Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Extinction Rebellion

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Extinction Rebellion

Old 21st Jun 2020, 07:14
  #461 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 70
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by Islandlad View Post
XR out; BLM in. Greta is back telling us to listen to the experts. Sweden has to deal with the results of their 'pandemic experiment' as the experts tell them they got it wrong.
One of the few benefits of C-19 was not having her in the news daily.
I now assume the media is getting bored with the virus?
ZFT is online now  
Old 21st Jun 2020, 09:55
  #462 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 1,332
XR are such a useless organisation.

On the weekend I went to do my local shopping and came across the XR protestors. For the life of me I couldn't remember the name of their organisation but did remember seeing their flag before, but for what they actually stood for had totally escaped me. So I went to get a haircut at the barbers and inbetween a lively conversation among half the shop about football the subject of the protestors was brought up. Nobody could remember the name of their organisation and the best we did was figure out they were some sort of climate doomsayers.

I mentioned that I didn't drive a particularly green car but was fortunate to have parked behind a late model Bentley which would hopefully attract any vandalism away from mine. Fortunately when I got out they had all gone.

XR are a fad. Superficial, useless, ineffective, incoherent, unvalued, irrelevant and so quickly forgotten.
cattletruck is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2020, 10:16
  #463 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 56
Posts: 6,696
XR are a fad. Superficial, useless, ineffective, incoherent, unvalued, irrelevant and so quickly forgotten.
And like BLM and half a dozen other recent over-hyped movements, mostly supported by ignorant people who just want be a part of it so they can selfie and get liked and have their messages retwatted on the current social media fad. They don't realise that however genuine the original cause may be, some of the people in the background who adopt the cause unseen and put their shoulder to the wheel have far more sinister and disruptive reasons for doing so.
treadigraph is online now  
Old 21st Jun 2020, 17:50
  #464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 70
Posts: 1,429
Not to mention Julian Assange..............
Haraka is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2020, 01:13
  #465 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,128
Not to mention Julian Assange
Who?????...............
601 is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2020, 01:41
  #466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 736
May the Lord preserve us from loonies and hotheads.

Oh, if the Lord is not willing, then perhaps the police will continue to do a sterling job, like safe-Rugby-tackling this guy in Reading who had obviously lost the plot.

In fact, the police have been given such a hard time recently, what with WURS and various overlapping protests, that a word of thanks a la NHS might even be due. (Without inflating their ego too much, of course.) Just one opinion. Should I reach for my hat and coat?
jolihokistix is online now  
Old 22nd Jun 2020, 05:57
  #467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 2,884
I would love to see one of the protestors, who had been abusing police, jumping on cars and smashing windows and looting shops, gets to his own house with his stolen TV, to find that somebody had looted his house, stolen his bicycle and raped his cat.

Would he call the police?
Ascend Charlie is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2020, 06:05
  #468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie View Post
I would love to see one of the protestors, who had been abusing police, jumping on cars and smashing windows and looting shops, gets to his own house with his stolen TV, to find that somebody had looted his house, stolen his bicycle and raped his cat.

Would he call the police?
Really? You had me with your point. Then lost me again. Are XR raping cats?
Islandlad is online now  
Old 22nd Jun 2020, 09:39
  #469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: There and here
Posts: 1,936
Not to mention Julian Assange..............
Our Julien has certainly been putting his shoulder to the wheel, according to the newspapers today he's fathered two kids with a secret lover!
SpringHeeledJack is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2020, 16:11
  #470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 67
... and don't forget our very own Chris Packham, who had the discourtesy to wear his XR tie when receiving his CBE from Prince Charles..




he is, admittedly, an expert on wooks, wavens and other members of the cwow family.
SID PLATE is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 10:48
  #471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 962
Oh dear, another defection...



currawong is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 11:25
  #472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Perhaps worth looking at some of the statements from Michael Shellenberger, like this one, for example:

“Despite decades of news media attention, many remain ignorant of basic facts. Carbon emissions peaked and have been declining in most developed nations for over a decade. Deaths from extreme weather, even in poor nations, declined 80 percent over the last four decades. And the risk of Earth warming to very high temperatures is increasingly unlikely thanks to slowing population growth and abundant natural gas.”
Let's look at each in turn, and see if what he's saying is actually true or not. First, carbon emissions over the past decade (from Wikipedia):




Doesn't look much like a decline overall to me. That suggests he's either mistaken, or not telling the whole truth for some reason. He has chosen his words very carefully though, clearly trying to obscure the global reality.

