Jump to content

Extinction Rebellion


OldNick

Recommended Posts

I feel really sorry for those protestors. All they were trying to do was disrupt the lives of ordinary working people by illegally jumping on trains. It's a small price to pay when billions will be dead in twenty years and all those horrible commuters could do is give them a good kicking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to a degree yes they got abuse. I definitely dont want to see people kicked and beaten by mobs. I felt very uneasy to see the aftermath as he was thrown onto the platform and the terror he faced, but it may make some these people think twice about disrupting peoples day to day lives without having consequences.

 

Perhaps the protesters are better off letting everyone else burn in hell? It comes to something when you get a kicking from the very people whose lives you are trying to improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the protesters are better off letting everyone else burn in hell? It comes to something when you get a kicking from the very people whose lives you are trying to improve.

 

They are not trying to ‘improve’ the lives of others, that isn’t their objective.

Also, Burn in hell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the protesters are better off letting everyone else burn in hell? It comes to something when you get a kicking from the very people whose lives you are trying to improve.

 

If you are going to do direct action / civil disobedience successfully tactically its just wrong. Shutting off roads to diesel cars whilst giving out flowers at tube stations might have been better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going to do direct action / civil disobedience successfully tactically its just wrong. Shutting off roads to diesel cars whilst giving out flowers at tube stations might have been better

 

I don’t disagree. But I do think that giving them a kicking is going to far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the protesters are better off letting everyone else burn in hell? It comes to something when you get a kicking from the very people whose lives you are trying to improve.
In their opinion, they are terrifying children who think they are going to die in the next 10 years. They believe they are doing itfor us all but they are affecting peoples lives trying to press their beliefs on others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
It's only 11000 scientists from a 153 different countries what would they know? bunch of middle-class, lefty, vegan, crusties trying to stop me having a holiday..

 

Untold human suffering': 11,000 scientists from 153 countries warn of 'climate crisis'

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-11-05/scientists-from-around-the-world-declare-climate-emergency/

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that contrary? They are both code for "have fewer kids".

 

I think some people are a bit slow on the uptake....

 

Not all woman in the developing world have full control over the amount of children they have...

 

Fewer kids = fewer people to drain resources, to feed, to have a carbon footprint, to eat meat etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely number 3 - "we must stabilize population" - is completely contrary to number 5 - "We must....guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions"....
Just one example would be the Catholic church and it's stance on contraception which results in more pregnancies, especially in Latin America, and a lack of control for women on their own reproduction decisions (even if it is through their adherence to a ancient out of date religion) which could easily be solved if the pope just changed the rules and told them using a rubber was ok.

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only 11000 scientists from a 153 different countries what would they know? bunch of middle-class, lefty, vegan, crusties trying to stop me having a holiday..

 

Untold human suffering': 11,000 scientists from 153 countries warn of 'climate crisis'

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-11-05/scientists-from-around-the-world-declare-climate-emergency/

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

More bull**** from the climate nutters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one example would be the Catholic church and it's stance on contraception which results in more pregnancies, especially in Latin America, and a lack of control for women on their own reproduction decisions (even if it is through their adherence to a ancient out of date religion) which could easily be solved if the pope just changed the rules and told them using a rubber was ok.

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

And yet the flip side is that China has a limit on the number of children that are allowed per family. Maybe Chinese families would like to have more children and more control over their reproductive decisions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet the flip side is that China has a limit on the number of children that are allowed per family. Maybe Chinese families would like to have more children and more control over their reproductive decisions?

 

The one child policy ( even though it wasn't really a one child policy as there where valid reasons you could have a second) was scrapped some years back and interestingly even though Chinese parents could now have more kids evidence suggests most of them didn't want to. So they do have control well as much as normally people have control of anything in China.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/beijings-one-child-policy-is-gone-but-many-chinese-are-still-reluctant-to-have-more/2019/05/02/c722e568-604f-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More bull**** from the climate nutters
Seems the British public might not agree

 

A majority of the UK public and almost half of Conservative voters support a radical plan to transform the economy and tackle the climate crisis, a poll suggests.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/07/majority-of-uk-public-back-2030-zero-carbon-target-poll

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems the British public might not agree

 

A majority of the UK public and almost half of Conservative voters support a radical plan to transform the economy and tackle the climate crisis, a poll suggests.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/07/majority-of-uk-public-back-2030-zero-carbon-target-poll

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

With what we are told by the mainstream media that's not surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know right it's like them refusing to tell the world the truth about the world being flat and that we are all being manipulated by the Illuminati... Bastards

 

I know, it's all a load of nonsense. I mean what kind of idiot would think ten billion people will have a negative effect effect on the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More bull**** from the climate nutters

 

So because a conservative commentator on Sky News Australia has identified that one or two fake signatories managed to evade the vetting process on the petition (unfortunate, but inevitable given the numbers), you reckon the whole thing is bullsh!t?

 

This guy has form. He's essentially the Australian equivalent of Tucker Carlson on Fox News and has no scientific credibility whatsoever. He claims that this paper has not been peer reviewed, but it's in the BioScience journal published by Oxford University Press...

 

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/pages/About

 

Since 1964, BioScience has presented readers with timely and authoritative overviews of current research in biology, accompanied by essays and discussion sections on education, public policy, history, and the conceptual underpinnings of the biological sciences.

 

A peer-reviewed, heavily cited, monthly journal with content written and edited for accessibility to researchers, educators, and students alike, BioScience is provided to all AIBS members in print and online as a part of regular AIBS dues.

