Climate protesters block roads
Discussion
essayer said:
Now someone’s glued themselves to a train at Canary Wharf DLR
Would it not have made more sense to glue himself to the metal body? The depot is just round the corner and i can’t imagine removing a window would take a fitter long
Excellent opportunity to punch a hippie, it's not like he can fight back or chase you Would it not have made more sense to glue himself to the metal body? The depot is just round the corner and i can’t imagine removing a window would take a fitter long
Without doubt, Climate Change is the biggest challenge that the world will face this century.
The Science is now near 100% conclusive.
While I don't agree with the methods used in these protests, I am delighted to see this being discussed again.
Surely the protesters would be better off targeting specific CO2 producers/economies? Gluing yourself to the Chinese embassy for example, rather than a train?
The Science is now near 100% conclusive.
While I don't agree with the methods used in these protests, I am delighted to see this being discussed again.
Surely the protesters would be better off targeting specific CO2 producers/economies? Gluing yourself to the Chinese embassy for example, rather than a train?
Helicopter123 said:
Without doubt, Climate Change is the biggest challenge that the world will face this century.
The Science is now near 100% conclusive.
While I don't agree with the methods used in these protests, I am delighted to see this being discussed again.
Surely the protesters would be better off targeting specific CO2 producers/economies? Gluing yourself to the Chinese embassy for example, rather than a train?
I call bThe Science is now near 100% conclusive.
While I don't agree with the methods used in these protests, I am delighted to see this being discussed again.
Surely the protesters would be better off targeting specific CO2 producers/economies? Gluing yourself to the Chinese embassy for example, rather than a train?
ks on your assertion that it is "without doubt the biggest challenge we will face". Ignoring the fact that many don't buy the science at all, even if we assume it is 100% conclusive, I think there are greater challenges to face. Seriously, this century, and bearing in mind we are near a fifth of the way through it, do you see the "end of mankind" more likely from climate change, or a Kim Jong Ill nuke? Mankind has adapted and evolved over millions of years to the species we are now, and we continue to evolve as a species every day. Why can man survive in the climatic conditions we see nowadays and on the planet for the last thousand years, ie from the polar regions where temps rarely exceed zero, and there are months of darkness, to tropical and arid regions etc where temps rarely fall below 40 degrees! Do you honestly think it mankind will not survive even a huge increase in global temp of say 5 degrees over 100 years? Of course they would, we both know that and that is not going to happen anyway, even according tot he most pessimistic climate change scientists.
So whilst it may be something mankind may or may not have to adapt to, adapt to it they most certainly will, ….....easily. Yes, some communities will change, populated areas may disappear, people will move and live in other places...…..but that has been happening for the last thousand years, never mind the last 80, so what's "new"..? Answer, nothing, really.
Now, if you want to look at what will potentially kill off either the whole of mankind / species or at least large swathes of it, there's far larger and more immediate risks IMHO. Nukes, chemical weapons, super viruses, flu pandemic...…..far more risky than climate change.
If anyone wants to look directly at what is the root of allegedly man made climate change, all they need do is walk to, and look into the nearest mirror. Only those that wear clothes made of tree bark, and sandals made animal skins from animals which had died naturally, and who don't use any kind of fossil fuel powered transport, and communications, or fossil fuel generated food, who don't go anywhere other than places they can walk to. and who crucially have not added to the human population on the planet can exempt themselves from doing this. Otherwise they would just be two faced hypocrites.
The number of climate change deniers on this forum has to be the biggest sign that it is full of closed minded, right wing individuals with extreme views. The science is established and clear. Consensus among experts is 90-97%. Almost all papers against climate change come from right-wing think tanks which are dubiously funded. There is nothing to deny or debate.
N.B. I think the protestors are work-shy hippies that will achieve nothing other than disrupt commutes and annoy people.
N.B. I think the protestors are work-shy hippies that will achieve nothing other than disrupt commutes and annoy people.
Johnnytheboy said:
I've generally found that my opinion on any subject is the opposite of people who loudly protest about it.
So if there's something I don't have much of an opinion on and people protest about it from one side of the debate, that usually sways me to think the opposite must be the side for me.
Which is why these activists are such a disappointment to me. There are lots of positives to reducing energy use, increasing energy efficiency and moving our fuel sources for power, heating, transport, etc... away from fossil fuels and the UK has been doing a pretty good job. Their antics may just entrench opposition, it's like an anti-marketing campaign.So if there's something I don't have much of an opinion on and people protest about it from one side of the debate, that usually sways me to think the opposite must be the side for me.
I like having a well insulated home with an efficient boiler because it makes my bills lower.
I like buying my utilities from Bulb because their rates are low and their customer service is good.
I like walking to the shops instead of driving because it keeps me fitter.
I like taking public transport into the nearest city because it's faster and less annoying than sitting in a traffic jam.
I would love to one day buy an electric vehicle because I dislike the inconvenience of going to the petrol station and knowing that some of my money is going to OPEC.
I'd would like Germany to be able to tell Russia to go take a jump instead of having to shut up because they need that Russian gas pipeline.
I hate the idea that these activists would think that I support them.
Scientists say we can reach net zero by 2050, while these clowns want it by 2025. Although we don't care about CO2 emissions from cars so much. It's all NOx and PM now.
These people can't be far off killing someone for their cause can they if they're resorting to such extreme measure to push for the impossible demand of banning air travel.
These people can't be far off killing someone for their cause can they if they're resorting to such extreme measure to push for the impossible demand of banning air travel.
Integroo said:
The number of climate change deniers on this forum has to be the biggest sign that it is full of closed minded, right wing individuals with extreme views. The science is established and clear. Consensus among experts is 90-97%. Almost all papers against climate change come from right-wing think tanks which are dubiously funded. There is nothing to deny or debate.
N.B. I think the protestors are work-shy hippies that will achieve nothing other than disrupt commutes and annoy people.
There is plenty to debate, such as developing economies being the main polluter but do we impede their progress to protect the environment? There's also the elephant in the room of the ever increasing global population putting even more burden on food supply systems, agriculture and the associated shipping industries being major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. So much focus is put on carbon emissions when they're really only a small piece of the puzzle; the loons currently fN.B. I think the protestors are work-shy hippies that will achieve nothing other than disrupt commutes and annoy people.
king up everyone's Easter travel want zero carbon emissions. We don't need zero carbon, ~300ppm atmospheric carbon is much more achievable and won't harm the environment.Whilst I do try to limit my impact on the environment and a pollution free world would be a much nicer place to live in in general, I personally think all of this doomsday ten-years-until-mad-max stuff that comes out of the IPCC is complete and utter bulls
t.j_4m said:
There is plenty to debate, such as developing economies being the main polluter but do we impede their progress to protect the environment? There's also the elephant in the room of the ever increasing global population putting even more burden on food supply systems, agriculture and the associated shipping industries being major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. So much focus is put on carbon emissions when they're really only a small piece of the puzzle; the loons currently fking up everyone's Easter travel want zero carbon emissions. We don't need zero carbon, ~300ppm atmospheric carbon is much more achievable and won't harm the environment.
Whilst I do try to limit my impact on the environment and a pollution free world would be a much nicer place to live in in general, I personally think all of this doomsday ten-years-until-mad-max stuff that comes out of the IPCC is complete and utter bullst.
There is plenty to debate, but the existence of man-made climate change is not one of those things. king up everyone's Easter travel want zero carbon emissions. We don't need zero carbon, ~300ppm atmospheric carbon is much more achievable and won't harm the environment.Whilst I do try to limit my impact on the environment and a pollution free world would be a much nicer place to live in in general, I personally think all of this doomsday ten-years-until-mad-max stuff that comes out of the IPCC is complete and utter bulls
t.I am no expert on climate change so tend to believe the experts unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary.
Helicopter123 said:
Without doubt, Climate Change is the biggest challenge that the world will face this century.
The Science is now near 100% conclusive.
While I don't agree with the methods used in these protests, I am delighted to see this being discussed again.
Surely the protesters would be better off targeting specific CO2 producers/economies? Gluing yourself to the Chinese embassy for example, rather than a train?
And what are you doing about it?The Science is now near 100% conclusive.
While I don't agree with the methods used in these protests, I am delighted to see this being discussed again.
Surely the protesters would be better off targeting specific CO2 producers/economies? Gluing yourself to the Chinese embassy for example, rather than a train?
My concern with these types of protests is that is encourages a splinter group to become more extreme in their actions. We have already seen “Vegan activist” nutters, let’s hope that ER isn’t breeding the same kind with these protests.
It’s very cult like in their actions (but I suppose every mass movement is...)
It’s very cult like in their actions (but I suppose every mass movement is...)
Podie said:
Helicopter123 said:
Surely the protesters would be better off targeting specific CO2 producers/economies? Gluing yourself to the Chinese embassy for example, rather than a train?
Nah, that space is currently take by some protesters about forced organ transplants....k about what you think anyway? Christ on a bike, naivety knows no bounds these days. 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff