsight. Which is too late.

[Raja Clavata]

On 26/07/2019 at 10:57, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Make your mind up!

Since suggesting what other people should do appears to be OK, perhaps you can actually try contributing something to the discussions.

[Rewulf]

On 27/07/2019 at 08:49, SpringDon said:

Well, perhaps. But should we take the chance? If a large part of the scientific community is wrong, we risk higher taxes and cleaner environment. If the “it’s just weather and we demand the right to run our heated melon ballers 24/7” community are wrong, we risk the collapse of the developed world.

There no spare planet on which to experiment so we will only know who “wins” in hindsight. Which is too late.

Thats an interesting point you mentioning that.

Look at it this way, whilst we in the developed world (for the most part) commit to reducing pollution , cut our carbon ect ect.
The 'undeveloped ' world seems to have no such restrictions, China and India, cases in point , but many other countries seem to think its perfectly fine to burn forests, accept all manner of toxic and non toxic waste , transported via fuel guzzling ships from half way across the world to be 're cycled' ie buried ?

Are we slowing ourselves down, so they can catch us up, and become 'developed' ? Are we just pretending to 'save' the planet ?
If , like you say,   the predictions MIGHT be true, and we really do have 12 years to save the planet/ passed the point of no return/ killed our children already ect ??
Then surely we should be doing more to stop our impending doom ?

We seem to accept the armed forces of our nations , bombing a country back to the stone age for humanitarian (perceived or otherwise) transgressions, or alleged chemical weapons use.
We accept civilian 'collateral' damage for one thing, yet somehow it seems a step too far to forcibly stop a country from cutting down the very thing that makes the oxygen we breathe ?

It seems to me , that whilst our developed governments accept the need for 'something to be done' this appears to extend only to taxation and curtailing purchase freedom.
Which makes you wonder , for reasons stated above, if they are really taking the 'emergency' seriously at all.

Or if indeed , there really is an emergency.

 

[SpringDon]

Actually, I agree. If there is an emergency then it’s not being taken seriously. The current fashion for green consumerism is just more consumerism.

I think “we” need developing countries to be dirty, otherwise who’s going to pollute their environment to get the rare earth metals for our plasma tv (on which we can watch programs about plastic pollution in the oceans).

How will we meet our righteous landfill reduction targets without someone to take our waste. (Which gives us more time to watch programs about pollution).

And most of all, we someone to have low safety standards and no worker rights so we can export the inflation that would otherwise depress our standard of living.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

Actually, I agree. If there is an emergency then it’s not being taken seriously. The current fashion for green consumerism is just more consumerism.

I think “we” need developing countries to be dirty, otherwise who’s going to pollute their environment to get the rare earth metals for our plasma tv (on which we can watch programs about plastic pollution in the oceans).

How will we meet our righteous landfill reduction targets without someone to take our waste. (Which gives us more time to watch programs about pollution).

And most of all, we someone to have low safety standards and no worker rights so we can export the inflation that would otherwise depress our standard of living.

Exactly 

Imagine this scenario.
NASA have detected an asteroid on a collision course with Earth in say 10 years time, probability of impact 95 %

This impact is going to cause such damage, tsunamis, earthquakes , nuclear winter ect , that life on this planet is going to be seriously compromised, not ended entirely, but its going to be bad.
Imagine the measures that would be taken, the resources requisitioned , to try to either stop this from happening, or to help as many people bunker down and carry on ?

Where are these measures for the climate 'emergency' ?
What the actual f is raising carbon tax going to do ?
Why arent we being FORCED to stop wasting resources NOW, extinction rebellion have stated THEY could be the LAST generation  do they actually believe that ?
Im assuming none of these clued up people drive cars , use planes ect ?

Does our governments believe that ER are wrong or right ?

If they dont , why dont they call them out on it, why dont climate scientists put their heads above the parapet and say 'Err actually , its not THAT bad !'
Its because it serves them not to.