'Extinction Rebellion' - Day 3 Bristol (Pic Heavy)

DK602 said:
It makes a lot of sense!
Click to expand...
It's like saying - 'Well, forests have been burning down after lightning strikes and then growing back for millions of years. So the disappearance of the forest that used to be over there - yes, where all those bulldozers, chainsaws and flamethrowers are lying around - that can't possibly have anything to do with us!'
 
Retune said:
It's like saying - 'Well, forests have been burning down after lightning strikes and then growing back for millions of years. So the disappearance of the forest that used to be over there - yes, where all those bulldozers, chainsaws and flamethrowers are lying around - that can't possibly have anything to do with us!'
Click to expand...

C'mon - stop being silly!

It is an easy question - what caused climate change before humans were burning fossil fuels?
 
Pound Coin said:
Ah, whatsupwiththat, run by this ‘expert’.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
Click to expand...
Not really relevant is it, the article exposing the constant exaggeration and misinformation is clear enough.
Somehow the green death cult has taken over mainstream media at present, the BBC cant go a day without two stories hyping up imaginary climate armageddon, and another about how wonderful being a vegan is.
 
Pound Coin said:
Ah, whatsupwiththat, run by this ‘expert’.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
Click to expand...

The link provided has very little input from the person you are trying to discredit but has plenty from Al Gore - who, like you made outlandish predictions about the future climate that hasn't come true.

Can you answer what caused the planet's climate to change before we burn't fossil fuels?
 
This is a thread about photos.
 
In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.
Click to expand...
(NASA - Global Climate Change).

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf
 
DK602 said:
Tell me, what has caused the climate change in the past then?
Click to expand...
It's likely we'll never know for sure because the evidence has decayed beyond retrieval. What I find worrying is the anger displayed by some people when the theory of anthropogenic climate change is challenged. If the science is strong there's no need to get agressive with those who are skeptical of it. Indeed, science relies entirely on people challenging a theory in order to break it and no theory is ever proved - it's simply not been broken.

As for the demand for photos, here's a picture with a relevant point: in 1956 the first Clean Air Act was passed with successive iterations in 1968 and 1993. At one time these chimneys would have been belching thick smoke into the air: pollution multiplied by millions of homes and businesses. Now they're unused or ventilate much cleaner gas boiler systems. We do progress but we have to do it by concensus and not by aggression...

Sony A65 8GB UnNumbered DSC00790.JPG
 
DK602 said:
C'mon - stop being silly!

It is an easy question - what caused climate change before humans were burning fossil fuels?
Click to expand...
It's not an easy question, but a very complicated one. One factor is the amount of solar enery that reaches the earth. But this doesn't explain the recent rise in temperature:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

Instead, the unprecedented rise in CO2 due to human activity, to a level that hasn't been seen in hundreds of thousands of years, is the smoking gun:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

I'm sure you can find a YT video or distorted version of the data on a denier blog that claims the opposite, of course, but why would you trust it?

4wd said:
Not really relevant is it, the article exposing the constant exaggeration and misinformation is clear enough.
Somehow the green death cult has taken over mainstream media at present, the BBC cant go a day without two stories hyping up imaginary climate armageddon, and another about how wonderful being a vegan is.
Click to expand...

All the 'cult' behaviour I see is coming from the deniers, who reject the scientific evidence in favour of politically driven wishful thinking, conspiracy theories, industry-funded disinformation campaigns, and internet productions from unqualified 'influencers' who misunderstand or deliberately distort the data.

AndrewFlannigan said:
It's likely we'll never know for sure because the evidence has decayed beyond retrieval. What I find worrying is the anger displayed by some people when the theory of anthropogenic climate change is challenged. If the science is strong there's no need to get agressive with those who are skeptical of it. Indeed, science relies entirely on people challenging a theory in order to break it and no theory is ever proved - it's simply not been broken.
Click to expand...

Science, as always, is judged by prediction. As greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, we expect further global heating. If conflicting evidence comes to light then theories can and should be revised. But right now, the overwhelming weight of evidence is for anthropogenic climate change. Not all opinions about the natural world are equally valid, because Nature can't be fooled. Skepticism that is not based on an honest analysis of the data should be rejected. Climate change deniers want us to imagine there is a scientific debate where there is no real disagreement in the climate science community. It's a bit like the 'young earth creationists' who want schools to 'teach the debate' about evolution, when there is no debate. But the real problem is that 'fake skepticism' on matters of life and death can be extremely dangerous. A few years ago, there was an 'AIDS denialist' movement, which held that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. It went against the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, but was actively promoted even by some segments of the mainstream media (climate change denier Andrew Neil helped spread disinformation about HIV as editor of the Sunday Times). Tragically, policy makers in South Africa became influenced by these ideas, leading to hundreds of thousands of avoidable AIDS fatalities. Today, we have the 'antivax' movement, which is endangering lives worldwide. And now, when the scientists tell us we have a small window to avoid the catastrophic effects of global heating, policies are being made by people like Donald Trump who are skeptical about climate change for all the wrong reasons. To them, it doesn't matter how strong the science is - they can cherry pick a different opinion (no matter how dubious the source) more in line with their prejudices.
 
Retune said:
It's not an easy question, but a very complicated one. One factor is the amount of solar enery that reaches the earth. But this doesn't explain the recent rise in temperature:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

Instead, the unprecedented rise in CO2 due to human activity, to a level that hasn't been seen in hundreds of thousands of years, is the smoking gun:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

I'm sure you can find a YT video or distorted version of the data on a denier blog that claims the opposite, of course, but why would you trust it?



All the 'cult' behaviour I see is coming from the deniers, who reject the scientific evidence in favour of politically driven wishful thinking, conspiracy theories, industry-funded disinformation campaigns, and internet productions from unqualified 'influencers' who misunderstand or deliberately distort the data.



Science, as always, is judged by prediction. As greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, we expect further global heating. If conflicting evidence comes to light then theories can and should be revised. But right now, the overwhelming weight of evidence is for anthropogenic climate change. Not all opinions about the natural world are equally valid, because Nature can't be fooled. Skepticism that is not based on an honest analysis of the data should be rejected. Climate change deniers want us to imagine there is a scientific debate where there is no real disagreement in the climate science community. It's a bit like the 'young earth creationists' who want schools to 'teach the debate' about evolution, when there is no debate. But the real problem is that 'fake skepticism' on matters of life and death can be extremely dangerous. A few years ago, there was an 'AIDS denialist' movement, which held that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. It went against the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, but was actively promoted even by some segments of the mainstream media (climate change denier Andrew Neil helped spread disinformation about HIV as editor of the Sunday Times). Tragically, policy makers in South Africa became influenced by these ideas, leading to hundreds of thousands of avoidable AIDS fatalities. Today, we have the 'antivax' movement, which is endangering lives worldwide. And now, when the scientists tell us we have a small window to avoid the catastrophic effects of global heating, policies are being made by people like Donald Trump who are skeptical about climate change for all the wrong reasons. To them, it doesn't matter how strong the science is - they can cherry pick a different opinion (no matter how dubious the source) more in line with their prejudices.
Click to expand...

XKCD's diagram highlights the historic climate change vs recent years very well

https://xkcd.com/1732/
 
Trouble is NASA are the most guilty of fudging all the figures:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ea...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

I am not going to change your mind so not much point going on about it - it's the biggest hoax in recent human history IMO.

i'll just leave this here to show it is all about money:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading

Biggest spanner in the works for the warming alarmists is that ice core samples show the rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature, not vice versa as Al Gore again lied about!
 
Last edited:
DK602 said:
Trouble is NASA are the most guilty of fudging all the figures:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ea...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

I am not going to change your mind so not much point going on about it - it's the biggest hoax in recent human history IMO.

i'll just leave this here to show it is all about money:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading

Biggest spanner in the works for the warming alarmists is that ice core samples show the rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature, not vice versa as Al Gore again lied about!
Click to expand...

If you take a tiny little snippet of information and ignore the rest. It's a positive feedback loop. One thing causes a temperature rise, the oceans warm, they release more Co2 into the atmosphere which amplifies the warming that's already happening, the oceans warm etc etc

It's explained quite clearly here: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
 
Retune said:
Science, as always, is judged by prediction.
Click to expand...
This is true but the problem comes when the science isn't rigorous enough to ensure that a successful prediction isn't a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. In my own case I am simply skeptical that the predictions have succeeded in illustrating the link between the claimed cause and the observed effect.

The various examples you've given are quite different to this. In each of those cases the science is well established and the engineering is proven. The quackery is therefor clear and the predictions of established practioners have been proven by the disasters that have followed.
 
Whatever causes global warming it is stupid to deny that humankind is adding to it.
Refusing to take action to limit/remove what we are adding is like setting sail in a boat that was manufactured with a defect which lets in water and refusing to bale the water out because we didn't cause the leak.
 
gramps said:
Refusing to take action to limit/remove what we are adding is like setting sail in a boat that was manufactured with a defect which lets in water and refusing to bale the water out because we didn't cause the leak.
Click to expand...
I said before that I agree climate change is happening. Instead of thinking about causes when we clearly don't understand the mechanism, we should be thinking: what do we do?

