Climate protesters block roads

[Biker 1]

garagewidow said:

fatboy18 said:

BBC2 Now......The Real story......7.7Billion Humans

A much more realistic view of the planets' problem.

I much prefer Chris Packham to St.Greta in getting the message out there,less preachy and condescending.

Disagree. I can't stand Packham & his nonstop personal views being pushed by the BBC. His voice is annoying also.....

[p1esk]

Langweilig said:

Bullett said:

Burwood said:

Greta today at the WEF stated 'we don't want net zero, we want real zero'.

We breath out co2 don't we?

Yes, we do. I remember a biology teacher at school telling me that plants use chlorophyll in leaves to convert sunlight and co2 into oxygen. At night, plants produce co2. I was taught that in hospitals at night, potted plants are removed from wards.

I don't know about potted plants (you might be right) but I thought they used to remove cut flowers from wards at night.

[p1esk]

Biker 1 said:

garagewidow said:

fatboy18 said:

BBC2 Now......The Real story......7.7Billion Humans

A much more realistic view of the planets' problem.

I much prefer Chris Packham to St.Greta in getting the message out there,less preachy and condescending.

Disagree. I can't stand Packham & his nonstop personal views being pushed by the BBC. His voice is annoying also.....

...and he looks like a twit. Wasn't he once reported as saying he valued his dog more than his wife/partner/whatever? The guy is deranged.

Incidentally, all credit to Joel Hills on TV last night for making reference to carbon dioxide: most commentators, and supposed experts, keep talking about carbon emissions. If they use sloppy terminology it totally destroys any faith I might otherwise have in the message they're trying to convey.

[Bullett]

amusingduck said:

Yes, if you're at net zero. If you're at absolute zero, there's no CO2 left to convert.

Apparently Microsoft are aiming to be carbon negative.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/micros...

All getting a bit two sts.

[Burwood]

Bullett said:

amusingduck said:

Yes, if you're at net zero. If you're at absolute zero, there's no CO2 left to convert.

Apparently Microsoft are aiming to be carbon negative.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/micros...

All getting a bit two sts.

All that means is they pledge to remove more than all the CO2 they have created. It can be done in a variety of ways. Maybe something Bill is working on (CO2 capture plants).

[hutchst]

amusingduck said:

Yes, if you're at net zero. If you're at absolute zero, there's no CO2 left to convert.

But if there's no CO2 left for plant growth, doesn't that mean that all the vegans will starve?

[otolith]

Langweilig said:

Yes, we do. I remember a biology teacher at school telling me that plants use chlorophyll in leaves to convert sunlight and co2 into oxygen. At night, plants produce co2. I was taught that in hospitals at night, potted plants are removed from wards.

Plants consume sugar and O2 and produce water and CO2 (respire) all the time. In sunlight, they also consume CO2 and water and produce sugar and O2 (photosynthesise). The dominant process depends primarily on the temperature and the light level, but obviously if respiration dominates over photosynthesis for any prolonged period of time the plant runs out of sugar and dies.

[otolith]

amusingduck said:

Yes, if you're at net zero. If you're at absolute zero, there's no CO2 left to convert.

You emit by burning fossil fuels. You capture - mostly at the moment, though there are other options mooted - by planting trees.

If you are at net zero, you are capturing as much as you are emitting. If you are net positive, you are capturing less than you are emitting. Net negative, capturing more than you are emitting.

All net negative really means is that overall your activities are reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Starfighter]

Didn’t St Greta say that net zero is nit enough and we need to be true zero. Does this mean we need to hold out breath?

[amusingduck]

otolith said:

amusingduck said:

Yes, if you're at net zero. If you're at absolute zero, there's no CO2 left to convert.

You emit by burning fossil fuels. You capture - mostly at the moment, though there are other options mooted - by planting trees.

If you are at net zero, you are capturing as much as you are emitting. If you are net positive, you are capturing less than you are emitting. Net negative, capturing more than you are emitting.

All net negative really means is that overall your activities are reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yeah, I get that, it makes perfect sense.

The comment that sparked this discussion was this -

Burwood said:

Greta today at the WEF stated 'we don't want net zero, we want real zero'.

Which absolutely does not make sense to me.

[otolith]

amusingduck said:

Yeah, I get that, it makes perfect sense.

The comment that sparked this discussion was this -

Burwood said:

Greta today at the WEF stated 'we don't want net zero, we want real zero'.

Which absolutely does not make sense to me.

Ah. I guess what she means by that is that she wants us to stop burning fossil fuels at all, never mind burning them and doing something to offset it.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

[321boost]

Burwood said:

It's simply moving the goal posts. A warning that they'll just keep demanding more. Their wish is impossible.

She also said once real zero they will require negative. They are a pack of loons.

Had dinner out a couple of weeks ago with friends who just bought an Electric car. Greta is their hero. Apparently we all have to make significant life changes to save the planet and the Australian fires are ALL due to climate change (bks, it's one of many factors). I asked them if they will be cutting the very high air travel they do (a dozen return flights p.a). They changed the subject. Virtue signalling hypocrites.

They will never stop demanding more and will never change their mindset but it’s for others(majority) normal people to see them fail which might help keep them out of the way forever.

I find that most people who act morally high and mighty tend to end up being hypocritical.

[John Locke]

All the while judges give a pass to those who think "for reasons of concience" that it's just fine to disrupt the lives of half a million others, and actually commend them, they will continue to do so.

"Judge commends Extinction Rebellion activist's 'commitment to his cause' over protest that disrupted 500,000 commuters"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/21/olympi...

May I develop a belief that such judges should be dragged through the streets and suspended from lamposts, put it into practice and suffer a conditional discharge as punishment?

[321boost]

John Locke said:

All the while judges give a pass to those who think "for reasons of concience" that it's just fine to disrupt the lives of half a million others, and actually commend them, they will continue to do so.

"Judge commends Extinction Rebellion activist's 'commitment to his cause' over protest that disrupted 500,000 commuters"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/21/olympi...

May I develop a belief that such judges should be dragged through the streets and suspended from lamposts, put it into practice and suffer a conditional discharge as punishment?

No, I think all the dragging and suspending is going a bit too far. A discharge and character assassination/bad publicity should be enough to teach them a lesson. Perhaps a disruption of their personal life through suspension of their driving licence or any private transport could also be an additional thing to consider.

Edited by 321boost on Wednesday 22 January 15:03

[Hoofy]

Burwood said:

Had dinner out a couple of weeks ago with friends who just bought an Electric car. Greta is their hero. Apparently we all have to make significant life changes to save the planet and the Australian fires are ALL due to climate change (bks, it's one of many factors). I asked them if they will be cutting the very high air travel they do (a dozen return flights p.a). They changed the subject. Virtue signalling hypocrites.

You didn't push for an answer??

[Langweilig]

Europa1 said:

Smiler. said:

Who'd have guessed?

Where does one even begin with statements as colossally idiotic as that one?

I'll start the ball rolling. I bet the adhesive with which the stupid label is attached to the post is petroleum-based. The stinky rebels don't understand fossil fuels and want them banned.

[A Winner Is You]

321boost said:

John Locke said:

All the while judges give a pass to those who think "for reasons of concience" that it's just fine to disrupt the lives of half a million others, and actually commend them, they will continue to do so.

"Judge commends Extinction Rebellion activist's 'commitment to his cause' over protest that disrupted 500,000 commuters"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/21/olympi...

May I develop a belief that such judges should be dragged through the streets and suspended from lamposts, put it into practice and suffer a conditional discharge as punishment?

No, I think all the dragging and suspending is going a bit too far. A discharge and character assassination/bad publicity should be enough to teach them a lesson. Perhaps a disruption of their personal life through suspension of their driving licence or any private transport could also be an additional thing to consider.

Edited by 321boost on Wednesday 22 January 15:03

Surely the best way will just be to sit outside his house and block him in so he can't get to work?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Agammemnon said:

Ian974 said:

If someone decided to glue themselves to my car and the police were unwilling to do anything, I'd get a few ratchet straps, secure them onto the car out of harm's way and carry on with my day.

With due respect, surely it's not your responsibility to ensure their safety? They are the architect of any problems.

As a mate of mine pointed out, when one of them glues themselves to a train or a car, it is the ideal opportunity to p*ss all over them. Might make them smell a bit better though

[Oakey]

Sounds like the ideal opportunity to be put on a register doing that

[Pan Pan Pan]

Starfighter said:

Didn’t St Greta say that net zero is nit enough and we need to be true zero. Does this mean we need to hold out breath?

Yup! All 7.5 billion (and rising) of us.
That should work though, because not only will we not be exhaling CO2, we wont be doing anything else, like eating, drinking, moving anywhere, working, building and living in houses, watching TV, fishing, messing around with computers, watching the football, playing football, trying to keep warm in winter, and cool in summer, going to music or any other type of festival, going on holiday, and crucially not getting on the job!. Heaven only knows how much CO2 doing that puts out!