Jump to content

Climate activists disrupt British cities with 'summer uprising'


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 hours ago, kingdong said:

as a keen dedicated eco warrior and vegan can i please urge all my fellow members of this forum to stop their consumption of baked beans,the resultant flatulance  which is a by-product of their consumption is causing immense damage to the ozone layer and looking back can only hang my head in shame at the damage i have inflicted on our enviroment by my previous bahaviour of consuming 2 cans of beans a day,then spending the evening creeping ,em out,please act now before its too late.

Vegans are the worst terrorist they stop farmers from making a living terrorize restaurants and super markets if you don't want to eat is ok but don't tell anybody else what they can't eat back to my pork chops now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, White Christmas13 said:

Vegans are the worst terrorist they stop farmers from making a living terrorize restaurants and super markets if you don't want to eat is ok but don't tell anybody else what they can't eat back to my pork chops now

 

”Vegans are the worst terrorist”

 

If you say so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, White Christmas13 said:

Vegans are the worst terrorist they stop farmers from making a living terrorize restaurants and super markets if you don't want to eat is ok but don't tell anybody else what they can't eat back to my pork chops now

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/trolls-savage-mass-vegan-protests-across-australia/news-story/6602af8e996426c749837bb10c7ad65c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not wishing to be alarmist but i did read a report prepared by the CSIRO for the Australian government, asking for predictions of what the effects of future warming may be. Trying to predict into the future is always fraught with uncertainty, but they looked at the effects of 1.5 degrees centigrade of warming and 2 degrees centigrade over the span of this century. Those are, i would add, very conservative levels of warming given that we are already at 0.9 centigrade and warming by 0.2 degrees per decade recently.

 

The 2 most significant predictions - by the end of the century there will be one billion climate refugees, and up to 100 days per years in the tropics with temperatures lethal to humans without protection from the sun. The other effects were, not surprisingly, less significant ....

 

And given that 3 degrees Centigrade by the end of the century is quite possible, wonder what affect that would have ......

 

Unfortunately i do not have that document any more.

,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I hope they can live on less because I have no intention of changing how I live. If they can eat one steak less I can eat one steak more. I really don't see the problem. If this is really your cause you need to sacrifice so others can also live and save the planet for all of us.

 

Also anybody who has a kid especially more than one need to keep quiet. Think of the children... they should never have had in the first place. Without a real conversation about why people shouldn't breed indiscriminately like rabbits all other discussions are meaningless. Over population is the real problem and solving that at least to a great degree helps alleviate the rest. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rickudon said:

Not wishing to be alarmist but i did read a report prepared by the CSIRO for the Australian government, asking for predictions of what the effects of future warming may be. Trying to predict into the future is always fraught with uncertainty, but they looked at the effects of 1.5 degrees centigrade of warming and 2 degrees centigrade over the span of this century. Those are, i would add, very conservative levels of warming given that we are already at 0.9 centigrade and warming by 0.2 degrees per decade recently.

 

The 2 most significant predictions - by the end of the century there will be one billion climate refugees, and up to 100 days per years in the tropics with temperatures lethal to humans without protection from the sun. The other effects were, not surprisingly, less significant ....

 

And given that 3 degrees Centigrade by the end of the century is quite possible, wonder what affect that would have ......

 

Unfortunately i do not have that document any more.

,

My gosh! That sounds so alarming! I pity those poor school kids who are getting the impression their future is so extremely bleak.

 

Was this CSIRO report submitted before, or after the Australian government slashed funding to the CSIRO?

 

Anyway, because I feel so compassionate towards people who must be suffering like hell because they believe only the alarmist reports on climate change, I'll provide a link to a site which provides an alternative and more rational perspective, which is also based on peer-reviewed scientific studies.

 

It's a long read with many references to scientific studies, some of which are related to the past and present climate in China.

 

https://www.c3headlines.com/are-todays-temperatures-unusual/

 

"A new peer-reviewed study provides additional evidence that significant parts of the world have not experienced the hypothesized dangerous and rapid global warming impact of CO2 emissions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I'll provide a link to a site which provides an alternative and more rational perspective,

If the article doesn't follow the prevailing alarmist narrative, then the site itself must be "denialist", hence you must be a "denialist" for citing it in the first place.

 

Haven't you read My First Activist Playbook?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

If the article doesn't follow the prevailing alarmist narrative, then the site itself must be "denialist", hence you must be a "denialist" for citing it in the first place.

