Climate activists disrupt British cities with 'summer uprising'

[Rimmer]

An impolite baiting troll post leading to bickering has been removed also replies

[RickBradford]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Right. So anytime someone makes a claim about the contents of a book, it's up to the challenging party to read the book for themselves. But since you are quoting from the book can you PM me some more extensive quotes surrounding the snippets you have cited? Somehow, I expect you to refuse. Because it's unlikely you've read these books but rather are citing the usual nonsense from denialist websites.

Actually, Oreskes also made the call for RICO prosecutions in a debate in 2014, which was filmed and is available on YouTube. Here you go:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPMDPrGA9ZI

 

I doubt whether even your paranoid denial can get you past that one.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Actually, Oreskes also made the call for RICO prosecutions in a debate in 2014, which was filmed and is available on YouTube. Here you go:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPMDPrGA9ZI

 

I doubt whether even your paranoid denial can get you past that one.

So the whole of climate science is invalidated because you don't like the views of one single 'environmentalist'?

 

 

[Baerboxer]

On 7/16/2019 at 2:20 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s not entirely correct.

 

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

 

But it does - and "rarely" is a subjective word.

 

 

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So the whole of climate science is invalidated because you don't like the views of one single 'environmentalist'?

And then there was Barack Obama.

 

 

"Find the deniers near you - and call them out today" This accompanied a chart of 9 "deniers", designed to look like mugshots, of people who "along with their polluter allies, .. are blocking progress in the fight against climate change."

 

Pure feel-good political theatre, in my estimation, albeit rather crudely done.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmDeqrTemBg

 

Then he sinks back into the standard rhetoric: "“I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, etc etc ...."

 

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/20/obama-calls-climate-change-an-urgent-national-security-issue.html

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

And then there was Barack Obama.

 

 

"Find the deniers near you - and call them out today" This accompanied a chart of 9 "deniers", designed to look like mugshots, of people who "along with their polluter allies, .. are blocking progress in the fight against climate change."

 

Pure feel-good political theatre, in my estimation, albeit rather crudely done.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmDeqrTemBg

 

Then he sinks back into the standard rhetoric: "“I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, etc etc ...."

 

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/20/obama-calls-climate-change-an-urgent-national-security-issue.html

The response to global climate change, even if you can't agree on its causes, is by necessity one involving governments, politics and international cooperation. 

 

You seem to struggle with that. 

[bristolboy]

21 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Actually, Oreskes also made the call for RICO prosecutions in a debate in 2014, which was filmed and is available on YouTube. Here you go:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPMDPrGA9ZI

 

I doubt whether even your paranoid denial can get you past that one.

Where in that video. I don't have over an hour to spare. 

[RickBradford]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

The response to global climate change, even if you can't agree on its causes, is by necessity one involving governments, politics and international cooperation. 

 

You seem to struggle with that. 

After the complete failure of "governments, politics and international cooperation" to do anything significant regarding the climate over the past 30 years, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, I think I have a right to be skeptical.

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Where in that video. I don't have over an hour to spare. 

Now you want me to watch the video for you?

 

It seems to me, and most probably to others on this thread, that you are now simply engaging on frivolous delaying tactics because you don't like the content that is being presented to you.

 

Asking for links to back up assertions is one thing, but asking to be spoon-fed sections of someone's books, or video analysis because you refuse to believe what they said, is quite another.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

After the complete failure of "governments, politics and international cooperation" to do anything significant regarding the climate over the past 30 years, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, I think I have a right to be skeptical.

Says man ranting against anything and everything they do do. 

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

And then there was Barack Obama.

 

 

 

 

Pure feel-good political theatre, in my estimation, albeit rather crudely done.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmDeqrTemBg

 

 

Ted Cruz interviews a prominent ACC denialists Judith Curry and Mark Steyn. This is your idea of evidence? Laughable

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Ted Cruz interviews a prominent ACC denialists Judith Curry and Mark Steyn. This is your idea of evidence? Laughable

The evidence is clear, with or without Cruz and his video. Obama believed in a 97% consensus on dangerous climate change. He then went on to claim it was a "threat to global security."

 

Earlier, you were skeptical that many activists took those positions, and asked for proof. If you don't like that proof when it's presented to you, that's too bad.

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

After the complete failure of "governments, politics and international cooperation" to do anything significant regarding the climate over the past 30 years, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, I think I have a right to be skeptical.

Right. It's funny. Back when denialists were claiming that governments were wasting money supporting renewables with research and subsidies. Now renewables are cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas in peaker plants, and becoming competitive with gas elsewhere. And renewables are soon to be cheaper than gas everywhere. That's a lot of CO2 averted and even more to come.

And where to you get that ridiculous figure of hundreds of billions? You have a source for that?

[RickBradford]

^^^

The evil deniers at the US Government Accountability Office.

 

https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

 

And that's only the US, and federal only. The EU has  boasted of spending 40% its annual budget on climate activities, so there's hundreds of billions more.

 

Let's call it trillions, to be on the safe side.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

44 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Now you want me to watch the video for you?

