Climate protesters block roads

[motco]

Mort7 said:

This article may give a clue as to the real agenda behind these protests.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/extinction-r...

It has to be something like that. They have minded a rich vein of dumb robots to further their cause in the form of well-meaning gullibles, students, schoolkids, crusties, etc. Unfortunately 'The Spectator' is seen to be a right wing journal so the story will be dismissed for that reason alone.

[irocfan]

REALIST123 said:

Mort7 said:

This article may give a clue as to the real agenda behind these protests.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/extinction-r...

More than a clue, I’d suggest.

It’s amazing how many people are continually fooled by organisations like this.

indeed - they're not thought of as watermelons for no reason.

[motco]

irocfan said:

REALIST123 said:

Mort7 said:

This article may give a clue as to the real agenda behind these protests.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/extinction-r...

More than a clue, I’d suggest.

It’s amazing how many people are continually fooled by organisations like this.

indeed - they're not thought of as watermelons for no reason.

The parent organisation Rising Up

[NRS]

Vanden Saab said:

Or you could add co2 to the concrete https://materialdistrict.com/article/carboncure-co... and help the environment...

Concrete was one example of the issues, not the only one. I'd also advise to you have a bit more of a look into what that concrete solution is actually proposing. They not capturing the CO2 they emit. They are taking other sources of CO2 and putting some of it into concrete. One of the big issues for C02 sequestriation with concrete is that it is made locally. It saves transport CO2, as many of the materials to make it are easy to find, and so you don't have long transport distances. However that means there is not a efficient way to capture the large amounts of CO2 given off during the chemical reactions. Even if you do capture the gases where do you put them, and how do you separate the CO2 from the rest of the gas? You'll want to compress the gas to store it effectively, which will produce it's own CO2, and if you haven't separated the CO2 from other gases you're wasting energy compressing stuff you don't want to.

So then it comes down to CO2 from other sources (they mention a refinery). However (and not an expert in what they're doing) given the numbers they are talking about I'd guess it's probably cheaper (depending on country/ tax regime etc) to do proper CCS to result in a more meaningful impact on emissions. The cement company has done 21 000 tonnes in the last year. If you take a few oil field examples then Sleipner has reinjected around 850 000 tonnes a year, Snøvit do somewhere like 700 000 tonnes a year.

[texaxile]

motco said:

The parent organisation Rising Up

They seem like a well balanced , intelligent and politically neutral group of individuals with a sound and firm basis on political ideology and how a society should be run, and not a bunch of extreme left wing imbeciles with a blinkered outlook on life who really should be sent to the nearest gulag for the rest of their pathetic unwashed lives.

[biggbn]

Coolbanana said:

The message about Climate Change is a valid one, only those who are somewhat intellectually-challenged would still argue that there remains a debate to the contrary.

Humans are accelerating the Natural process. Fact. You are an idiot to disagree, if you do.

Extinction Rebellion should be praised for heightening general awareness in the sense that we should be pressuring Governments to take further action, however, they are, in my personal view, advocating impractical measures that are just too extreme; it is simply unrealistic to see aviation as for 'emergencies' only, for example.

They, and the recent Classroom activism, are exactly what we need to see in terms of stepping up the pressure upon Governments to work together to address Climate Change issues as quickly as realistically possible.

Ignorance and attitudes supporting the 'I'm alright, couldn't give a stuff about the Future, so let them deal with it' are unhelpful but can be managed - just as Smokers had to be managed, since they refused to self-regulate the impact they had on others.

Extinction Rebellion and the like are being heard, they just need to ensure that they do not overstep, which they are in danger of doing. The Climate Change Disbeliever Morons who disagree can be managed, but if Extinction Rebellion go too far, they do make that task tougher.

Governments around the World need to ramp up their measures to control CC, influential Governments like the UK, can exert influence upon those others who may not otherwise make much effort; hence targeting London etc is a valid tactic.

I clearly support ER and a little inconvenience is a small price to pay while they get their message heard...but too much will have a negative effect, so I don't support their more extreme views.