 

This guy is talking out of his ar$e, and can be confidently ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because a conservative commentator on Sky News Australia has identified that one or two fake signatories managed to evade the vetting process on the petition (unfortunate, but inevitable given the numbers), you reckon the whole thing is bullsh!t?

 

This guy has form. He's essentially the Australian equivalent of Tucker Carlson on Fox News and has no scientific credibility whatsoever. He claims that this paper has not been peer reviewed, but it's in the BioScience journal published by Oxford University Press...

 

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/pages/About

 

 

 

This guy is talking out of his ar$e, and can be confidently ignored.

 

No because I do my own research and listen to scientists who totally debunk a lot of this fake news, take a look for yourself there are plenty out there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No because I do my own research and listen to scientists who totally debunk a lot of this fake news, take a look for yourself there are plenty out there

 

Yes I'm well aware there are a lot of opposing viewpoints to be found online, and sometimes they can even look quite convincing in terms of their professionalism and scientific validity. But, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of the articles/papers out there attempting to 'debunk fake news' can easily be identified as fake news themselves.

 

If you have found some that cannot then I would be very interested to read them, if you're willing to share them with us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No because I do my own research and listen to scientists who totally debunk a lot of this fake news, take a look for yourself there are plenty out there
I know right. Like the best thing about the internet is I can always find someone to tell me my world view is the right one with just a quick goggle search. The world is definitely flat people keep saying it's not but I did my own research..

 

https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions

 

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any links to these?

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ94yX0BC2g Watch this and then do some research into the Connolly's, they ramble a bit and talk over each other but they also talk a lot of sense.

 

Also have a look at this Michael Mann was one of the people who started all this and has now been called out https://www.thegwpf.com/media-ignores-michael-manns-court-loss-it-doesnt-fit-the-warmist-agenda/ You'll not read about this any where yet his graph was used time and time again to say climate change was getting out of control

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ94yX0BC2g Watch this and then do some research into the Connolly's, they ramble a bit and talk over each other but they also talk a lot of sense.

 

Also have a look at this Michael Mann was one of the people who started all this and has now been called out https://www.thegwpf.com/media-ignores-michael-manns-court-loss-it-doesnt-fit-the-warmist-agenda/ You'll not read about this any where yet his graph was used time and time again to say climate change was getting out of control

 

Don't believe a single word you read printed by the GWPF. It is a secretly-funded right-wing think tank, based at 55 Tufton Street alongside the Taxpayers Alliance and others, founded by Nigel Lawson with the sole purpose of muddying the waters of the climate change debate. It has ZERO credibility.

 

This article is an absurd twisting of the facts of this case which bears no relationship to the truth.

 

https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1164910044414189568?lang=en

 

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/litigation/michael-mann-v-timothy-tim-ball-the-frontier-centre-for-public-policy-inc-and-john-doe/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who provides the funding? That's the secret the phrase implies.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

 

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding

 

According to a press release on the organization's website, GWPF "is funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."[4] Annual membership contributions are "a minimum of £100".[19] In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions.[20] In response to the accounts, Bob Ward commented that "Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."[20] Similarly, based on membership fees reported for the year ending 31 July 2012, it appears that GWPF had no more than 120 members at that time.[21]

 

So about as secretive as who funds the RNLI or the RSPCA - ffs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

 

 

 

 

 

So about as secretive as who funds the RNLI or the RSPCA - ffs!

 

It's interesting that you have deliberately omitted the rest of the 'funding sources' section of their Wiki entry, which paints a very different picture from their launch statement. The GWPF is no more a charity than Eton school is. The only reason it even has charity status is to avoid paying any tax and revealing its sources of funding.

 

They exist solely to spread disinformation about climate science, and were forced to create a completely separate subsidiary - the GWP Forum - following a ruling from the Charity Commission that their work was of a political rather than an educational nature.

 

https://www.desmog.co.uk/global-warming-policy-foundation

 

They have no scientific credibility whatsoever. They are nothing more than a lobby group for powerful interests who want to see environmental regulations slashed.

 

I would seriously recommend to anybody like Scally who wants to do some independent research into climate issues to completely ignore anything they say on the matter.

Edited by Sheaf Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard on the radio that we are the only country on earth pledging to be carbon neutral by 2030

im sure that will save the planet!

 

It’s a start. Or perhaps we should all just do nothing? One day countries will have no choice but to modify their behaviour. In the meantime someone needs to show the way forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a start. Or perhaps we should all just do nothing? One day countries will have no choice but to modify their behaviour. In the meantime someone needs to show the way forward.

 

it isnt a start. it is irrelevant as we close 6 coal powered stations (or what ever small number it is) whilst China alone has 2000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't believe a single word you read printed by the GWPF. It is a secretly-funded right-wing think tank, based at 55 Tufton Street alongside the Taxpayers Alliance and others, founded by Nigel Lawson with the sole purpose of muddying the waters of the climate change debate. It has ZERO credibility.

 

This article is an absurd twisting of the facts of this case which bears no relationship to the truth.

 

https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1164910044414189568?lang=en

 

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/litigation/michael-mann-v-timothy-tim-ball-the-frontier-centre-for-public-policy-inc-and-john-doe/

 

I can't believe you linked to Mann's Twitter page to support the fact you think what was said on my link was wrong, go on Google and do a quick search on the case, Mann had to pay court costs and continually delayed producing the data to support how he came up with his hockey stick graph. The guys a fraud and has been called out over and over again. Take a look at this https://victorygirlsblog.com/michael-mann-whines-about-losing-climate-hockey-stick-libel-case/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...