Current Affairs Climate Change Demonstrations.....

[bol-uk]

Posting the above to provide some balance.

The XR representative sent to speak to Andrew Neil doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all. Lacking in credibility.

So he is siting evidence from scientists to say she is wrong but you all totally ignore scientific evidence when it states that there is a big problem ahead.

Basically, he is doing the same as all other old men, ignoring the problem to pick holes in what they are doing. He is using one piece of "evidence" to ridicule the whole movement. She even said that it was far fetched. Every time this happens a load of deniers use it pretend the whole thing is not real.


TOTAL FAKE NEWS

 

[bol-uk]

No, my logic is that we should do something to combat the effects of climate change instead of pretending we can stop it in the first instance. We can't.

We don't combat old age by trying to invent immortality, do we? No, we put systems and measures in place to accommodate an ageing population, because ageing is inevitable.

As for other countries will follow? Why? We had our industrial revolution - what right do we have to say other sovereign states can't have theres? It's not like stopping nuclear proliferation - we can't argue against Iran having coal power plants like we can a nuclear weapon.

That's the geopolitical reality of climate change - it's happening, we can't stop it, the best we can do is somewhat moderate it and prepare for the median scenario, but that's not enough for these protesters, because they see the world in black and white - they want it irrationally stopped.

I do not even know where to begin with that, it is literally YOUR (no one else) mad thinking.

 

[peteblue]

I do not even know where to begin with that, it is literally YOUR (no one else) mad thinking.

I think you will find I have also said something very similar.....maybe it’s only you !!!!!!

 

[Tubey]

I do not even know where to begin with that, it is literally YOUR (no one else) mad thinking.

What part is mad mate? Are you actually reading what I'm saying?

Even the Paris agreement accepts that global warming will occur by 1.5 to 2 degrees regardless of what we do - that's pretty much the scientific concensus. We have to put in measures to deal with that change over the next century regardless - again, that's the concensus.

Nobody serious is claiming climate change can be stopped, just as nobody serious is saying climate change will kill us in 50 years. It's only misinformed lunatics who think it can be.

 

[bol-uk]

What part is mad mate? Are you actually reading what I'm saying?

Even the Paris agreement accepts that global warming will occur by 1.5 to 2 degrees regardless of what we do - that's pretty much the scientific concensus. We have to put in measures to deal with that change over the next century regardless - again, that's the concensus.

Nobody serious is claiming climate change can be stopped, just as nobody serious is saying climate change will kill us in 50 years. It's only misinformed lunatics who think it can be.

It cannot be stopped, it can be slowed , massively. And on our human scale, that is the best we can do. Your stupid "pile on with co2 emissions and see what we can do to temper the effects" is total madness. We need to stop what we are doing as soon as we can and lessen the obvious situation.

If your house is flooding, you don't leave the taps on but by a mop.

From NASA: the solution will require both a globally-coordinated response (such as international policies and agreements between countries, a push to cleaner forms of energy) and local efforts on the city- and regional-level (for example, public transport upgrades, energy efficiency improvements, sustainable city planning, etc.). It’s up to us what happens next.

 

[Tubey]

It cannot be stopped, it can be slowed , massively. And on our human scale, that is the best we can do. Your stupid "pile on with co2 emissions and see what we can do to temper the effects" is total madness. We need to stop what we are doing as soon as we can and lessen the obvious situation.

If your house is flooding, you don't leave the taps on but by a mop.

From NASA: the solution will require both a globally-coordinated response (such as international policies and agreements between countries, a push to cleaner forms of energy) and local efforts on the city- and regional-level (for example, public transport upgrades, energy efficiency improvements, sustainable city planning, etc.). It’s up to us what happens next.

I quite literally didn't say that, which confirms you aren't reading what I said.

I said this:

Climate change will happen regardless. The worst case is it's around 5 degrees higher at the end of this century - realistically, it'll be no more than 3. If we did absolutely everything in our power, and assuming climate science is correct in the first place, it'd still increase by around 2 degrees.

 

[bol-uk]

I quite literally didn't say that, which confirms you aren't reading what I said.

I said this:

You also said:

my logic is that we should do something to combat the effects of climate change instead of pretending we can stop it in the first instance. We can't.

And

The better bet would be to focus on solutions to the problems climate change will cause, rather than focussing on "stopping it", which is impossible.

Basically, we can't stop it so carry on and deal with. At no point have you said let's stop what we are doing.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Posting the above to provide some balance.

The XR representative sent to speak to Andrew Neil doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all. Lacking in credibility.

It's frustrating really, as you so often get people who are a bit bonkers put in front of the media, and they're made to sound bonkers and naive and all of those things, because they pretty much are. Neill talks about the IPCC models and the scientific community, but it would be a great start if America hadn't withdrawn from the Paris accord, and there was more teeth given to it to police it so that Brazil (as an example) weren't burning the Amazon with abandon. The danger is that because these people are so far out, we use that as a reason not to do anything at all.

 

[bol-uk]

It's frustrating really, as you so often get people who are a bit bonkers put in front of the media, and they're made to sound bonkers and naive and all of those things, because they pretty much are. Neill talks about the IPCC models and the scientific community, but it would be a great start if America hadn't withdrawn from the Paris accord, and there was more teeth given to it to police it so that Brazil (as an example) weren't burning the Amazon with abandon. The danger is that because these people are so far out, we use that as a reason not to do anything at all.

As is painfully in evidence in here.

 

[Tubey]

You also said:

my logic is that we should do something to combat the effects of climate change instead of pretending we can stop it in the first instance. We can't.

And

The better bet would be to focus on solutions to the problems climate change will cause, rather than focussing on "stopping it", which is impossible.

Basically, we can't stop it so carry on and deal with. At no point have you said let's stop what we are doing.

Again, I didn't say this. You are reading something completely different to what I'm saying.

I have said repeatedly:

Our government is already ahead of the curve in terms of measures to reduce carbon.

If we did absolutely everything in our power, and assuming climate science is correct in the first place, it'd still increase by around 2 degrees.

I'm not saying don't stop carbon emissions; I'm saying it shouldn't be the primary focus, because climate change is happening regardless.

To take the old age analogy again, yes, ageing is inevitable, but we still eat healthily/keep in shape etc. to lessen the impact of age, but ultimately getting old will happen and the effects of old age will occur. So you have to put measures in place to accommodate for what that means.

It's the same thing with climate change. Whether it happens a bit or a lot, the solutions will by and large require the same thing - that's the most important thing to focus on as it's inevitable it will be needed. Whether the earth warms 2 or 4 degrees by the end of the century, whether the sea rise is half a metre or one metre, the solutions required will be the same. It's simply the scope of them that will change.

What these protests and alarmists are doing instead is saying the end of the world is nigh and we need to stop driving cars immediately to stop the world ending. That is simply not true; it's actually completely and knowingly false. There's no middle ground, no inbetween - we're either about to die or the planet will be saved, that's it.

 

[dandydan]

Lol you utter gobshite

Pipe down commie.

 

[Del-boy]

So Michael Jackson was right with his Earth Song then?

 

[Prevenger17]

Pipe down commie.

Top banta m8
you heaving bellend

 

[longers]

Just at Trafalgar Square now, loads of crusties with tents camped out blaring 90s jungle from a soundsystem. Quite a good laugh tbh



Loads of surprisingly fit eco chicks about as well

 

[bol-uk]

Just at Trafalgar Square now, loads of crusties with tents camped out blaring 90s jungle from a soundsystem. Quite a good laugh tbh

View attachment 68539

Loads of surprisingly fit eco chicks about as well

Bottom right?