Climate protesters block roads
Discussion
ape x said:
Zedboy said:
I walked past them today. Four core groups ... university students, terminally unemployed, middle aged champagne socialists and final-salaried pensioners with blue hair. Hardly representative of tax paying majority. They didn’t want to thank me for supporting them by being PAYE so they can have an Easter holiday on a London Bridge as they were too busy chatting, skateboarding, singing and skulking. A movement for change it ain’t!
Cool story bro ...I walked past a UKIP protest and it was benefit cheating scum perma angry at "the powlitkal eleeeets" keeping them jobless and poor.
Old toothless gammons and fat thick ugly racist "PC gone maaad!!"
s... 
T-195 said:
Acid fried hippies were the first to believe in Climate Change. Ironic that us PHers are the ones that need to contemporise, man.
If these idiots are left wing why do they keep targeting left wing London?
Next time they should hold their protest on a council estate in Liverpool, telling the residents they need to give up their cars and not have any more holidays to Spain. If these idiots are left wing why do they keep targeting left wing London?
T-195 said:
Acid fried hippies were the first to believe in Climate Change. Ironic that us PHers are the ones that need to contemporise, man.
If these idiots are left wing why do they keep targeting left wing London?
A serious junkie nutter (just a personal assessment, so don't anyone get offended!) amongst this lot who is always at the forefront is crack'pot' 47 yr old mother of two (poor kids), 'Dr' Gail Bradbrook - no hubby, has had two apparently.If these idiots are left wing why do they keep targeting left wing London?
She became an activist as a direct result of taking huge doses of powerful psychedelic drugs.
Well, f
k me gently, that comes as a surprise... not!She has a PhD in molecular biophysics, also took ayahuasca, that toxic, mind-bending potion made by Amazon jungle shamans.
She says, and I quote, that the drugs:
'Rewired' her brain and gave her 'the codes of social change'.
Of course it did love. You f fruitloop!
Within XRebellion group she holds mystic 'moon circles' with female colleagues inside a tepee, at which they ingest the 'natural' drug mugwort.
'Mug' wort eh?
She's warned us that warming in the Arctic is likely to cause 'the collapse of the food system' in just 3 years.
Surely then love you should be stockpiling? I don't think I should have asked that!
Absolutely and completely away with the fairies.
dreamcracker said:
Integroo said:
Mothersruin said:
AJL308 said:
poo at Paul's said:
I call bks 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.
Entirely sensible and pragmatic. I disagree that there is much risk to mankind from the Fat Korean though. He doesn't have an arsenal and any use by him in anger would simply result in the utter destruction of his country. Mankind will survive him and his ilk easily. 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.
As you say, hitherto unknown or not yet extant diseases are a far bigger potential threat than global warming. Spanish Flu of 1919 anyone? Humanity spent the previous four years slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, I mean it probably wasn't physically possible to kill people at a faster rate with the technology then available, yet the Spanish flu killed at least twice as many in less than half the time. Given how easy we move around today we may well be wiped out by the next one.
That'll save the planet.
Until the next thing.
This just happens to be one species f
king it up.The arrogance to think we can do anything in real terms (think geological time-frames) is astounding.
Without the climate change nonsense they would all be working in fast food restaurants or supermarkets filling shelves.
p4cks said:
The media should just stop reporting this and any other SJW demonstration as it's playing right into their hands.
I'm not sure that would do anything other than make the demonstrations violent towards property and possibly people. The reason this lot keep their actions passive is that the media will report their actions. The group obviously believe the ranks of scientists who use research and evidence to come to conclusions. That a few people with power and authority choose to do nothing at best, or even work against sensible measures justifies their actions to them.
Thankfully, the press tend to report actions. It's not like totalitarian countries, where only part of the news is allowed to be put to the plebs, censored by a minority, for the very best of reasons of course.
Derek Smith said:
p4cks said:
The media should just stop reporting this and any other SJW demonstration as it's playing right into their hands.
I'm not sure that would do anything other than make the demonstrations violent towards property and possibly people. The reason this lot keep their actions passive is that the media will report their actions. The group obviously believe the ranks of scientists who use research and evidence to come to conclusions. That a few people with power and authority choose to do nothing at best, or even work against sensible measures justifies their actions to them.
Thankfully, the press tend to report actions. It's not like totalitarian countries, where only part of the news is allowed to be put to the plebs, censored by a minority, for the very best of reasons of course.
kurt535 said:
Nothing like a bit of conspiracy theory thrown in with a narrow minded view of the world. Perfect PH'er contributor.
Anyone would show themselves to be both daft and incredibly naïve though to suggest that our Govts haven't used the "green agenda" to raise revenue, and many would argue that it is their main aim, as they are not stupid enough to believe anything we do in little old Blighty can significantly affect any climate change on a global scale, but can well and truly replenish the coffers. Think about the straightforward evidence of this. CO2 was the big killer only 10 years ago, and Joe Public was forced through taxation to all drive diesel cars, the manufacturers were forced into developing and marketing them and we all ended up driving stuff we didn't really want, as we could not afford to drive what we did want. This was all on the basis of supposed science, it made fk all difference regarding global CO2 emmisions, but the tax was good, so who cares...…..er, well all the people with shiity air because of particulates...…….oh hang on, diesel now bad, tax it tax it more..... the new science says diesel is evil and anyone with one, must be taxed / stopped...….Make no mistake, none of it makes a jot of difference on the global stage, but the move to petrol turbo 3 cylinders will be pushed til the tax take reduces, then that will be evil and it will be something else.
Govt policies in this area are primarily about money, tax, cash and how much they can manipulate their public. It's as simple as that and we are stupid to think otherwise.
dandarez said:
biggbn said:
They are getting the publicity they need, and getting the message out there. Fair play.
biggbn said:
They are getting the publicity they need, and getting the message out there. Fair play.
It's ok, heard you the first time. 
p4cks said:
The media should just stop reporting this and any other SJW demonstration as it's playing right into their hands.
As with so many other things. 
A brief report is all that's required but to have a resident reporter doing incessant pieces to camera at every opportunity is oxygen to them (if that's not a poison!). You'd think it was Glastonbury...
Edited by motco on Thursday 18th April 07:25
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff