London climate-change street protest arrests reach 290 on second day

[VincentRJ]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It is if you try breathing it. 

 

We breathe in carbon dioxide all the time. It's essential for all plant growth which is essential for all animal life, including humans. Therefore, according to your logic, CO2 is a pollutant.

 

Anything that is taken in excess can have harmful effects. Even water which is not breathed in, but just drunk in excess, can kill you.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

We breathe in carbon dioxide all the time. It's essential for all plant growth which is essential for all animal life, including humans. Therefore, according to your logic, CO2 is a pollutant.

 

Anything that is taken in excess can have harmful effects. Even water which is not breathed in, but just drunk in excess, can kill you.

The problem with your argument is physics. 

 

You and I can call CO2 whatever we wish, and we can argue about what CO2 should be referred to as long as we wish, nothing you or I say changes the physics. 

 

CO2 is a greenhouse gas because of its physical properties. 

 

The scientific consensus is that CO2 is the most significant greenhouse gas.

 

Waffle on with the irrelevant arguments you have if you wish, you can't change physics and you've got nothing to sway the scientific consensus. 

[7by7]

Unlike, I suspect, anyone else here, I have been caught up in this demonstration as on Thursday as I had to get to client's premises in Mortimer Street (just north of Oxford Street) and then from there to Pelham Crescent in South Kensington; carrying the tools I needed to do my work, which are heavy and cumbersome so public transport is out of the question.

 

Fortunately, I was able to avoid the illegal demonstration on Waterloo Bridge and that at Marble Arch, but the road closures due to the illegal demonstrations at Piccadilly Circus and Oxford Circus meant myself and others had to crawl along in a stop start manner (worse than even the usual peak hours) to try and find alternative routes. Which, of course, vastly increased the amount of polluting exhaust we emitted. Hugely reducing the air quality inside London's Ultra Low Emissions Zone!

 

I eventually gave up trying to get from south of Oxford Street to the site in Mortimer Street and parked my vehicle in Poland Street (Soho) Car Park.

 

Walking from there, I passed many of the demonstrators at Oxford Circus. Most of whom were carrying plastic bags, drinking water from plastic bottles and eating takeaway food in single use polystyrene or plastic containers!

 

These people who claim to care about the environment are not only causing a huge deterioration of Central London's air quality, they are also producing a huge amount of non biodegradable, plastic waste!

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Unlike, I suspect, anyone else here, I have been caught up in this demonstration as on Thursday as I had to get to client's premises in Mortimer Street (just north of Oxford Street) and then from there to Pelham Crescent in South Kensington; carrying the tools I needed to do my work, which are heavy and cumbersome so public transport is out of the question.

 

Fortunately, I was able to avoid the illegal demonstration on Waterloo Bridge and that at Marble Arch, but the road closures due to the illegal demonstrations at Piccadilly Circus and Oxford Circus meant myself and others had to crawl along in a stop start manner (worse than even the usual peak hours) to try and find alternative routes. Which, of course, vastly increased the amount of polluting exhaust we emitted. Hugely reducing the air quality inside London's Ultra Low Emissions Zone!

 

I eventually gave up trying to get from south of Oxford Street to the site in Mortimer Street and parked my vehicle in Poland Street (Soho) Car Park.

 

Walking from there, I passed many of the demonstrators at Oxford Circus. Most of whom were carrying plastic bags, drinking water from plastic bottles and eating takeaway food in single use polystyrene or plastic containers!

 

These people who claim to care about the environment are not only causing a huge deterioration of Central London's air quality, they are also producing a huge amount of non biodegradable, plastic waste!

 

 

"Walking from there, I passed many of the demonstrators at Oxford Circus. Most of whom were carrying plastic bags, drinking water from plastic bottles and eating takeaway food in single use polystyrene or plastic containers!"

 

I guess if you say so. 

 

But here's a thing, I wonder when the idea of plastics being a threat to the environment entered your thinking and how?!

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The problem with your argument is physics. 

 

You and I can call CO2 whatever we wish, and we can argue about what CO2 should be referred to as long as we wish, nothing you or I say changes the physics. 

 

CO2 is a greenhouse gas because of its physical properties. 

 

The scientific consensus is that CO2 is the most significant greenhouse gas.

 

Waffle on with the irrelevant arguments you have if you wish, you can't change physics and you've got nothing to sway the scientific consensus. 

