Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: wilts rover on January 01, 2023, 11:47:37 am
-
WE QUIT - Extinction Rebellion to cease tactics of public disruption for a new campaign of political disruption:
'As we ring in the new year, we make a controversial resolution to temporarily shift away from public disruption as a primary tactic. We recognise and celebrate the power of disruption to raise the alarm and believe that constantly evolving tactics is a necessary approach. What’s needed now most is to disrupt the abuse of power and imbalance, to bring about a transition to a fair society that works together to end the fossil fuel era. Our politicians, addicted to greed and bloated on profits won’t do it without pressure.'
https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2022/12/31/we-quit/
No idea what this might entail but it should be interesting.
-
Sounds like they have finally realised that pissing off Joe Public ain’t working
-
Be interesting to see who their backers are
-
Me for one Nudga.
BobG
-
A bit cold and damp on the old backside at this time of year and have been forgotten about
-
“The risk of dying from climate-related disasters has declined.
As the global population quadrupled over the century, the risk declined by 99% from the 1920s to the 2010s
A spectacular 99.4% reduction from 1920s to 2022”
-
Sorry NC Rover, but who are you quoting there.
Not sure at all what this is referring to, and how that conclusion can be reached!
-
Seems they plan to surround the Houses of Parliament from April 21 with 100000 people. Probably a mass permanent encampment.
April 21 seems a bit specific?
-
Sorry NC Rover, but who are you quoting there.
Not sure at all what this is referring to, and how that conclusion can be reached!
It comes from someone called Bjorn Lomberg. According to his Twitter bio is is, "Author of 'False Alarm', 'Cool It' and 'Skeptical Environmentalist'".
Given his previous track record on spreading climate change misinformation, I suspect it's b*llocks. But the trouble is, that sort of b*llocks finds sympathetic ears.
-
This is him by the way.
https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1606259625669566465?s=20&t=V22l8QX_Gy8Li_Rp2SPZ2Q
I'll leave you to work out in how many ways this tweet is deliberately deceptive b*llocks.
-
Be interesting to see who their backers are
just do a bit of googling for the answer.
About 2 months ago on the tv i accidentally came across some rich youngish american woman being interviewed on tv .. When pressed she said they would no longer fund peoples legal fees. After that i noticed
by googling
i now realise it was this one
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/10/21/getty-oil-heiress-funds-climate-crisis-activism-just-stop-oil
Aileen Getty—the granddaughter of J. Paul Getty, the oil tycoon and founder of the Getty Museum in Los Angeles—co-founded the non-profit Climate Emergency Fund
(CEF) in 2019 and has reportedly donated $1m of her personal wealth to be used to support environmental activist groups, including Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion.
Their groups’ connection to an oil heiress has inadvertently heightened criticism around the nature of the protests, which have on occasion involved the vandalism of artworks and sometimes targeted institutions with no ties to funders involved in the fossil fuel industry. For example, the National Portrait Gallery announced in February that it would cease receiving funding from British Petroleum (BP) after their contract expires in December this year.
iT MAKES YOU WONDER WHY THEY DON'T STICK THEMSELVES TO SOME OF THE PAINTINGS IN THE GETTY MUSEUM HER GRANDFATHER FOUNDED OUT OF THE OIL PROFITS
-
Weird how these people seem to have a free pass by "law enforcement" to do what they want like being able to walk onto the M25 and sit down, almost like they had a police escort. Same with the BLM activists but lockdown protests were met with true British policing with batons and police dogs.
-
Probably because they are intelligent people with a large planning network and adhere to non-violent protest so they are not a physical threat to anyone including the police.
-
Hahaha haha
-
''When wood is burned, even in newer certified wood stoves, it creates localized particulate pollution hot spots and releases surprisingly high levels of harmful toxins such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene and dioxins into our environment. Wood smoke shares many of the same toxic chemical compounds as tobacco smoke, but evidence suggests it may be even more harmful''
https://woodsmokepollution.org/#:~:text=When%20wood%20is%20burned%2C%20even,and%20dioxins%20into%20our%20environment.
hohoho ho ho
-
And yet just ten years ago woodburners were lauded as a carbon neutral renewable source of heat.
-
Maybe they were nudga but times change, they are a health hazard until someone finds a a way to refuel them without releasing toxins into the room.
-
Probably because they are intelligent people with a large planning network and adhere to non-violent protest so they are not a physical threat to anyone including the police.
Getting back on topic, as I was saying they are intelligent, clever enough to change when they can see things aren't going to plan, just think how better the world would be if putin did the same or the tories could ...... nah not a chance
-
This is him by the way.
https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1606259625669566465?s=20&t=V22l8QX_Gy8Li_Rp2SPZ2Q
I'll leave you to work out in how many ways this tweet is deliberately deceptive b*llocks.
It’s not saying that the climate isn’t changing. It’s showing how as humans have progressed that we have become better adapted at surviving extreme weather.
If you can disprove this info I’m all ears BST.
It exposes the idea of an “extinction” that these extremist protestors talk about. We can go through some of their disinformation and a list of climate predictions that haven’t come true? That doesn’t mean I automatically dismiss everything they say though, like you are doing.
-
Nc.
I never, ever "automatically dismiss everything". What I DO do, is have a healthy approach of scepticism to the pronouncements of anyone who I know has a record of choosing to mislead people.
Lomberg did it over the so called "hiatus" in increasing global temperatures ten years ago. He's just done it in that tweet I linked to. When I see people doing that, I assume it's a deliberate feature of their work, not an honest error. So I don't accept what they say in future, unless THEY can set out a clear, open and unambiguously argued case.
He hasn't done. He's just published a graph without explaining the context.
-
Maybe they were nudga but times change, they are a health hazard until someone finds a a way to refuel them without releasing toxins into the room.
And yet toasters and candles are still ok to use.
Burners that are installed correctly and serviced regularly shouldn't smoke back into the room at all.
Mine don't.
-
This is him by the way.
https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1606259625669566465?s=20&t=V22l8QX_Gy8Li_Rp2SPZ2Q
I'll leave you to work out in how many ways this tweet is deliberately deceptive b*llocks.
It’s not saying that the climate isn’t changing. It’s showing how as humans have progressed that we have become better adapted at surviving extreme weather.
If you can disprove this info I’m all ears BST.
It exposes the idea of an “extinction” that these extremist protestors talk about. We can go through some of their disinformation and a list of climate predictions that haven’t come true? That doesn’t mean I automatically dismiss everything they say though, like you are doing.
Really? And what 'idea of an extinction' have you exposed here then when you have ignored species going extinct?
https://www.macleans.ca/society/science/infographic-charting-the-worlds-sixth-mass-exinction/
-
This is him by the way.
https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1606259625669566465?s=20&t=V22l8QX_Gy8Li_Rp2SPZ2Q
I'll leave you to work out in how many ways this tweet is deliberately deceptive b*llocks.
It’s not saying that the climate isn’t changing. It’s showing how as humans have progressed that we have become better adapted at surviving extreme weather.
If you can disprove this info I’m all ears BST.
It exposes the idea of an “extinction” that these extremist protestors talk about. We can go through some of their disinformation and a list of climate predictions that haven’t come true? That doesn’t mean I automatically dismiss everything they say though, like you are doing.
Really? And what 'idea of an extinction' have you exposed here then when you have ignored species going extinct?
https://www.macleans.ca/society/science/infographic-charting-the-worlds-sixth-mass-exinction/
Would you trade your life as it is to live as a 17th century peasant if it brought those animals back to life?
That’s sad but the industrial revolution has allowed 7 billion more sentient human beings to live on this planet. Nature is full of trade offs but we can focus on the future and how to make it better - maybe some of these XR protestors could work in conservation rather than gluing themselves to a road on a Monday morning?
The world has actually become greener in recent decades and people are putting nature first a lot more in developed nations, so I would expect that graph to plateau.
-
This is him by the way.
https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1606259625669566465?s=20&t=V22l8QX_Gy8Li_Rp2SPZ2Q
I'll leave you to work out in how many ways this tweet is deliberately deceptive b*llocks.
It’s not saying that the climate isn’t changing. It’s showing how as humans have progressed that we have become better adapted at surviving extreme weather.
If you can disprove this info I’m all ears BST.
It exposes the idea of an “extinction” that these extremist protestors talk about. We can go through some of their disinformation and a list of climate predictions that haven’t come true? That doesn’t mean I automatically dismiss everything they say though, like you are doing.
Really? And what 'idea of an extinction' have you exposed here then when you have ignored species going extinct?
https://www.macleans.ca/society/science/infographic-charting-the-worlds-sixth-mass-exinction/
They think the world is going to become inhabitable for humans. That bit.
-
NC Rover,
Bjorn Lomberg is not a climate scientist, his background is in game theory.
He has made a media career in contrarian views, which are regarded as ungrounded in the data by those in the field.
The point about the rising probability of disruption from climate change is that we may reach an early tipping point, where uncontrolled effects kick in to amplify the changes already recorded in the data.
1.1 degree rise is already baked in, and on current trend 1.5 degrees will be locked in by 2029 at the latest.
Without runaway impacts, at 1.5 degrees major disruption to agriculture in the south is inevitable.
This will lead to migration from unviable locations as a consequence, and conflict over access to resources under pressure.
Climate change will restrict and determine the economic possibilities in the next decade.
Politicians selling the myth of economic growth in this situation are conning the electorate about the likely outcomes from the changes already underway.
Some parts of the world will become uninhabitable, some will become economically unviable, and some will become deserts.......there is no way to spin this as a net positive.
Whose interest is Lomberg serving with this misinformation?
-
lomberg
'Last week’s announcement that the University of Western Australia would no longer house Bjorn Lomborg’s ‘Consensus Centre’ was a fantastic outcome for science. However, the fact that the Centre is still trying to establish itself in Australia is deeply troubling.
Misinformation is harmful. Just as false information about the ‘benefits’ of tobacco misled the public and damaged health, so false information about climate change and its impacts can mislead the public and decision-makers, delaying much needed action to stabilise the climate system. Here are the top four reasons why Lomborg’s arguments about climate change are flawed''
1. Lomborg fundamentally misunderstands climate science ...................
2. Lomborg doesn’t get that we need to address the cause of climate change, not just some of the symptoms.
3. Lomborg forgets that climate change makes many existing challenges worse
4. Lomborg has no credibility in the scientific community
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/the-low-down-on-lomborg/
-
Anybody following the BLM leader being done for fraud in Bristol, anyone who donated I am sure she is very grateful suckers.
-
Anybody following the BLM leader being done for fraud in Bristol, anyone who donated I am sure she is very grateful suckers.
No. What's her connection with Extinction Rebellion/climate change?
-
Anybody following the BLM leader being done for fraud in Bristol, anyone who donated I am sure she is very grateful suckers.
No. What's her connection with Extinction Rebellion/climate change?
I thought all the dinosaurs were extinct!
-
Was my original comment disinformation?
On the point about deserts, the world has got more green vegetation now than it did in 2000.
-
Nc.
Given that, so far as I can see, your man Lomberg includes the Bengal Famine and the Holodomir in the climatological death figures, I'd suggest at the very least he's pushing at the boundaries of disinformation.
-
Nc.
Given that, so far as I can see, your man Lomberg includes the Bengal Famine and the Holodomir in the climatological death figures, I'd suggest at the very least he's pushing at the boundaries of disinformation.
There’s more context on the Facebook post. I can’t find anything here or on his references that mentions the inclusion of those 2 events. Fair enough if you can.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0gmvTREnDExECHA31Jrc3465gJSywnU57vCvbp42nQjpcDwtZAYUBdWP5wCmHdwmKl&id=100044250378383
Even still, without those it wouldn’t even be trending in a remotely apocalyptic direction. Unless you can show me otherwise?
Even without data, you cannot deny that the same flood in a poor country would kill more than it would in a rich country.
This is the problem with XR / Just Stop Oil for me. A lot of them are at their core anti-capitalist, when economic growth helps protect the environment. How much lower would our carbon emissions be by now environmentalists hadn’t been anti-nuclear for so long? A richer country can afford to cut carbon emissions more than a poor country, so they have to be allowed to develop. This can then set the foundations for longer term decarbonisation of all economies, allowing it to be done properly. If this message isn’t explained, people think “why should we bother if China aren’t?”.
For XR, they think anything is justified if the end of the world is nigh, it isn’t.
(I’m not denying human contribution to climate change)
The weather has been interesting this year. There has been signs of a wavy jet stream allowing warm air to be pushed up (our summer 22 heatwave) and cold air to be pushed down (Recent North America weather). This type of jet stream has been linked to reduced solar activity (we’ve still been warming despite this so far but it is set to continue to trend down).
-
''Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific community.[4][5][6] The majority of scientists reacted negatively to The Skeptical Environmentalist[7] and he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over the book; the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited."[8] His positions on climate change have been challenged by experts and characterised as cherry picking''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
-
''Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific community.[4][5][6] The majority of scientists reacted negatively to The Skeptical Environmentalist[7] and he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over the book; the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited."[8] His positions on climate change have been challenged by experts and characterised as cherry picking''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
Fair criticism, but this happens in science all the time on both sides of any debate.
A lot of climate alarmists have had predictions that haven’t come close to playing out.
Al Gore referenced a prominent climate scientist here in 2009 at COP15:
“Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
-
nc,
Your unattributed quote from Lomberg is completely irrelevant.
It has nothing to do with the challenge ahead.
The rise in temps given is a global AVERAGE, it tells you little about the differential impacts of distributed effects.
Climate impacts will be a greater burden in the global south, where less resource to mitigate and adapt is available.
A 1.5 degree average rise might include higher rises in equitorial regions.
Marginal changes in rainfall and temperature may tip these areas into a new normal.Desertification is a major threat to localities on the cusp of viability.
Even if Lomberg's view of the past were correct (it is not, btw), it tells us nothing about the future.
That is the issue, does the prospect of rapid climate change overwhelm the ability of economies and ecologies to adjust?
Are you suggesting (reply 31) that capitalism can deliver an appropriate and timely response to the threat of climate breakdown?
How so!
-
''Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific community.[4][5][6] The majority of scientists reacted negatively to The Skeptical Environmentalist[7] and he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over the book; the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited."[8] His positions on climate change have been challenged by experts and characterised as cherry picking''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
Fair criticism, but this happens in science all the time on both sides of any debate.
A lot of climate alarmists have had predictions that haven’t come close to playing out.
Al Gore referenced a prominent climate scientist here in 2009 at COP15:
“Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
That's not an answer it's whataboutery, lomborg is the boris johnson of the scientific world.
-
''Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific community.[4][5][6] The majority of scientists reacted negatively to The Skeptical Environmentalist[7] and he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over the book; the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited."[8] His positions on climate change have been challenged by experts and characterised as cherry picking''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
Fair criticism, but this happens in science all the time on both sides of any debate.
A lot of climate alarmists have had predictions that haven’t come close to playing out.
Al Gore referenced a prominent climate scientist here in 2009 at COP15:
“Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
That's not an answer it's whataboutery, lomborg is the boris johnson of the scientific world.
You didn’t ask a question Sydney. It’s not my job to defend a man’s life work because I quoted him once on something.
Has it been a warm year down under?
-
nc,
Your unattributed quote from Lomberg is completely irrelevant.
It has nothing to do with the challenge ahead.
The rise in temps given is a global AVERAGE, it tells you little about the differential impacts of distributed effects.
Climate impacts will be a greater burden in the global south, where less resource to mitigate and adapt is available.
A 1.5 degree average rise might include higher rises in equitorial regions.
Marginal changes in rainfall and temperature may tip these areas into a new normal.Desertification is a major threat to localities on the cusp of viability.
Even if Lomberg's view of the past were correct (it is not, btw), it tells us nothing about the future.
That is the issue, does the prospect of rapid climate change overwhelm the ability of economies and ecologies to adjust?
Are you suggesting (reply 31) that capitalism can deliver an appropriate and timely response to the threat of climate breakdown?
How so!
It was relevant as the post is about extinction rebellion, who think that climate change is an impending catastrophe that we are helpless in the face of. Some people feel like they shouldn’t even have children because of the influence of these groups.
“In 2016, a paper published by 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries analyzed satellite data and concluded that there had been a roughly 14 percent increase in green vegetation over 30 years”. https://fee.org/articles/rejoice-the-earth-is-becoming-greener/amp
I’ve tried to find areas of desertification in a world that has been 14% greener and found only 2.
1. The drying out of the Aral Sea. “ In the regions of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan surrounding the Aral Sea, excessive use of water for agricultural irrigation has been a primary culprit in causing the sea to shrink”. From National Geographic. This isn’t a climate cause. “Large scale construction of irrigation canals began in the 1930s and was greatly increased in the 1960s.[33] Many canals were poorly built, allowing leakage and evaporation.” Soviet mismanagement, which like Chernobyl is as a result of poor standards which come hand in hand with communism.
2. Sahel Region. “And in Africa's Sahel region, bordered by the Sahara Desert to the north and savannas to the south, population growth has caused an increase in wood harvesting, illegal farming, and land-clearing for housing, among other changes”. Again, from National Geographic. This is not a climate related cause. Human progress as a result of free market capitalism is allowing the amount of farmland required globally to shrink. Instances like this will get less and less common. Also the countries that make up this region are Chad and Sudan. Not rich countries which proves my point that poor countries do more harm to the environment. How do we make these countries richer? Free trade. There are also initiatives in the area such as this https://www.unccd.int/our-work/ggwi
Free trade and capitalism breeds innovation and prosperity through competition. This leads to human progress and us coming up with new ideas and solutions to our problems. It leads to higher standards and the production of electric cars for example. Also, please compare the emissions of the UK and US to communist controlled China.
Similar warnings came from the 1968 book “The Population Bomb”. At a time when the human population was around 3 billion. The author predicted worldwide famine due to overpopulation. 5 billion people later and it hasn’t come true. He still gets airtime today.
World leaders have pledged to keep it to 1.5C because it is not feasibly possible to achieve any less, barring a couple of large volcanic eruptions and a prolonged grand solar minimum. So we don’t have a choice but to adapt. If it ends up being so bad at all anyway.
What would your solution be and how would it work?
-
''It was relevant as the post is about extinction rebellion, who think that climate change is an impending catastrophe that we are helpless in the face of. Some people feel like they shouldn’t even have children because of the influence of these groups''
Do they? I thought they were fighting to get those in positions of power to get a move on before we get to that position.
-
The fact that you quote someone like lomberg shows that you are not across your brief, whatever that is nc.
-
The fact that you quote someone like lomberg shows that you are not across your brief, whatever that is nc.
Some more “disinformation” along a similar line for you to not debunk but slate here. This time from The World In Data
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/decadal-average-death-rates-from-natural-disasters?country=~OWID_WRL
A great graph.
“This trend does not mean that disasters have become less frequent, or less intense. It means the world today is much better at preventing deaths from disasters than in the past. This will become increasingly important in our response and adaptation to climate change”
One of the major successes over the past century has been the dramatic decline in global deaths from natural disasters – this is despite the fact that the human population has increased rapidly over this period.
“Behind this improvement has been the improvement in living standards; access to and development of resilient infrastructure; and effective response systems. These factors have been driven by an increase in incomes across the world”
-
Nc.
That's precisely the same data that Lomberg posted. It comes from precisely the same source. The one that uncritically includes the Bengal Famine and the Holodomir as natural disasters.
-
Nc.
That's precisely the same data that Lomberg posted. It comes from precisely the same source. The one that uncritically includes the Bengal Famine and the Holodomir as natural disasters.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters
You can easily toggle by type of disaster on this graph. Decrease in flood deaths and no change in those by extreme temperature.
-
''It was relevant as the post is about extinction rebellion, who think that climate change is an impending catastrophe that we are helpless in the face of. Some people feel like they shouldn’t even have children because of the influence of these groups''
Do they? I thought they were fighting to get those in positions of power to get a move on before we get to that position.
People in positions of power are doing something about it. The general consensus in the west is to do so. Look at UK / US / EU emissions.
Yes that is some people’s view that there are too many people in the world. See here https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/prince-harry-meghan-markle-children-b1881705.html?amp
-
nc,
There is a basic category error behind your posts.
You refer to the past as a reference point for the future, as though a steady continuum of change is in prospect.
What ER and climate science is saying is that there is an increased probability of significant rapid disruptive change.
It may be the case that developed societies are more resilient than in the past, but the speed and scale of disruption will quickly overwhelm the ability to manage the change.
Take the reduction of permafrost in arctic regions, which in turn will lead to uncontrolled release of stored methane.
As a GHG, methane is over 20x more powerful than carbon dioxide.
This sort of impact is a positive feedback loop, which increases the intensity of extreme climate responses.
ER and others are not saying we are powerless to act, they are saying that we don't have the political will and urgency to respond in time. The proposals of both Labour and the Tories fall far short of the need for the UK to realign.
The political economy is dominated by vested interests, whose purpose is to keep the profits flowing from their core business.
Far from being the means of resolving the coming crisis, the big oil majors are the biggest barrier to change.
The issue is set out very clearly in the most recent IPCC documents.
This is a consensus document, and many in the climate science community believe it understates the severity of potential impacts in some regions.
Yes, some have started to respond, both in industry and government.
At the same time, the UK has given consent for the Cumbrian mine, and is failing to insulate and electrify UK heating urgently.
Too little, too late is where we are at present.
-
Clearly some people have no idea what Extinction Rebellion actually stand for and what their aims actually are. From their website:
Extinction Rebellion is an international movement that uses non-violent civil disobedience in an attempt to halt mass extinction and minimise the risk of social collapse.
They are NOT campaigning against human extinction. They believe in the concept of biodiversity (nature is connected) and are campaigning against mass extinction of a number of species (as per the earlier graph I posted which is only mammals) and the changes in climate which will lead to social problems across the globe (famine/floods/migrant boats etc).
They dont believe the human race will become extinct. They believe changes in the climate will cause more conflict among humans and make the world a more difficult place to live.
https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/about-us/
-
Clearly some people have no idea what Extinction Rebellion actually stand for and what their aims actually are. From their website:
Extinction Rebellion is an international movement that uses non-violent civil disobedience in an attempt to halt mass extinction and minimise the risk of social collapse.
They are NOT campaigning against human extinction. They believe in the concept of biodiversity (nature is connected) and are campaigning against mass extinction of a number of species (as per the earlier graph I posted which is only mammals) and the changes in climate which will lead to social problems across the globe (famine/floods/migrant boats etc).
They dont believe the human race will become extinct. They believe changes in the climate will cause more conflict among humans and make the world a more difficult place to live.
https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/about-us/
Thanks Wilts. Perhaps the person I’ve been discussing these things with is just quite extreme then. Just stop Oil talk about wanting to secure a “liveable future” and I think they’re going to carry on being disruptive.
My previous points still stand from me to refute these and are backed up well in my opinion. Along with the difficulty in predicting something as complicated as the climate (there’s more to it than just co2). It just pains me to see people so anxious and hopeless for the future.
Albie, what is the amount of warming from now needed to kick start that permafrost methane process. Has that been calculated? It must be quite a lot.
-
What you are up against nc is the vast majority (97%) of climate scientist are united in the origins and the effects of climate change. You need to show they are all wrong.
edited
-
And once again nc you are late to the party and want to kickstart an old debate. No problem with your late arrival but at lease bring something new and credible.
-
What you are up against nc is the vast majority (97%) of climate scientist are united in the origins and the effects of climate change. You need to show they are all wrong.
edited
Have I said something scientifically incorrect somewhere? I also haven’t denied the effect of man on the climate.
Science is never settled, that’s how science works. And on something as broad as the climate, it isn’t just within the realms of climate science.
-
And once again nc you are late to the party and want to kickstart an old debate. No problem with your late arrival but at lease bring something new and credible.
I’ll bring what I please to expand the debate, I’m not offending anybody. The forum wouldn’t be much fun with you, BST and Wilts agreeing with each other every day would it?
-
And once again nc you are late to the party and want to kickstart an old debate. No problem with your late arrival but at lease bring something new and credible.
I’ll bring what I please to expand the debate, I’m not offending anybody. The forum wouldn’t be much fun with you, BST and Wilts agreeing with each other every day would it?
Agreeing with 97% of world climate scientists or yourself one of the 3%ers. You are not offending anyone correct but you are showing your lack of knowledge on the subject in hand.
-
What you are up against nc is the vast majority (97%) of climate scientist are united in the origins and the effects of climate change. You need to show they are all wrong.
edited
Have I said something scientifically incorrect somewhere? I also haven’t denied the effect of man on the climate.
Science is never settled, that’s how science works. And on something as broad as the climate, it isn’t just within the realms of climate science.
You are not discussing climate science you are promoting an argument about resources.
-
I’ve brought up a few things you probably didn’t know about. But whatever I’ll take the hint. Thanks
-
The methane releasing from the tundra has been going on, at an increasing rate, for several years now. It's s easy to see. Look at average temperatures. Look at youtube for videos of huge slumpings in the land. The tundra is very quickly unfreezing. That could crucify humanity
BobG.