What about deaths from extreme weather events? Deaths from natural disasters have been reducing over the past 100 years or so, primarily as a consequence of our growing ability to prevent extreme events from having as severe an impact as they used to, rather than anything relating to the incidence of extreme events. For example, we're very much better at predicting things like severe storms, flooding and volcanic eruptions than we used to be, and as a consequence fewer people die. In essence, this is a diversionary point, one that seems significant until you dig down to see whether or not it's relevant to his argument (it doesn't seem to be).

What about the risk of earth warming to high temperatures? Another bit of careful wording, as global temperatures will most probably self-limit, as they have done in the past, but what he doesn't state is that even a pretty small change in mean temperature seems to be likely to have some pretty devastating consequences. Why the curious mention of abundant natural gas? It seems as if he is making an assumption that we can burn as much natural gas as we like with no impact on global warming. Given that there is still a very significant CO2 output from burning natural gas, even if it is a bit lower than some other fossil fuels.

So, why has he chosen to write what seems to be, on the face of it, some baseless propaganda? Firstly, he has been a strong pro-nuclear lobbyist for some time, and has argued strongly for more investment in nuclear power plants. Also, some of what Shellenberger has written is actually true, but the language he's used, and the slant he has put on some of the data, makes it seem as if he's allowed his quite laudable aim, which is to rein in the more extreme climate change nutters, take precedence over his own credibility. He's clearly done this, at least in part, to promote the sales of his book. He, and his publisher, are aware that many people are hacked off with the extremism of groups like XR, and have realised that by making out that everything climate science is indicating is wrong book sales are likely to be higher.

Pity that some of his core statements just don't stand up to scrutiny, as in general, his aim to redress the balance was sound. As it stands, I suspect he'll sell a stack of books based on the published sound bites, then the book will get torn apart for the factual inaccuracies in it.



VP959 is online now  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 12:07
  #473 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Perhaps worth looking at some of the statements from Michael Shellenberger, like this one, for example:



Let's look at each in turn, and see if what he's saying is actually true or not. First, carbon emissions over the past decade (from Wikipedia):




Doesn't look much like a decline overall to me. That suggests he's either mistaken, or not telling the whole truth for some reason. He has chosen his words very carefully though, clearly trying to obscure the global reality.

What about deaths from extreme weather events? Deaths from natural disasters have been reducing over the past 100 years or so, primarily as a consequence of our growing ability to prevent extreme events from having as severe an impact as they used to, rather than anything relating to the incidence of extreme events. For example, we're very much better at predicting things like severe storms, flooding and volcanic eruptions than we used to be, and as a consequence fewer people die. In essence, this is a diversionary point, one that seems significant until you dig down to see whether or not it's relevant to his argument (it doesn't seem to be).

What about the risk of earth warming to high temperatures? Another bit of careful wording, as global temperatures will most probably self-limit, as they have done in the past, but what he doesn't state is that even a pretty small change in mean temperature seems to be likely to have some pretty devastating consequences. Why the curious mention of abundant natural gas? It seems as if he is making an assumption that we can burn as much natural gas as we like with no impact on global warming. Given that there is still a very significant CO2 output from burning natural gas, even if it is a bit lower than some other fossil fuels.

So, why has he chosen to write what seems to be, on the face of it, some baseless propaganda? Firstly, he has been a strong pro-nuclear lobbyist for some time, and has argued strongly for more investment in nuclear power plants. Also, some of what Shellenberger has written is actually true, but the language he's used, and the slant he has put on some of the data, makes it seem as if he's allowed his quite laudable aim, which is to rein in the more extreme climate change nutters, take precedence over his own credibility. He's clearly done this, at least in part, to promote the sales of his book. He, and his publisher, are aware that many people are hacked off with the extremism of groups like XR, and have realised that by making out that everything climate science is indicating is wrong book sales are likely to be higher.