I'm concerned with verifiable facts, not popular and politically biased news reports of so-called scientific consensuses.

 

Greenhouse gases are essential for all life. Without them, our planet would be lifeless, like the moon.
Even alarmist sites admit that water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas by far. Here's an example.
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/

 

To quote:
"Water vapor is one of the most important elements of the climate system. A greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, it represents around 80 percent of total greenhouse gas mass in the atmosphere and 90 percent of greenhouse gas volume.
Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2."

 

However, such sites get around the significance of this undeniable fact by maintaining that the current 0.04% of atmospheric CO2 is the main driver of the current warming, which causes more evaporation of water, which in turn results in a positive feed-back, amplifying the warming.

 

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? However, there is something which these sites, including the IPCC, don't address, because it's too complicated for them to quantify. More water vapor in the atmosphere would certainly cause more warming, if there were no clouds. However, more clouds will form when there is more water vapor in the atmosphere. The water vapor doesn't disappear into outer space.

 

Clouds cause cooling due to the albedo effect. They reflect or block a lot of the heat radiated from the sun. You must have noticed that it tends to be cooler on a cloudy day. ????
 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm concerned with verifiable facts, not popular and politically biased news reports of so-called scientific consensuses.

 

Greenhouse gases are essential for all life. Without them, our planet would be lifeless, like the moon.
Even alarmist sites admit that water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas by far. Here's an example.
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/

 

To quote:
"Water vapor is one of the most important elements of the climate system. A greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, it represents around 80 percent of total greenhouse gas mass in the atmosphere and 90 percent of greenhouse gas volume.
Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2."

 

However, such sites get around the significance of this undeniable fact by maintaining that the current 0.04% of atmospheric CO2 is the main driver of the current warming, which causes more evaporation of water, which in turn results in a positive feed-back, amplifying the warming.

 

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? However, there is something which these sites, including the IPCC, don't address, because it's too complicated for them to quantify. More water vapor in the atmosphere would certainly cause more warming, if there were no clouds. However, more clouds will form when there is more water vapor in the atmosphere. The water vapor doesn't disappear into outer space.

 

Clouds cause cooling due to the albedo effect. They reflect or block a lot of the heat radiated from the sun. You must have noticed that it tends to be cooler on a cloudy day. ????
 

You should write a scientific paper and submit it for peer review.

 

You could achieve one of two things:

 

1. Win a Nobel prize of science and a place in science history for discovering a fundamental scientific truth. 

 

Or 

 

2. Become a subject yourself of scientific and psychological inquiry. 

 

 

Let me know when you publish. 

 

[VincentRJ]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You should write a scientific paper and submit it for peer review.

You could achieve one of two things:

1. Win a Nobel prize of science and a place in science history for discovering a fundamental scientific truth. 

Or 

2. Become a subject yourself of scientific and psychological inquiry. 

 

Let me know when you publish. 

 

Sorry! These views I've expressed have already been published by climatologists who are not on the gravy train.

[7by7]

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

"Walking from there, I passed many of the demonstrators at Oxford Circus. Most of whom were carrying plastic bags, drinking water from plastic bottles and eating takeaway food in single use polystyrene or plastic containers!"

 

I guess if you say so. 

 

But here's a thing, I wonder when the idea of plastics being a threat to the environment entered your thinking and how?!

 These people have done nothing to  make me more aware of pollution, climate change or any other environmental issue.

 

Issues I have been aware of and joining legitimate campaigns about since the 1970s.

 

None of which alters my comment that "These people who claim to care about the environment are not only causing a huge deterioration of Central London's air quality, they are also producing a huge amount of non biodegradable, plastic waste!"

 

Do you find that acceptable?

[RickBradford]

Dame Emma will go to the ends of the earth to virtue signal about the climate.

 

 

... and full of it.

 

But it's OK for her to fly 5000 miles to protest with an organisation that wants to ban air travel, as Extinction Rebellion explains:

 

“If she has to fly around the world ... it seems counter productive in the short term but we are looking at the bigger picture. Any flight she has taken is an unfortunate cost in our bigger battle to save the planet."

 

It's a extraordinary piece of writing; in a single paragraph, these brain-dead eco-snobs display themselves to hold a smug, morally superior, entitled, arrogant, hectoring and resentful attitude.