Thanks for this post. Well said

[turbobloke]

motco said:

irocfan said:

REALIST123 said:

Mort7 said:

This article may give a clue as to the real agenda behind these protests.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/extinction-r...

More than a clue, I’d suggest.

It’s amazing how many people are continually fooled by organisations like this.

indeed - they're not thought of as watermelons for no reason.

The parent organisation Rising Up

Their 'useful i.... teenagers' are generating some fine emissions. Try this for high grade bovine excreta. The misinformed and misled emission source actually thinks it might have a remote possibility of being true - astonishing gullibility for somebody supposedly educated beyond infant school:

Information pollution source said:

It's about the message that we're trying to send, and that is that we are very possibly the last generation and that our futures have been stolen, the lives we thought we would be able to lead have been taken.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/19/heathrow-braces-disruption-extinction-rebellion-protesters-threaten/

High grade tosh. The 'crowd' of ~15 bringing Heathrow to a standstill are long gone apparently. Not so useful after all.

[turbobloke]

biggbn said:

Coolbanana said:

The message about Climate Change is a valid one, only those who are somewhat intellectually-challenged would still argue that there remains a debate to the contrary.

Humans are accelerating the Natural process. Fact. You are an idiot to disagree, if you do.

Extinction Rebellion should be praised for heightening general awareness in the sense that we should be pressuring Governments to take further action, however, they are, in my personal view, advocating impractical measures that are just too extreme; it is simply unrealistic to see aviation as for 'emergencies' only, for example.

They, and the recent Classroom activism, are exactly what we need to see in terms of stepping up the pressure upon Governments to work together to address Climate Change issues as quickly as realistically possible.

Ignorance and attitudes supporting the 'I'm alright, couldn't give a stuff about the Future, so let them deal with it' are unhelpful but can be managed - just as Smokers had to be managed, since they refused to self-regulate the impact they had on others.

Extinction Rebellion and the like are being heard, they just need to ensure that they do not overstep, which they are in danger of doing. The Climate Change Disbeliever Morons who disagree can be managed, but if Extinction Rebellion go too far, they do make that task tougher.

Governments around the World need to ramp up their measures to control CC, influential Governments like the UK, can exert influence upon those others who may not otherwise make much effort; hence targeting London etc is a valid tactic.

I clearly support ER and a little inconvenience is a small price to pay while they get their message heard...but too much will have a negative effect, so I don't support their more extreme views.

Thanks for this post. Well said

Unfortunately it's not at all well said with little validity. Calling other people idiots for being aware of more accurate information about the current position on climate is ironic to say the least.

To take but one error among many, what natural process is accelerating at the mo? Not temperature, there have been many more rapid temperature chantes to greater extents, not sea llevel which hasn't accelerated since anthropogenic emissions rose significantly, not ocean pH changes and not coral bleaching which took place at similar or greater levels in previous centuries, not wildfires, not hurricanes, not tornadoes, not arctic ice which had similar beviour centred on ~1922 and 1817, And so on.

This is a thread about misguided protests but the basis for the above is clearly going to be needed with so many credulous contributions flying around, so here's a list of peer-reviewed literature and all but two are contemporary with data (not mere opinion) by which the above statements and others are substantiated.

Don't bother asking why the information below isn't more widely known and discussed, as the above posts offer all the explanation needed.

For more either do some online searches based on the theme and authors ^^ or head over to the climate thread(s) and scroll back or do a search - beyond this point I don't see any point in adding to the catalogue of actual data (rather than faith statements) and the thread ought to get back to discussing foolish and disruptive actions / comments from the gullible and the culpable.

