Climate activists disrupt British cities with 'summer uprising'

[Chomper Higgot]

31 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Thanks. I'm particularly interested in the issue of extreme weather events because I've experienced a few of them in Australia, particularly floods and droughts.

 

I've found that the initial media reports usually get it wrong when they report an extreme weather event as the worst on record, or a 'once in a hundred years' event. I find that he event is quite often only the 5th or 6th or 7th worst on record, when I search the BOM records.

But the scientists supporting the green house climate change theory are not relying on ‘media reports’.

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

And you are convinced (no, certain) are you that the "era of fossil fuels" will, as the eco-terrorists demand, be all over by 2025???!!!!5555555

Again ‘eco-terrorist’.

 

Hyperbole nonsense.

 

Perhaps you are confusing eco-activists with the French special forces who planted mines on and sank a Green Piece ship in NZ.

 

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, blazes said:

And did I write that you did???  I know that in your unseemly rush to impose your voice upon the rest of us it  is quite possible that you fail to read what is actually there!

 

What I actually wrote was:  And you are convinced (no, certain) are you that the "era of fossil fuels" will, as the eco-terrorists demand, be all over by 2025???!!!!5555555

 

"As the eco-terrorists demand"?????

As you can now see (perhaps) I did not actually say that YOU were demanding or predicting the year 2025!!  I merely asked whether you were "convinced" or even "certain" that the roof will fall in in 6 years' time.

 

Nonsense???

You asked me if I was certain, not if I believed. When you ask someone if they are certain, it's to question how committed they are to a certain belief. Since I never had mentioned 6 years, it was entirely legitimate of me to answer as I did and illegitimate of you to link me to other people's opinions.

 

Well, in lots of ways the roof already is beginning to fall in. The frequency of high temperature incidents are rapidly increasing and killing people.

 

I wasn't aware that any "eco-terrorists" said anything about this 6 year prognostication. Perhaps you could point me to an article that references such people?

 

And the 2018 IPCC report that VincentRJ cited above says we have 12 years to slash CO2 emissions or face really terrible consequences. Considering that the IPCC has always been conservative in its estimates of climate change maybe 6 years is a more realistic number? Anyway, 12 years is bad enough.

[bristolboy]

41 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

Sorry, Chomps, I know it's a difficult act of reason to envisage these middle-class nut-jobs in London as "terrorists", but it does seem that, if you accept that the main goal of a terrorist is to create mayhem and possible death in a city or a whole society, then these harmless little "boat people" are well deserving of the label "terrorist".

 

In other words, if you shut down all roads to certain areas of a city you are likely to entangle in your "innocent" "non-violent" demo an ambulance trying to get to a hospital with a heart-attack victim inside.  Good luck to the person on life-support inside the ambulance.....

Wow, I never knew that Martin Luther King, who led countless protests that disrupted traffic, was a terrorist. Thanks for the info.

[Chomper Higgot]

45 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

Sorry, Chomps, I know it's a difficult act of reason to envisage these middle-class nut-jobs in London as "terrorists", but it does seem that, if you accept that the main goal of a terrorist is to create mayhem and possible death in a city or a whole society, then these harmless little "boat people" are well deserving of the label "terrorist".

 

In other words, if you shut down all roads to certain areas of a city you are likely to entangle in your "innocent" "non-violent" demo an ambulance trying to get to a hospital with a heart-attack victim inside.  Good luck to the person on life-support inside the ambulance.....

I said earlier.

 

Hyperbole.

[RickBradford]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again ‘eco-terrorist’.

 

Hyperbole nonsense.

 

Perhaps you are confusing eco-activists with the French special forces who planted mines on and sank a Green Piece ship in NZ.

 

It was actually a Greenpeace ship they sank, the Rainbow Warrior, though French special forces have a reputation for hitting the wrong targets.

 

I have to agree that 'eco-terrorist' is a bit strong to describe the people at these protests.

 

Most of them are just muppets, happy to have a day out dressing up as trees and pieces of flotsam to make an exhibition of themselves on British streets. It makes a change from watching Wimbledon, and I don't doubt that many of them are concerned about climate change, while knowing next to nothing about the subject.

 

The dangerous ones are the leaders of the protest, the 2% or so of committed activists who couldn't give a s**t about the planet, and use the climate change issue merely as a vehicle for self-promotion. Climate change, gender equality, capitalism, transgender rights, any cause is as good as any other. The activism, not the cause, is what's important.

 

They tend to gravitate to politics, the media, NGOs or academia - anywhere with maximum leeway and minimum accountability. And they will turn violent if they don't get what they want.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

The dangerous ones are the leaders of the protest, the 2% or so of committed activists who couldn't give a s**t about the planet, and use the climate change issue merely as a vehicle for self-promotion. Climate change, gender equality, capitalism, transgender rights, any cause is as good as any other. The activism, not the cause, is what's important.

 

They tend to gravitate to politics, the media, NGOs or academia - anywhere with maximum leeway and minimum accountability. And they will turn violent if they don't get what they want.

Again with the character assassination. I guess that suits you because such allegations are as impossible to disprove as they are to prove. Those of us who prefer evidence-based argument know what to make of the drivel you spout.

[RickBradford]

^^^

Excuse me, this is a forum, not a Red Guards struggle meeting.

 

Everyone is free to post their opinions, just as you are free to post yours, should you happen to develop some of your own.

As it happens, I have had some dealings with groups like these, and the pattern is always much the same.

 

The leadership is a very small percentage of the group, and consists of committed activists, who generally care nothing about the particular cause, but use it as a vehicle for their own ambitions. 

 

The rest are unimportant, but make a colorful display on television.

[bristolboy]

Just now, RickBradford said:

The leadership is a very small percentage of the group, and consists of committed activists, who generally care nothing about the particular cause, but use it as a vehicle for their own ambitions. 

And who exactly is stopping you from expressing your opinions? Where is this Red Guard you speak of? Are you claiming some kind of martyrdom?

And of course you are perfectly entitled to express your opinions. But that doesn't change the fact that your opinions offer no evidence. Basically you attack the motivations of certain people. Such claims are as impossible to prove as to disprove. Fact-free in other words. Why should anyone pay serious attention to them?

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Let's start with your last suspicion first

"I suspect this new data from the European National Science Academies you've linked to, relates mainly to extreme weather events in Europe. On a global level the data is probably not sound."

First off, the European report stated explicitly that it was globally the case as well as locally.

Second the report I linked to was not to the Europeans, but to NASA.

 

And once again you trot out the 2013 IPCC report. It's 6 years old. Science marches on.

 

And as for the interim 2018 IPCC report, instead of trusting your fellow denialists, did you even think of going to the report itself? Here's what it says on the first page:

“One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

Typical to take the word of a denialist website rather than go to the original report.

 

You've typically got it wrong again. I don't take the word of anyone as fact without supportive evidence. Because of the political corruption of climate science, in the sense of exaggerating the certainty of uncertain evidence, and failing to mention evidence which is contrary to the fictional consensus on 'catastrophic and anthropogenic global warming', it is necessary to discover alternative interpretations and evidence which is hidden by the promoters of AGW alarmism, if you want to get to the truth, that is.

 

The interim IPCC report you've quoted is an interim Summary for Policy Makers. I'm interested in the scientific evidence, which the Working Group 1 summarises.

 

Also, Panmao Zhai, who happens to be the Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I, made no mention of floods, droughts and hurricanes. He mentioned extreme weather, rising sea levels and melting Arctic ice. Heat waves and increased precipitation are extreme weather events, which the previous '2013 AR5 Working Group 1 report' also claimed had been increasing during the previous 50 years. So there's nothing new in this interim report about floods, droughts and hurricanes.

 

Quote

And there is absolutely no doubt the the ratio of high temperature records to low temperature records is unprecedented. Here's a link that will show you what the last 365 days have been like in this regard:

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

 

 

Here's a relevant comment from your NOAA link:

 

"This tool provides simplistic counts of records to provide insight into recent climate behavior, but is not a definitive way to identify trends in the number of records set over time. This is particularly true outside the United States, where the number of records may be strongly influenced by station density from country to country and from year to year." 

 

Quote

And as for your aspersion about scientists choosing a low point as a basis for the increase in flooding...I think the only low point here is the one you've descended to by indulging in the typical character assassination that we've come to expect from denialists.

 

Not at all. Do you deny that certainty on climate issues are exaggerated for political purposes? 

 

Do you really think that Prof. Stephen Schneider's comment, that each scientist in climatology has to decide to what degree he will be honest, and to what degree he will sacrifice honesty in an attempt to be effective in getting action on the environment, no longer applies because it was made a couple of decades ago?

 

 

[Krataiboy]

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. 