 

No wonder everyone's sick of the sight of them.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 These people have done nothing to  make me more aware of pollution, climate change or any other environmental issue.

 

Issues I have been aware of and joining legitimate campaigns about since the 1970s.

 

None of which alters my comment that "These people who claim to care about the environment are not only causing a huge deterioration of Central London's air quality, they are also producing a huge amount of non biodegradable, plastic waste!"

 

Do you find that acceptable?

Like I said, so you tell us.

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Dame Emma will go to the ends of the earth to virtue signal about the climate.

 

 

... and full of it.

 

But it's OK for her to fly 5000 miles to protest with an organisation that wants to ban air travel, as Extinction Rebellion explains:

 

“If she has to fly around the world ... it seems counter productive in the short term but we are looking at the bigger picture. Any flight she has taken is an unfortunate cost in our bigger battle to save the planet."

 

It's a extraordinary piece of writing; in a single paragraph, these brain-dead eco-snobs display themselves to hold a smug, morally superior, entitled, arrogant, hectoring and resentful attitude.

 

No wonder everyone's sick of the sight of them.

 

 

Not everyone is sick of the sight of environmentalist, far from it.

 

A bunch of people who are sick of the sight of all sorts of things might be, but grumpy old men are not everyone.

[RickBradford]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not everyone is sick of the sight of environmentalist, far from it.

 

A bunch of people who are sick of the sight of all sorts of things might be, but grumpy old men are not everyone.

Your defense of rampant hypocrisy does credit to your loyalty, but not to your common sense.

 

These celebrities do more harm than good to The Cause by jetting all round the globe to tell us how we must forgo air travel in order to "save the planet", whatever that means.

 

They hold the entire movement up to public ridicule, which in this case the British media -- right- and left-leaning -- was quick to underline.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Your defense of rampant hypocrisy does credit to your loyalty, but not to your common sense.

 

These celebrities do more harm than good to The Cause by jetting all round the globe to tell us how we must forgo air travel in order to "save the planet", whatever that means.

 

They hold the entire movement up to public ridicule, which in this case the British media -- right- and left-leaning -- was quick to underline.

They also publicise environmental damage, draw the attention of the public to the issues and help promote environmentalism.

 

Like it or not, and the evidence is you don’t Like it, the environment and Green Politics are a growing part of the political discourse.

 

Bleat all you will about the air miles of a few dozen celebrities, the bigger picture is the environment is of growing concern to millions of people.

 

For your own part just mark environmentalists as one more group of people you moan about.

[RickBradford]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

For your own part just mark environmentalists as one more group of people you moan about.

I applaud environmentalists - I dislike virtue signalling hypocrites.

 

Dame Emma doesn't care any more about the environment than she does about socialism, Palestine, refugees, atheism, AIDS, human rights, or equality for women, all topics she has been noisy about in the past.

 

This kind of champagne activism may entrance a few idealistic students, but outside the tight cabal of activists, her actions cause more annoyance than respect.

 

Even the BBC, climate activists to the core, couldn't mount a credible defense of her actions:

 

"Actress Dame Emma Thompson has been defending her decision to fly from the US to attend a climate change protest in central London. Speaking to reporters from the Extinction Rebellion campaign group's pink boat, she said did not fly as much as she used to - and planted a lot of trees." ???? ???? 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I applaud environmentalists - I dislike virtue signalling hypocrites.

 

Dame Emma doesn't care any more about the environment than she does about socialism, Palestine, refugees, atheism, AIDS, human rights, or equality for women, all topics she has been noisy about in the past.

 

This kind of champagne activism may entrance a few idealistic students, but outside the tight cabal of activists, her actions cause more annoyance than respect.

 

Even the BBC, climate activists to the core, couldn't mount a credible defense of her actions:

 

"Actress Dame Emma Thompson has been defending her decision to fly from the US to attend a climate change protest in central London. Speaking to reporters from the Extinction Rebellion campaign group's pink boat, she said did not fly as much as she used to - and planted a lot of trees." ???? ???? 

 

 

"Dame Emma doesn't care any more about the environment than she does about socialism, Palestine, refugees, atheism, AIDS, human rights, or equality for women, all topics she has been noisy about in the past."

 

Do learn to separate facts from your opinion, the above is your opinion. 

[wilcopops]

The evidence for man-made climate change is unequivocal.

If you think any other way, you are wrong....