 

Haven't you read My First Activist Playbook?

Of course. That's the problem. Calling someone a denialist in relation to climate change matters is a form of psychological projection. The true denialists are the alarmists. They escape from the uncomfortable fact that they are in a state of denial (about the methodology of science), by projecting their own state of denial onto skeptics.

 

The alarmists are in denial of the significance of the fundamental methodology of science, which requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, and the ability to falsify a theory, before the theory can be accepted as sound and reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Calling someone a denialist in relation to climate change matters is a form of psychological projection.

Yup.

 

As in the maxim: "If you want to know what a Leftist is worried about, see what they accuse you of."

 

Unfortunately, they are not self-aware enough to grasp this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Yup.

 

As in the maxim: "If you want to know what a Leftist is worried about, look at what they attack you about."

 

Unfortunately, they are not self-aware enough to grasp this.

Yes. This is a major problem. I'm doing my best to make them more self-aware. That's all I can do. I hope I live long enough to see how this all turns out. I wonder if there'll be some turn-around in the future when a 'real' consensus of scientists begin to show that 0.04 to 0.05% of CO2 in the atmosphere had a negligible effect on the climate and that the trillions of dollars spent on developing renewables would have been better spent on protecting the population from the effects of extreme weather events that have always occurred in the past and could reliably have been predicted to continue to occur in the future regardless of human emissions of CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2019 at 8:57 AM, VincentRJ said:

It'll be interesting to see what the latest IPCC Working Group 1 report has to say about this new data. It's still a work in progress, but 'special' reports are occasionally released.

 

According to the following article:  
https://www.thegwpf.com/ipcc-report-extreme-weather-events-not-getting-worse/

 

“The IPCC once again reports that there is little basis for claiming that drought, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes have increased, globally.
Much like the IPCC’s 2013 climate assessment, the new special report confirmed what Pielke and others have said for years about the relationship between global warming and extreme weather."

 

 

I'm going to get to your other replies but I missed this one and it show how susceptible you are to misleading claims. What this dubious group says is true as far as it goes. But what they don't say is that this same reports does tie several extremes to ACC. For someone who claims to be interested in original sources, you don't seem very interested in actually looking at them. ?Rather you consistently trust misleading representations. Here's a link to the 2018 working group report. If you go to page 119 you'll get the complete story. 

Here is the 2018 working group 1 report on such issues as climate extremes. 

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf

Go to page 119 and you'll find a summary of extreme climate events and how likely it is that they are due to ACC.. 

And if you perform according to your past form, you won't acknowledge your error but just move on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

It's a long read with many references to scientific studies, some of which are related to the past and present climate in China.

 

https://www.c3headlines.com/are-todays-temperatures-unusual/

 

"A new peer-reviewed study provides additional evidence that significant parts of the world have not experienced the hypothesized dangerous and rapid global warming impact of CO2 emissions."

Once again you're propagating falsehoods. And you use the same dishonest techniques . Instead of going to the original research you consult a site that lies about what the research says.  And cherry picking. In this case the site you linked to links in turn to another dishonest website. Finally I got to the end of the rainbow here

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.6097

Here's the introduction from the author:

"An improved knowledge of long‐term climatic variations over the Altai‐Dzungarian region will increase our understanding of the current climate and help to predict the effects of global warming on future water availability in this region."

 

 

Also, this isn't all of central asia, is it? In fact not even close. So what about temperatures in central asia say from 1979 to 2011

Temperature Changes in Central Asia from 1979 to 2011 Based on Multiple Datasets*

The consensus of these datasets and available in situ observations indicates accelerated warming at the average rate of 0.39°C decade−1 in central Asia from 1979 to 2011, which is stronger than the mean rate of temperature change for global land areas (e.g., Brohan et al. 2006; Smith and Reynolds 2005) and other regions (Simmons et al. 2004; Ren et al. 2005; Li et al. 2011, 2012). Moreover, the warming rate in central Asia in the first 12 years of the twenty-first century is larger than that of the previous decades. This increase rate in central Asia in the early twenty-first century is comparable to that averaged for Russia and for China (Brohan et al. 2006; Smith and Reynolds 2005) and is larger than that averaged for Europe (Simmons et al. 2004). 

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00064.1

 

And of course, this is all based on the misconception that global warming means that everywhere it's getting warmer. A misconception that you exploit.

Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?