 

It seems to me, and most probably to others on this thread, that you are now simply engaging on frivolous delaying tactics because you don't like the content that is being presented to you.

 

Asking for links to back up assertions is one thing, but asking to be spoon-fed sections of someone's books, or video analysis because you refuse to believe what they said, is quite another.

You post a video and then object to someone asking you the reasonable question ‘where in that video?’.

 

Perhaps you should stick to discussion rather than posting hour+ long videos.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

 

No, I don't. The link is there.

One link, added after your post was quoted, relating to one of your many claims.

All other claims unsubstantiated.

[bristolboy]

49 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

^^^

The evil deniers at the US Government Accountability Office.

 

https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

 

And that's only the US, and federal only. The EU has  boasted of spending 40% its annual budget on climate activities, so there's hundreds of billions more.

 

Let's call it trillions, to be on the safe side.

 

 

If you include the Europeans yes. The US by itself no.

Where did you come up with that figure of 40 percent for the EU? Seems unlikely given this 

Proposal to spend 25% of EU budget on climate change

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48198646

 

As far as renewables go, you think because you stated the truth for once, you get to quadruple triple down on it and it will still be true. How about a link for that?

 

On the other hand, what if there was an industry receiving trillions in subsidiess not over a space of many years but every year?

What if there were an sector of the world economy that received 4.7 trillion dollars in subsidies in 2017? That's 6% of global GDP.

What if 649 billion of those subsides came from the United States? (To judge from that GAO graph that would be at least 4 times as much as the US has subsidized renewables since 1993)

 

What if it it's the same poor little sector that gets pushed around by BIG GREEN?

What if it was the fossil fuel industries?

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

 

ANd you never answered about your false claim that the money spent has accomplished nothing. 

 

 

[bristolboy]

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You post a video and then object to someone asking you the reasonable question ‘where in that video?’.

 

Perhaps you should stick to discussion rather than posting hour+ long videos.

The thing is he's asking you to devote 20 something minutes of your time. When someone cites something in a book as evidence, they're expected to give you the page number. Not just the book. For obvious reasons. The same goes for lengthy videos. For obvious reasons.

[Sujo]

There is a certain poster in this thread that only posts on climate issues. You wont see him post on any other threads. Make of that what u will.

 

No shock he is a denier.

 

Its a shame the deniers never put their arguments to the UN when they had all the best scientists produce their report.

 

Or could it be that the deniers did provide their arguments and were found wanting.

 

The science is settled.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

^^^

The evil deniers at the US Government Accountability Office.

 

https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

 

And that's only the US, and federal only. The EU has  boasted of spending 40% its annual budget on climate activities, so there's hundreds of billions more.

 

Let's call it trillions, to be on the safe side.

 

 

And even if CO2 was not responsible for global warning, what about the issue of air pollution. You know what that costs yearly. (And this report doesn't evenc cover every country.)

The Rising Cost of Ambient Air Pollution thus far in the 21st Century: Results from the BRIICS and the OECD Countries

"The burden of ambient air pollution in the 41 countries under study stood at a toll of around 3.2 million deaths and at a cost of around USD 5.1 trillion in 2015."

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/d1b2b844-en.pdf?expires=1563953994&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=3CDA5C8194BDD4C7C0FED24C68ED27FF

 

So between subsidies and health damage it look like somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 trillion. Probably a little less since not all - just most - of air pollution comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

And you're whining about a measly 300 billion over the space of 16 years? Get a grip!

[RickBradford]

^^^

If you want to talk about air pollution, I'm sure there's a thread for that somewhere. 

 

You asked me where I got what you described as "a ridiculous figure of hundreds of billions," and I showed you. 

 

I'm glad to see that you now accept the fact that the true figure is into the trillions.  That didn't take long, did it?

 

 

[RickBradford]

The new leader of the global climate movement, Greta Thunberg, is too young to even have heard of a consensus. She appears to regard that as being settled since 1989, since when politicians have "wasted decades through denial and inaction."

 

What does she think about the situation? "This is the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced.  Everything needs to change - and it has to start today."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwptXauY2is

 

Thanks for making us better people, Greta.

 

 

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

 

I'm glad to see that you now accept the fact that the true figure is into the trillions.  That didn't take long, did it?

 

 

If not commenting to something means acceptance, then you have accepted that the fossil fuel industry is subsidized to the tune of trillions every year.

You also accept the fact that the money spent by governments on renewables hasn't gone to waste.

 

Since it was you brought up the issue of the money being wasted, I just pointed out that even without the global warming factor, that money wasn't wasted. Don't complain if your objections come back to bite you.

 

If you like, I can make a long list of the things I have said that you haven't replied to. Since it is your invariable practice when you get caught out in a falsehood simply to pretend it never happened or to engage in self-contradiction

 

Should I start making a list?

 

You see, unlike you, when someone corrects me I acknowledge it. That's what reasonably honorable people do. You have accumulated a long long list of not acknowledging when you're corrected. temperature.global much?

 

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The new leader of the global climate movement, Greta Thunberg, is too young to even have heard of a consensus. She appears to regard that as being settled since 1989, since when politicians have "wasted decades through denial and inaction."

 

What does she think about the situation? "This is the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced.  Everything needs to change - and it has to start today."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwptXauY2is

 

Thanks for making us better people, Greta.

 

 

Since the science is overwhelmingly against you, you attack random "activists" instead. And I didn't know that Greta Thunberg is now the new leader. Was she elected or was it a coup?

Do you ever stop throwing out (up?) nonsense?

[RickBradford]

Quote

If not commenting to something means acceptance.

 

It doesn't.

 

Among a whole host of reasons, it may reflect that while some people can spend all day sitting around playing Social Justice Warrior online, I have more important things to attend to.

[bristolboy]

24 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

It doesn't.

 

Among a whole host of reasons, it may reflect that while some people can spend all day sitting around playing Social Justice Warrior online, I have more important things to attend to.

And what comments of mine have related to social justice issues? I noticed that when someone in this thread caught you out in a piece of faulty logic, you responded by calling him a social justice warrior. So if by that term you mean people who use reason and fact, and acknowledge their errors when called out on them, I plead guilty to being a social justice warrior.

Otherwise it's just more of the name-calling you resort to when you've got nothing in the way of reason or evidence to back you up.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

It doesn't.

 

Among a whole host of reasons, it may reflect that while some people can spend all day sitting around playing Social Justice Warrior online, I have more important things to attend to.

I’m not sure on what basis you conflate environmental activism in the face of climate change with ‘Social Justice’ and or your ‘Social Justice Warriors’.

 

It’s an odd fixation of yours that deserves explanation.

[bristolboy]

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure on what basis you conflate environmental activism in the face of climate change with ‘Social Justice’ and or your ‘Social Justice Warriors’.

 

It’s an odd fixation of yours that deserves explanation.

Well, that's really not the issue. The issue is he called me, and I believe you, a SJW on the basis of disagreement that do not reference social justice issues but, rather, the science.

[RickBradford]

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure on what basis you conflate environmental activism in the face of climate change with ‘Social Justice’ and or your ‘Social Justice Warriors’.

 

It’s an odd fixation of yours that deserves explanation.

I wouldn't say it is a fixation of mine. But it does seem increasingly that environmental matters are rarely discussed without reference to standard SJW terms such as diversity, inclusion, and equity.

 

A writer in the Wall Street Journal, penned a piece last year called: 

 

Climate Change Has Run Its Course.

 

Its descent into social-justice identity politics is the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-has-run-its-course-1528152876

 

It argues that the "historic" Paris Agreement was partly scuppered by the inclusion of standard SJW terms such as "climate justice", "gender equality" and "intergenerational equity".

 

Certainly, if you look at the websites of Big Green, you will find these terms peppered around. Equally, the motley mobs at climate protests wave banners in the same vein.

 

And Extinction Rebellion proudly announces on its website that 8 of its members have been arrested during protests  where they were "demanding the Government act now for climate and ecological justice."

 

And then, of course, there is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who in the space of a few paragraphs makes the link explicit.

 

On the Green New Deal: 
"Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us to our country, to the world.

 

..

 

This is really about providing justice for communities and just transitions for communities. So really the heart of the Green New Deal is about social justice .. "

 

https://www.npr.org/about-npr/692067268/npr-news-exclusive-with-rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-on-her-green-new-deal

 

 

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I wouldn't say it is a fixation of mine. But it does seem increasingly that environmental matters are rarely discussed without reference to standard SJW terms such as diversity, inclusion, and equity.

 

A writer in the Wall Street Journal, penned a piece last year called: 

 

Climate Change Has Run Its Course.

 

Its descent into social-justice identity politics is the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-has-run-its-course-1528152876

 

It argues that the "historic" Paris Agreement was partly scuppered by the inclusion of standard SJW terms such as "climate justice", "gender equality" and "intergenerational equity".

 

Certainly, if you look at the websites of Big Green, you will find these terms peppered around. Equally, the motley mobs at climate protests wave banners in the same vein.

 

And Extinction Rebellion proudly announces on its website that 8 of its members have been arrested during protests  where they were "demanding the Government act now for climate and ecological justice."

 

And then, of course, there is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who in the space of a few paragraphs makes the link explicit.

 

On the Green New Deal: 
"Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us to our country, to the world.

 

This is really about providing justice for communities and just transitions for communities. So really the heart of the Green New Deal is about social justice .. "

 

https://www.npr.org/about-npr/692067268/npr-news-exclusive-with-rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-on-her-green-new-deal

 

 

But how does that relate to your calling me a social justice warrior? It's just your Pavlovian response when there's no other way out for you.

 

And I looked at that piece from the Wall Street Journal. The climate change movement has lost it's vitality?

 

Majority of Americans Want Cleaner Energy From Renewable Sources

 

• Seventy-six percent agree that increasing renewable energy is a worthwhile goal.
• Seventy percent agree that they expect electricity to become cleaner over time.

In fact, 8 percent or less disagree with any of these statements, the rest of the respondents are unsure. 

https://www.consumerreports.org/alternative-energy/majority-of-americans-want-cleaner-energy-from-renewable-sources/