Pity that some of his core statements just don't stand up to scrutiny, as in general, his aim to redress the balance was sound. As it stands, I suspect he'll sell a stack of books based on the published sound bites, then the book will get torn apart for the factual inaccuracies in it.


Thank you VP.

It is little short of tragic that in the name of being anti-extremist, he has chosen to give grist to the mill of another extremist position - denial.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 13:24
  #474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 962
VP959 -

Lets compare his statement with your graph. Most developed nations/ carbon emissions decline/ last decade would seem to be accurate.

The last decade being 2010 onward, rather than the last 4 decades shown on the graph, of course.

China? Not classed as a developed nation. India? Gained developed nation status just this year.

Perhaps we should be looking at statements from say, Al Gore to see if what he said turned out to be accurate.

I think it is that type of thing this gent is seeking to address.

Torquetalk -

Skip to 2:23, you will see that the gent clearly states the climate is variable. As do most people that the identity politics enthusiasts label as "deniers".

currawong is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 13:32
  #475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 815
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Perhaps worth looking at some of the statements from Michael Shellenberger, like this one, for example.
Shall we include that Michael Shellenberger isnít a scientist, heís an author and lobbyist for the nuclear energy industry? He doesnít have any experience or qualifications in any scientific field, so his statements on carbon emission trends or future climate predictions are not taken seriously by anyone.

Currawong, Iíve had this debate before. Donít use a Chris Kenny video in a debate. You look foolish.
dr dre is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 13:36
  #476 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by currawong View Post
VP959 -

Lets compare his statement with your graph. Most developed nations/ carbon emissions decline/ last decade would seem to be accurate.

The last decade being 2010 onward, rather than the last 4 decades shown on the graph, of course.

China? Not classed as a developed nation. India? Gained developed nation status just this year.

Perhaps we should be looking at statements from say, Al Gore to see if what he said turned out to be accurate.

I think it is that type of thing this gent is seeking to address.
I agree with the point he's trying to make, which is that the extremists in the climate change movement are essentially nutters. The problem I have is that he's opted to try and mislead. The problem is a global one, so what matters isn't the way that developed nations are behaving, in the main, it's very clear that, despite the efforts of some developed nations there is still an unacceptable increase in global CO2 emissions. The likes of XR are aiming their rhetoric in the wrong direction - they should clearly be targeting all the nations that are doing very little to control the growth in emissions.

He's deliberately chosen to be highly selective, and has cherry picked the data he's chosen to highlight, in order to make his point. That's just handing a gift to the likes of XR, who, like many other people will see straight through his subterfuge and so it seems likely that he'll just be ignored or discredited, with his key message about climate change extremism being lost. FWIW, he has a long history of peddling this take on things, and as above, he's neither a scientist or an environmentalist, he's really just another writer trying to promote and sell another book. Doesn't seem to have changed much since the article he wrote 15 years ago, either: http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/tissa/file...nmentalism.pdf

As it happens I agree with his position on nuclear power, and would like nothing more than to see something like the rapid development of smaller, safer, faster to build, distributed power plants, rather like the Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor idea. I'm less convinced by his arguments supporting natural gas use, primarily because continuing to invest in gas power generation will just create an ongoing global market for burning gas. Far better that we invest in alternative power generation and storage technologies, so they come down in price and become affordable to use in developing nations.

Last edited by VP959; 1st Jul 2020 at 13:53.
VP959 is online now  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 14:07
  #477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,655
Nuclear power for developing nations is a great ambition but Africa needs electricity now as espoused here.

Here's an interesting article called "Heart of Darkness - why electricity for Africa is a security issue".