-Recent global warming is primarily a result of natural causes - Mao et al
-Humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth’s climate – also Mao et al
- Results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate – Fleming
-The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system – NASA, Newberry et al
-The temperature field of the global troposphere and lower stratosphere - not as predicted by agw theory, Varotsos and Efstathiou
-Temperature rate of change and extent - not unprecedented e.g. Alley et al, Fawcett et al
-So-called extreme high T events – nonlinear from mean T trend, see Mearns et al
-Carbon dioxide is good for ecosystems - global net ecosystem production increased by at least 117 Tg C per year between 1995 and 2014 with the vast majority of that increase (~90%) due to aerial fertilization effects i.e. increased CO2 levels, from Fernández-Martínez et al
-Ice mass changes - not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped e.g. Minutes of the Royal Society, Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
-Arctic expedition - 1930/31 was 4.6 °C warmer than 1981-2010, Feb ’31 average 10.7 deg C warmer
-Glaciers - not retreating due to global warming, see Bookhagen et al
-Ice shelves not collapsing – Ollier and Pain
-Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s see Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and try Andersson et al
-Coral manages pH / temperature changes through biological control – Ross et al, McCulloch et al
-Ocean 'Acidification' and (lack of) impacts on marine phytoplankton – “CO2-driven acidification had no significant impact on growth rate, chlorophyll-a, cellular abundance, gross photosynthesis, dark respiration, particulate organic carbon and particulate organic nitrogen between CO2-treatments” also no impact on nutritional quality as a primary producer in the marine food web, Jacob et al
-Sea level changes don’t show the expected anthropogenic acceleration – see Douglas, Holgate and check out Gregory er al
Sea level rise AR5 model projections invalidated - Watson
-Global coasts growing not shrinking – Donchyts et al, and see Duvat (coral attol island stability)
- Hurricane frequency - no significant trend in the data: Landsea, Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
-Hurricane data: hurricane intensity attribution to anthropogenic forcing is not possible- Trenary et al
-Floods and Droughts - not intensifying e.g. Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredo
-Wildfires -not increasing or intensifying see Doerr and Santin
-Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall - CMIP5 models fail to simulate post?1950 trend, see Saha et al
-Cold weather mortality across the US- more than 16x higher than for warm weather, Zhang et al
-Polar bear numbers - increased not decreased, surveys post-2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
-Jellyfish numbers not linked to carbon dioxide - Pitt
-Major climate forcings omitted by IPCC modelling – Svensmark et al, Bucha and Bucha. Agee et al
-CMIP5 model regional projections deficient for Greenland, UK and parts of Europe – Hanna et al
-The agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data and the agw null hypothesis must be rejected – McKitrick and Christy
-Hydrological cycle - no detectable global-scale human influence (models wrong) from Nguyen et al
-Tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more CO2 with warming, contrary to models – Roe

[turbobloke]

Should have been v v not ^ ^.

[RegMolehusband]

turbobloke said:

Unfortunately it's not at all well said with little validity. Calling other people idiots for being aware of more accurate information about the current position on climate is ironic to say the least.

To take but one error among many, what natural process is accelerating at the mo? Not temperature, there have been many more rapid temperature chantes to greater extents, not sea llevel which hasn't accelerated since anthropogenic emissions rose significantly, not ocean pH changes and not coral bleaching which took place at similar or greater levels in previous centuries, not wildfires, not hurricanes, not tornadoes, not arctic ice which had similar beviour centred on ~1922 and 1817, And so on.

This is a thread about misguided protests but the basis for the above is clearly going to be needed with so many credulous contributions flying around, so here's a list of peer-reviewed literature and all but two are contemporary with data (not mere opinion) by which the above statements and others are substantiated.

Don't bother asking why the information below isn't more widely known and discussed, as the above posts offer all the explanation needed.

For more either do some online searches based on the theme and authors ^^ or head over to the climate thread(s) and scroll back or do a search - beyond this point I don't see any point in adding to the catalogue of actual data (rather than faith statements) and the thread ought to get back to discussing foolish and disruptive actions / comments from the gullible and the culpable.

-Recent global warming is primarily a result of natural causes - Mao et al
-Humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth’s climate – also Mao et al
- Results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate – Fleming
-The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system – NASA, Newberry et al
-The temperature field of the global troposphere and lower stratosphere - not as predicted by agw theory, Varotsos and Efstathiou
-Temperature rate of change and extent - not unprecedented e.g. Alley et al, Fawcett et al
-So-called extreme high T events – nonlinear from mean T trend, see Mearns et al
-Carbon dioxide is good for ecosystems - global net ecosystem production increased by at least 117 Tg C per year between 1995 and 2014 with the vast majority of that increase (~90%) due to aerial fertilization effects i.e. increased CO2 levels, from Fernández-Martínez et al
-Ice mass changes - not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped e.g. Minutes of the Royal Society, Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
-Arctic expedition - 1930/31 was 4.6 °C warmer than 1981-2010, Feb ’31 average 10.7 deg C warmer
-Glaciers - not retreating due to global warming, see Bookhagen et al
-Ice shelves not collapsing – Ollier and Pain
-Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s see Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and try Andersson et al
-Coral manages pH / temperature changes through biological control – Ross et al, McCulloch et al
-Ocean 'Acidification' and (lack of) impacts on marine phytoplankton – “CO2-driven acidification had no significant impact on growth rate, chlorophyll-a, cellular abundance, gross photosynthesis, dark respiration, particulate organic carbon and particulate organic nitrogen between CO2-treatments” also no impact on nutritional quality as a primary producer in the marine food web, Jacob et al
-Sea level changes don’t show the expected anthropogenic acceleration – see Douglas, Holgate and check out Gregory er al
Sea level rise AR5 model projections invalidated - Watson
-Global coasts growing not shrinking – Donchyts et al, and see Duvat (coral attol island stability)
- Hurricane frequency - no significant trend in the data: Landsea, Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
-Hurricane data: hurricane intensity attribution to anthropogenic forcing is not possible- Trenary et al
-Floods and Droughts - not intensifying e.g. Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredo
-Wildfires -not increasing or intensifying see Doerr and Santin
-Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall - CMIP5 models fail to simulate post?1950 trend, see Saha et al
-Cold weather mortality across the US- more than 16x higher than for warm weather, Zhang et al
-Polar bear numbers - increased not decreased, surveys post-2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
-Jellyfish numbers not linked to carbon dioxide - Pitt
-Major climate forcings omitted by IPCC modelling – Svensmark et al, Bucha and Bucha. Agee et al
-CMIP5 model regional projections deficient for Greenland, UK and parts of Europe – Hanna et al
-The agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data and the agw null hypothesis must be rejected – McKitrick and Christy
-Hydrological cycle - no detectable global-scale human influence (models wrong) from Nguyen et al
-Tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more CO2 with warming, contrary to models – Roe

Thanks for this post. Well said.

[Cold]

A scientist discussing their most recent peer reviewed paper on the Earth's climate, yesterday.

[Dromedary66]

Needs a good hosing down. Loving the tin foil bindi.

[amusingduck]

Cold said:

A scientist discussing their most recent peer reviewed paper on the Earth's climate, yesterday.

You'd look upset if a bird shat between your eyes too!

[wc98]

Pesty said:

We’ve given trillions to under developed nations.

You won’t make a dent in this.

spend the trillions on things like nuclear power stations and useful infrastructure ,maybe the results would be better than lining the pockets of warmongering dictators ?

[TeamD]

wc98 said:

spend the trillions on things like nuclear power stations and useful infrastructure ,maybe the results would be better than lining the pockets of warmongering dictators ?

Erm...you want to give nuclear power stations to warmongering dictators eh?

[wc98]

TeamD said:

Erm...you want to give nuclear power stations to warmongering dictators eh?

lol, no that wouldn't be a good idea. build them with the money that's currently being wasted and let the people that build them run them.

[Coolbanana]

[redacted]

[poo at Paul's]

Champagne Socialist Emma Thompson is now with them!!.

[Ridgemont]

Yes: with absolutely zero self awareness she has flown 5.5k miles just to join in..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/18/emma-t...

[rxe]

poo at Paul's said:

Champagne Socialist Emma Thompson is now with them!!.

This is what is so laughable about the whole thing. One of our slightly more hippy friends dropped into see us this morning and expressed a level of solidarity with the protestors. She didn’t appreciate my pointing out to her that she’d just driven a 3 litre car 100 miles to go bloody shopping, and that her lifestyle was precisely the sort of thing the soap-dodgers are protesting about.