No, “global warming” means Earth's average annual air temperature is rising, but not necessarily in every single location during all seasons across the globe.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it’s-warming-everywhere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed:

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2019 at 8:08 AM, bristolboy said:

The thing is, solutions are already at hand. Coal is already not cost competitive with renewables. In fact, just the cost of continuing to run an already existing coal plant is greater than building a new solar or wind power plant. Renewables are now competitive with natural gas. And the costs of reneweables keep dropping. The era of fossil fuels is coming to an end. The harder goverments push, the faster it will happen.

But such solutions, readily available and cheaper as you say, are the result of market forces, and involve business decisions. They are therefore inherently evil, wicked, and quite possibly initiated by the secret discipleship of Margaret Thatcher. 

 

Far better to listen to the reasoned and level headed practical solutions offered by the likes of this brave soul...

extinct_2-small.jpg.0c039301d32ab33ba19ad8756be14121.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2019 at 7:55 AM, RickBradford said:

If the article doesn't follow the prevailing alarmist narrative, then the site itself must be "denialist", hence you must be a "denialist" for citing it in the first place.

 

Haven't you read My First Activist Playbook?

except, of courses, the VincentRJ does explicitly deny that CO2 plays any role in anthropogenic climate change. So that would make him fit the definition of "denialist" as you yourself have defined it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

except, of courses, the VincentRJ does explicitly deny that CO2 plays any role in anthropogenic climate change. So that would make him fit the definition of "denialist" as you yourself have defined it. 

I really wish you would stop making up falsehoods.

 

I have never defined the word "denialist", nor would I ever do so, as I regard it simply as a meaningless and reprehensible slur designed to suppress debate.

 

On another thread, I invited you to give your definition, and when you did so, pointed out that it did not apply to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idly wondering, as one does, just what is the "carbon footprint" for the lorry required to transport that yacht, and for the accompanying crane needed to unload it from the lorry. Of course we must not consider the pollution engendered by the congestion caused by transporting the yacht to the place chosen for their brave activism.

 

There again, as the yacht is built out of GRP, a fair amount of carbon produced there; plus of course any materials which may have been released into the atmosphere in spray painting it blue...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2019 at 6:02 PM, snoop1130 said:

to force the government to act to help avert what they cast as a climate cataclysm.

Have they any constructive suggestions for what action they would like to see done?  Climate change is neither caused by mankind nor preventable by mankind!  Adapt!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Prairieboy said:

Have they any constructive suggestions for what action they would like to see done?  Climate change is neither caused by mankind nor preventable by mankind!  Adapt!

Yes, and it take only a cursory effort to find it. The big news is the precipitous decline of solar and wind power. Now it makes no economic sense to build coal plants. As a Lazard Freres report pointed out, it is now cheaper to build a renewable source from scratch and get your electricity from there, than it is to just run an existing coal plant.

And natural gas is now being challenged too. Gas peaker plants don't make sense to build just about anywhere, even in the USA. And given the expected continued decline in cost of renewables it doesn't really make sense to build new gas powered plants.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

I really wish you would stop making up falsehoods.

 

I have never defined the word "denialist", nor would I ever do so, as I regard it simply as a meaningless and reprehensible slur designed to suppress debate.

 

On another thread, I invited you to give your definition, and when you did so, pointed out that it did not apply to me.

You're correct. I was wrong. You didn't define it. And as numerous posts on that other web site show, unlike me, when you make posts that are proven to be falsehoods, you don't even acknowledge it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2019 at 7:51 AM, VincentRJ said:

My gosh! That sounds so alarming! I pity those poor school kids who are getting the impression their future is so extremely bleak.

 

Was this CSIRO report submitted before, or after the Australian government slashed funding to the CSIRO?

 

Anyway, because I feel so compassionate towards people who must be suffering like hell because they believe only the alarmist reports on climate change, I'll provide a link to a site which provides an alternative and more rational perspective, which is also based on peer-reviewed scientific studies.

 

It's a long read with many references to scientific studies, some of which are related to the past and present climate in China.

 

https://www.c3headlines.com/are-todays-temperatures-unusual/

 

"A new peer-reviewed study provides additional evidence that significant parts of the world have not experienced the hypothesized dangerous and rapid global warming impact of CO2 emissions."

I quickly browsed  through those 'claims' and spotted numerous anomalies and use of limited areas of data. They are glaringly obvious attempts to misinform the public. Yes, the USA is an area which has in fact suffered some global cooling, and China also because the smog reflects sunlight. Global warming is a factor of the average of the entire planet, not just a few selected areas. 90% of Glaciers are in retreat and both polar icecaps are loosing ice.

Anyway, a few simple facts - globally,

Between 1880 and 2012, the average warming has been 0.064 degrees centigrade per decade.

Between 1979 and 2012, the average warming has been 0.155 degrees centigrade per decade.

Between 2000 and 2009, the average warming has been 0.200 degrees centigrade for the decade.

Between 2010 and 2019, the average warming has been 0.265 degrees centigrade for the decade.

 

It is very clear that warming is speeding up. The 9 warmest years are all from the 21st century. Since 1880, the world has warmed by 1.0 degrees centigrade. But at the rate for this decade, we will double that by 2060 (and it may increase faster?).

 

Warming is not evenly spread some areas are warming much faster, and some not at all.  There are local climatic factors which affect this, and these factors can also be periodic, like El Nino and the Pacific decadal oscillation, to name but two.

 

The high temperatures in the USA in the 30's are associated with a major drought and the American dustbowl.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rickudon said:

I quickly browsed  through those 'claims' and spotted numerous anomalies and use of limited areas of data. They are glaringly obvious attempts to misinform the public. Yes, the USA is an area which has in fact suffered some global cooling, and China also because the smog reflects sunlight. Global warming is a factor of the average of the entire planet, not just a few selected areas. 90% of Glaciers are in retreat and both polar icecaps are loosing ice.

Anyway, a few simple facts - globally,

Between 1880 and 2012, the average warming has been 0.064 degrees centigrade per decade.

Between 1979 and 2012, the average warming has been 0.155 degrees centigrade per decade.

Between 2000 and 2009, the average warming has been 0.200 degrees centigrade for the decade.

Between 2010 and 2019, the average warming has been 0.265 degrees centigrade for the decade.

 

It is very clear that warming is speeding up. The 9 warmest years are all from the 21st century. Since 1880, the world has warmed by 1.0 degrees centigrade. But at the rate for this decade, we will double that by 2060 (and it may increase faster?).

 

Warming is not evenly spread some areas are warming much faster, and some not at all.  There are local climatic factors which affect this, and these factors can also be periodic, like El Nino and the Pacific decadal oscillation, to name but two.

 

The high temperatures in the USA in the 30's are associated with a major drought and the American dustbowl.

 

What makes this warming even more impressive is that it is occurring during a time of greatly reduced solar activity. The more solar activity there is, the higher the temperature, all other things being equal. And thanks to RickBradford, I learned about a study that could explain why this is so. Increased Cosmic Rays during solar minimums. But despite those cosmic rays, the earth is getting. 

Also, it's false that the USA is getting cooler.  All time record highs in the USA are outnumbering all time record lows in this decade by almost 2 to 1. Not possible if the USA was getting cooler or staying the same temperature. And there are plenty of studies to show that it is getting warmer.

Here's the final stage, of an animation done by NASA of how the earth has warmed since 1885.

image.png.17a86023d4786192aa18100b84c327e8.png

You can see the whole thing here:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2019 at 1:41 PM, Prairieboy said:

Have they any constructive suggestions for what action they would like to see done?  Climate change is neither caused by mankind nor preventable by mankind!  Adapt!

Extinction Rebellion are not interested in the science, one way or the other. They're interested in the activism, as explained by their founder Roger Hallam "who has spent years academically researching tactics for social change. He says you need 2000 people to get arrested and 400 people to go to prison if you want the government to meet your demands." (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07fvjfs).

 

Extinction Rebellion has a powerful if unsurprising ally in the BBC, a state broadcaster which long ago abandoned impartiality to push its agenda of climate alarmism. In fact, Extinction Rebellion yesterday attended a BBC meeting, organised by BBC director general Tony Hall, to tell the BBC how to report the climate "emergency".

 

As Extinction Rebellion representative Daze Aghaji said: “The BBC has started making an attempt but we’re still nowhere near where we need to be in terms of reporting in the midst of this crisis. [..]. We must show integrity in the face of the climate crisis, together we must tell the truth about this emergency now.” ( https://rebellion.earth/2019/07/17/tomorrow-extinction-rebellion-to-meet-bbc-management-friday-requiem-for-a-dead-planet-protest-to-call-on-uk-newspapers-to-tell-the-truth/ )

 

With the Green movement now running the UK's state broadcaster's climate coverage, expect even more silly hyped "crisis" stories with only a tangential connection to the actual science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Extinction Rebellion are not interested in the science, one way or the other. They're interested in the activism, as explained by their founder Roger Hallam "who has spent years academically researching tactics for social change. He says you need 2000 people to get arrested and 400 people to go to prison if you want the government to meet your demands." (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07fvjfs).

 

Extinction Rebellion has a powerful if unsurprising ally in the BBC, a state broadcaster which long ago abandoned impartiality to push its agenda of climate alarmism. In fact, Extinction Rebellion yesterday attended a BBC meeting, organised by BBC director general Tony Hall, to tell the BBC how to report the climate "emergency".

 

As Extinction Rebellion representative Daze Aghaji said: “The BBC has started making an attempt but we’re still nowhere near where we need to be in terms of reporting in the midst of this crisis. [..]. We must show integrity in the face of the climate crisis, together we must tell the truth about this emergency now.” ( https://rebellion.earth/2019/07/17/tomorrow-extinction-rebellion-to-meet-bbc-management-friday-requiem-for-a-dead-planet-protest-to-call-on-uk-newspapers-to-tell-the-truth/ )

 

With the Green movement now running the UK's state broadcaster's climate coverage, expect even more silly hyped "crisis" stories with only a tangential connection to the actual science.

How's this for a silly hyped "crisis" story courtesy of the IPCC

Half a Degree and a World Apart: The Difference in Climate Impacts Between 1.5˚C and 2˚C of Warming

As part of the historic Paris Agreement on climate change, countries committed to keep global warming well below 2˚C (3.6˚F) above pre-industrial levels while trying to limit temperature increase to 1.5˚C (2.7˚F). Based on a request by governments, the IPCC, a collection of world’s leading climate scientists, took stock of how the impacts of a 1.5˚C temperature limit differ from 2˚C, as well as the differences between emissions pathways for achieving these two temperature goals. Their findings show that the world will face severe climate impacts even with 1.5 degrees of warming, and the effects get significantly worse with 2 degrees.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/half-degree-and-world-apart-difference-climate-impacts-between-15-c-and-2-c-warming

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Extinction Rebellion are not interested in the science, one way or the other. They're interested in the activism, as explained by their founder Roger Hallam "who has spent years academically researching tactics for social change. He says you need 2000 people to get arrested and 400 people to go to prison if you want the government to meet your demands." (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07fvjfs).

 

Your interpretation is truly bizarre, These people have a goal they want to achieve. Hallam just outlining tactics he thinks are needed to get there. How does this show that they are not interested in science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Extinction Rebellion has a powerful if unsurprising ally in the BBC, a state broadcaster which long ago abandoned impartiality to push its agenda of climate alarmism. In fact, Extinction Rebellion yesterday attended a BBC meeting, organised by BBC director general Tony Hall, to tell the BBC how to report the climate "emergency".

 

As Extinction Rebellion representative Daze Aghaji said: “The BBC has started making an attempt but we’re still nowhere near where we need to be in terms of reporting in the midst of this crisis. [..]. We must show integrity in the face of the climate crisis, together we must tell the truth about this emergency now.” ( https://rebellion.earth/2019/07/17/tomorrow-extinction-rebellion-to-meet-bbc-management-friday-requiem-for-a-dead-planet-protest-to-call-on-uk-newspapers-to-tell-the-truth/ )

 

With the Green movement now running the UK's state broadcaster's climate coverage, expect even more silly hyped "crisis" stories with only a tangential connection to the actual science.

What Extinction Rebellion is asking for is more coverage of ACC. Not dictating to the BBC how they do it. Of course, to denialists, ACC is not a big problem. But to the scientific community engaged in ACC research, it certainly is. Just reference the IPCC report on global warming at 1.5 C vs 2.0 C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2019 at 2:08 AM, bristolboy said:

The thing is, solutions are already at hand. Coal is already not cost competitive with renewables. In fact, just the cost of continuing to run an already existing coal plant is greater than building a new solar or wind power plant. Renewables are now competitive with natural gas. And the costs of reneweables keep dropping. The era of fossil fuels is coming to an end. The harder goverments push, the faster it will happen.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/15/extinction-rebellion-enemies-of-the-working-class/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Side effect of unemployment - people with too much time on their hands.

 

Why does it matter what the disfunctional government of a small country does about climate change?  If they were serious about their 'cause' they'd be protesting in China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...