It's basic thrust is that the poorer countries of Africa, some of whom are sitting on billions of tons of high quality coal, are being prevented from employing current technology to minimise the pollution caused by coal burning.
As is pointed out in the paper, it's easy to be eloquent about saving the planet while enjoying the benefits of universal electricity, it's a bit more difficult when there is no light when it goes dark, no heat apart from burning wood or diesel when it goes cold, and no refrigeration when it gets hot.
LowNSlow is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 14:14
  #478 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by currawong View Post
VP959 -

Lets compare his statement with your graph. Most developed nations/ carbon emissions decline/ last decade would seem to be accurate.

The last decade being 2010 onward, rather than the last 4 decades shown on the graph, of course.

China? Not classed as a developed nation. India? Gained developed nation status just this year.

Torquetalk -

Skip to 2:23, you will see that the gent clearly states the climate is variable. As do most people that the identity politics enthusiasts label as "deniers".

https://youtu.be/P12SqU9hSQg

Sorry currawong, you may be convinced; I see someone being selective to support an essentially reactionary position.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 14:25
  #479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,655
VP9659; Michael Schellenberger, Times Magazine "Heroes of the Environment 2008" winner, 2008 Green Book Award winner.

He may not be a scientist, as a lot of people who shout loudly about climate change often aren't on both sides, but he has shown a deep commitment to trying to make the world a cleaner place in my opinion.
LowNSlow is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 16:56
  #480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
I agree with the point he's trying to make, which is that the extremists in the climate change movement are essentially nutters. The problem I have is that he's opted to try and mislead. The problem is a global one, so what matters isn't the way that developed nations are behaving, in the main, it's very clear that, despite the efforts of some developed nations there is still an unacceptable increase in global CO2 emissions. The likes of XR are aiming their rhetoric in the wrong direction - they should clearly be targeting all the nations that are doing very little to control the growth in emissions.

He's deliberately chosen to be highly selective, and has cherry picked the data he's chosen to highlight, in order to make his point. That's just handing a gift to the likes of XR, who, like many other people will see straight through his subterfuge and so it seems likely that he'll just be ignored or discredited, with his key message about climate change extremism being lost. FWIW, he has a long history of peddling this take on things, and as above, he's neither a scientist or an environmentalist, he's really just another writer trying to promote and sell another book. Doesn't seem to have changed much since the article he wrote 15 years ago, either: http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/tissa/file...nmentalism.pdf

As it happens I agree with his position on nuclear power, and would like nothing more than to see something like the rapid development of smaller, safer, faster to build, distributed power plants, rather like the Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor idea. I'm less convinced by his arguments supporting natural gas use, primarily because continuing to invest in gas power generation will just create an ongoing global market for burning gas. Far better that we invest in alternative power generation and storage technologies, so they come down in price and become affordable to use in developing nations.
I agree on the need for Nuclear. That would go a long, long way to providing power, unfortunately itís history is not conducive to widespread public acceptance.
Alternate energy is still, and I believe will for a long time to come, waiting for the elusive cost effective storage solution(s).
The issue I have the the GW/CC religion is that every year, predictions are made as to how many of this that and the other weather events by reputable agencies, and like clockwork, every year they are wrong, in number and severity.
Couple of days ago, one of the scientists was lamenting that 3 years ago they thought the trend was up, 2 years ago, when another up was predicted, down it went, this year the number fell through the floor, openly admitted they had no idea why, it didnít conform to the models/thought processes, I think the issue was cyclones.
Now, when the mantra of the science is settled, if you donít believe you are an x/y/z, I ask, why wouldnít some folks say, wait a minute, something doesnít add up here.
VP, you and I have gone round and round in the past on this subject, and I say again, if the science is settled, yet no one can say what the weather and temperature ( to one decimal place) are going to be one/two/6 weeks from now, how on earth do you expect anyone to believe it can be predicted accurately 5/10/15/50/100 years into the future, whatever the purported cause is?

We have been in an agenda driven legislating mode for awhile now, it ebbs and flows as needs change. I always watch with interest as the GW/CC articles pop up at seemingly random moments, however, perhaps coincidentally, they always presage influencing points in pending legislation, or opposing viewpoints, I wonder why that would be?

Just my opinion.

Your mileage may vary.

fltlt is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.