New data confirm increased frequency of extreme weather events

Globally, according to the new data, the number of floods and other hydrological events have quadrupled since 1980 and have doubled since 2004, highlighting the urgency of adaptation to climate change. Climatological events, such as extreme temperatures, droughts, and forest fires, have more than doubled since 1980. Meteorological events, such as storms, have doubled since 1980.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180321130859.htm

Lighten up. The good news is. . . 

 

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change’s (IPCC) newly-released climate report, once again, found little to no evidence global warming caused many types of extreme weather events to increase. - Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 18 October 2018.

 

Now you know why most of us aren't saving the planet by lying on the floor in Tesco!

 

 

[VincentRJ]

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But the scientists supporting the green house climate change theory are not relying on ‘media reports’.

True, but the general public does rely on media reports and it is obvious that the media tends to report bad news or alarming news rather than good news, like the Antarctic is sometimes increasing its amount of ice over a certain period, or certain glaciers in New Zealand or the Himalayas are increasing instead of receding.

 

This alarmism is also very apparent when scientists are interviewed by the media. I suspect the interviewer will encourage the scientist to refrain from expressing any doubts or any facts which might cause doubts in the listeners or viewers, if they were to begin thinking about the issue.

 

I'll always remember a pivotal moment when I began to change my mind about climate change and became a skeptic. Initially I just accepted the views of scientists who were interviewed on the radio or TV in Australia. James Lovelock was one of those who were interviewed and expressed alarm about rising CO2 levels. This was about 20 or more years ago. James Lovelock's views have changed significantly since then.

 

The interview that started my skepticism was about ocean acidification. The scientist went on and on about the dangers of increasing acidification as more CO2 dissolved in the sea water. At the end of the interview, I was scratching my head wondering if the natural state of the oceans was acidic, alkaline, or neutral.

 

After listening to this interview for about half an hour, I also didn't even know how much the pH of the oceans had changed during the current warming period. Is this what you would call 'education'? Is this what school kids are currently being taught in General Science?

 

I had to search the internet for answers. I eventually discovered that most research on the issue seemed to agree that the average pH of the 'ocean surfaces only' is estimated to have decreased from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 during the past 200 years. The oceans are clearly very alkaline. A pH of 7 is neutral. I then began to understand why the scientist had never even mentioned whether the oceans are alkaline or acidic, and by how much the alkalinity had reduced in recent centuries. It would have reduced the alarm.

 

There are many other examples I could mention, but don't wish to go on and on. ????

[TheHangingJudge]

Do these idiots not have jobs to hold down.

Of course not they are idiots. 

Silly me.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

Lighten up. The good news is. . . 

 

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change’s (IPCC) newly-released climate report, once again, found little to no evidence global warming caused many types of extreme weather events to increase. - Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 18 October 2018.

 

Now you know why most of us aren't saving the planet by lying on the floor in Tesco!

 

 

‘The Daily Caller’

 

Bless.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

True, but the general public does rely on media reports and it is obvious that the media tends to report bad news or alarming news rather than good news, like the Antarctic is sometimes increasing its amount of ice over a certain period, or certain glaciers in New Zealand or the Himalayas are increasing instead of receding.

 

This alarmism is also very apparent when scientists are interviewed by the media. I suspect the interviewer will encourage the scientist to refrain from expressing any doubts or any facts which might cause doubts in the listeners or viewers, if they were to begin thinking about the issue.

 

I'll always remember a pivotal moment when I began to change my mind about climate change and became a skeptic. Initially I just accepted the views of scientists who were interviewed on the radio or TV in Australia. James Lovelock was one of those who were interviewed and expressed alarm about rising CO2 levels. This was about 20 or more years ago. James Lovelock's views have changed significantly since then.

 

The interview that started my skepticism was about ocean acidification. The scientist went on and on about the dangers of increasing acidification as more CO2 dissolved in the sea water. At the end of the interview, I was scratching my head wondering if the natural state of the oceans was acidic, alkaline, or neutral.

 

After listening to this interview for about half an hour, I also didn't even know how much the pH of the oceans had changed during the current warming period. Is this what you would call 'education'? Is this what school kids are currently being taught in General Science?

 

I had to search the internet for answers. I eventually discovered that most research on the issue seemed to agree that the average pH of the 'ocean surfaces only' is estimated to have decreased from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 during the past 200 years. The oceans are clearly very alkaline. A pH of 7 is neutral. I then began to understand why the scientist had never even mentioned whether the oceans are alkaline or acidic, and by how much the alkalinity had reduced in recent centuries. It would have reduced the alarm.

 

There are many other examples I could mention, but don't wish to go on and on. ????

You should read that again in the context of your earlier claim ‘ I don't take the word of anyone as fact without supportive evidence’

 

You are claiming a conspiracy between media and scientist, that interviewers are somehow twisting the conversation into alarmism and you lace that with a few scientific measures stated completely out of context and with no reference to where on the international you are getting this stuff.

 

That’s putting aside that in a discussion on climate change you wander of into ocean acidification.

 

 

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are claiming a conspiracy between media and scientist,

I didn't read it that way.

 

The poster was making the obvious point that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly slanted to the "progressive" side, and this, along with a natural tendency to create juicy headlines, leads them to concentrate on the small possibilities of catastrophic climate outcomes rather than the substance of what the scientist has discovered. They tend to focus on the extremes because that's where the clickbait is.

 

Some scientists may not be unhappy to see their work simplified and sensationalized in this way; at least their work is getting publicity.

[vogie]

Eco warriors my giddy aunt, all they are are self indulgent time wasters who don't give a hoot about anybodies opinion but their own. Their motto is 'don't do as I do, do as I say.' And after every demonstration they leave mountains of plastic and paper for others to clean up, save the planet????????????.

[Baerboxer]

18 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. 

New data confirm increased frequency of extreme weather events

Globally, according to the new data, the number of floods and other hydrological events have quadrupled since 1980 and have doubled since 2004, highlighting the urgency of adaptation to climate change. Climatological events, such as extreme temperatures, droughts, and forest fires, have more than doubled since 1980. Meteorological events, such as storms, have doubled since 1980.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180321130859.htm

 

If you look the last 2-3 centuries, there have been significant scientific discoveries, many of which benefited mankind and many which didn't; some even harmful.

 

There are also many many theories, that at the time of theorizing, were considered brilliant that have been dispelled and disproved. Each age/generation believes it's thinking and theories to be the ultimate - until the next generation surpasses or disproves it.

 

Just saying..............

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I didn't read it that way.

 

The poster was making the obvious point that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly slanted to the "progressive" side, and this, along with a natural tendency to create juicy headlines, leads them to concentrate on the small possibilities of catastrophic climate outcomes rather than the substance of what the scientist has discovered. They tend to focus on the extremes because that's where the clickbait is.

 

Some scientists may not be unhappy to see their work simplified and sensationalized in this way; at least their work is getting publicity.

The mainstream media, measured by readership/viewership, is overwhelmingly right wing, not at all ‘progressive’.

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again ‘eco-terrorist’.

 

Hyperbole nonsense.

 

Perhaps you are confusing eco-activists with the French special forces who planted mines on and sank a Green Piece ship in NZ.

 

 

Anyone or any group who carry out anti social criminal activities in an attempt to terrorize society into accepting their views and opinions are terrorists.

[Baerboxer]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

The mainstream media, measured by readership/viewership, is overwhelmingly right wing, not at all ‘progressive’.

 

Could you show us the data you have that supports your statement please?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

If you look the last 2-3 centuries, there have been significant scientific discoveries, many of which benefited mankind and many which didn't; some even harmful.

 

There are also many many theories, that at the time of theorizing, were considered brilliant that have been dispelled and disproved. Each age/generation believes it's thinking and theories to be the ultimate - until the next generation surpasses or disproves it.

 

Just saying..............

That’s not entirely correct.

 

Most science is a progressive improvement on formerly held understanding, rarely does science completely overthrow former scientific understanding.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Anyone or any group who carry out anti social criminal activities in an attempt to terrorize society into accepting their views and opinions are terrorists.

And once again ‘terrorists’.

 

Hyperbole hogwash.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You should read that again in the context of your earlier claim ‘ I don't take the word of anyone as fact without supportive evidence’

 

You are claiming a conspiracy between media and scientist, that interviewers are somehow twisting the conversation into alarmism and you lace that with a few scientific measures stated completely out of context and with no reference to where on the international you are getting this stuff.

 

That’s putting aside that in a discussion on climate change you wander of into ocean acidification.

 

I don't see what I wrote as being inconsistent  with my requirement for reliable evidence. That the media tends to report biased news on climate matters is what I've observed and have confirmed through my own research into the scientific studies available on the internet. The media I'm referring to are large, widespread organizations such as the Australian ABC, including both its radio and TV programs, the British BBC, The Guardian Newspaper, and many other newspapers.

 

Ocean acidification is claimed to be caused by human emissions of CO2 just as the global rise in temperatures is. This entire issue is mainly about the harmful effects of human emissions of CO2 and the claim that we can reduce the number and intensity of extreme weather events, and save the Great Barrier Reef, if we reduce our emissions of CO2.

 

I didn't wander off into another topic. I simply mentioned the interview about ocean acidification as a pivotal point when I began to research for myself some of the effects of CO2 that weren't mentioned during media interviews, such as the undeniable fertilization effect of CO2. That's my own personal story about the moment I began to change from a believer in the harmful effects of human CO2 emissions, to being a skeptic.

 

The next interview as I recall, which enhanced my skepticism, was an interview of James Hansen by our great intellectual journalist, Phillip Adams, who hosts the program Late Night Live on ABC National Radio.

 

Phillip Adams is a very devout Climate Change alarmist. During the interview, James Hansen went into detail about the discovery of a high level of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus which made the planet uninhabitable, with temperatures of 462 degrees Centigrade in the lower atmosphere near the surface. Hansen claimed this was an example of the heat-trapping qualities of CO2.

 

Phillip Adams, interrupting, asked the question, "So, if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions, our planet could end up like Venus?" James Hansen didn't reply, but the interview continued.

 

After the interview, I scratched my head again. Why was there no mention, during  the interview, of the levels of CO2 on Venus? Again I had to find out on the internet. Crikey! The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is 96.5%, compared with 0.04% on planet Earth. What a ridiculous comparison! ????

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The mainstream media, measured by readership/viewership, is overwhelmingly right wing, not at all ‘progressive’.

The "progressive" mainstream media in the Anglosphere starts with all the big State-run and taxpayer funded TV and radio broadcasters - CBC, BBC, ABC (Australia), whose reach far outstrips any other media outlet. They are all "progressive" to a fault.

 

Things surrounding TV are more nuanced in the US, I suppose, but there is always the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post which are thoroughly "progressive". Let's not even mention the San Francisco Chronicle. Against that, what? Fox News? The Billings Gazette?

 

The Australian press is overwhelmingly "progressive", led by the Melbourne Age and the SMH. The UK press writes mostly rubbish, but The Telegraph is right of centre, while The Guardian and the Independent are fervent "progressives". Once again, the fact that their circulations are tanking is their own fault. People are sick of being hectored by activists masquerading as journalists.

 

The idea that the mainstream media is dominated by the right wing is just reflex reasoning by activists wanting to portray themselves as victims nobly battling against an evil power structure.

[Krataiboy]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘The Daily Caller’

 

Bless.

Sorry, by the time I got off the floor, Tesco's had sold out of Guardians.

[Darkside Gray]

Drag the boats away and destroy them then throw the lot of them in jail without trial for 6 months. an open field with barb wire fencing would do with attack dogs and guard towers with machine guns!

[Chomper Higgot]

42 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The "progressive" mainstream media in the Anglosphere starts with all the big State-run and taxpayer funded TV and radio broadcasters - CBC, BBC, ABC (Australia), whose reach far outstrips any other media outlet. They are all "progressive" to a fault.

 

Things surrounding TV are more nuanced in the US, I suppose, but there is always the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post which are thoroughly "progressive". Let's not even mention the San Francisco Chronicle. Against that, what? Fox News? The Billings Gazette?

 

The Australian press is overwhelmingly "progressive", led by the Melbourne Age and the SMH. The UK press writes mostly rubbish, but The Telegraph is right of centre, while The Guardian and the Independent are fervent "progressives". Once again, the fact that their circulations are tanking is their own fault. People are sick of being hectored by activists masquerading as journalists.

 

The idea that the mainstream media is dominated by the right wing is just reflex reasoning by activists wanting to portray themselves as victims nobly battling against an evil power structure.

Go find out where most people get their news, rather than presenting your assumptions as fact.

 

If only to live up to your ‘I don't take the word of anyone as fact without supportive evidence’.

[RickBradford]

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If only to live up to your ‘I don't take the word of anyone as fact without supportive evidence’.

I never said that, or anything like it. Stop making stuff up.

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I never said that, or anything like it. Stop making stuff up.

Please accept my apologies, I confused you with Vincent.

 

So no you did not say that.