We need to identify what populations are at risk and work out what solutions apply to which cases. Some populations will simply need to be moved and we should be planning that now. Others can be protected but again this is a huge undertaking and needs to be done immediately.

In neither of these cases are ER going to be helpful in my opinion.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I said before that I agree climate change is happening. Instead of thinking about causes when we clearly don't understand the mechanism, we should be thinking: what do we do?

We need to identify what populations are at risk and work out what solutions apply to which cases. Some populations will simply need to be moved and we should be planning that now. Others can be protected but again this is a huge undertaking and needs to be done immediately.

In neither of these cases are ER going to be helpful in my opinion.
Click to expand...
What we should is take steps to reduce it. It is abundantly clears what a major cause of climate change is. ER are getting the debate out into the streets. A selfish indignation because a journey is a bit longer that it might have been is no argument against ER.
 
Pound Coin said:
What we should is take steps to reduce it. It is abundantly clears what a major cause of climate change is. ER are getting the debate out into the streets. A selfish indignation because a journey is a bit longer that it might have been is no argument against ER.
Click to expand...


So you support people breaking the law?
 
You mean like the Suffragettes?
 
Pound Coin said:
What we should is take steps to reduce it. It is abundantly clears what a major cause of climate change is. ER are getting the debate out into the streets. A selfish indignation because a journey is a bit longer that it might have been is no argument against ER.
Click to expand...
You have your opinion. I will only say that I hope other views will prevail.
 
DK602 said:
It's a real shame you feel the law is optional! I guess it's pointless debating with such a selfish opinion.
Click to expand...
The selfishness that is displayed with the anthropomorphic climate change deniers is, indeed, a blocker on debate.

This thread is about photos.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
This is true but the problem comes when the science isn't rigorous enough to ensure that a successful prediction isn't a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. In my own case I am simply skeptical that the predictions have succeeded in illustrating the link between the claimed cause and the observed effect..
Click to expand...

The scientific consensus, which surely you'd have to admit is better informed than your opinion or mine, disagrees.

AndrewFlannigan said:
The various examples you've given are quite different to this. In each of those cases the science is well established and the engineering is proven. The quackery is therefor clear and the predictions of established practioners have been proven by the disasters that have followed.
Click to expand...
The people pushing these ideas were just as certain they were right as the climate change deniers are today. AIDS denialism was at its height in the early 90s, when we knew less about HIV than we do now, but still more than enough to prove it was the cause of AIDS beyond any reasonable doubt. But the denialists had a Novel laureate, Kary Mullis, on their side (though the least said about his peculiar claim of encountering an extraterrestrial talking racoon, the better) and a once eminent molecular biology professor from UC Berkeley, Peter Duesberg, who still (absurdly) maintains he is correct today. Some journalists were suckers for this sort of fake 'scientific controversy', especially when it chimed with their own prejudices. We see a similar pattern with climate change today, as in the Telegraph article posted above.
 
Pound Coin said:
The selfishness that is displayed with the anthropomorphic climate change deniers is, indeed, a blocker on debate.

This thread is about photos.
Click to expand...

At what point is breaking the law ok in your view?

The photos are of people breaking the law BTW
 
Retune said:
as the climate change deniers are today.
Click to expand...
That phrase sums up for me why people like yourself are harming the cause you espouse. Many people accept that the climate is changing (as it always has) but don't follow the alleged connection to human actions. Surely it is better to get on with preparing for the adverse effects of the observed change than to pursue this rather pointless crusade which might be perceived as crude religious obsession?
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
That phrase sums up for me why people like yourself are harming the cause you espouse. Many people accept that the climate is changing (as it always has) but don't follow the alleged connection to human actions. Surely it is better to get on with preparing for the adverse effects of the observed change than to pursue this rather pointless crusade which might be perceived as crude religious obsession?
Click to expand...

Exactly this!

Climate has changed before man existed - we have been much warmer with far higher levels of CO2 and life still went on. Suppose what you are saying is correct and we get to zero carbon emissions; how do we stop the natural climate change that will still go on until planet earth no longer exists?

Do you honestly think that if humans stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere the status quo will last forever?
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
That phrase sums up for me why people like yourself are harming the cause you espouse. Many people accept that the climate is changing (as it always has) but don't follow the alleged connection to human actions. Surely it is better to get on with preparing for the adverse effects of the observed change than to pursue this rather pointless crusade which might be perceived as crude religious obsession?
Click to expand...
Sticking with the AIDS comparison, that's a bit like saying we should have focused on treating the patients and not sought to prevent new infections, because some people who ignored the evidence didn't believe HIV was responsible for the syndrome.
 
Retune said:
Sticking with the AIDS comparison, that's a bit like saying we should have focused on treating the patients and not sought to prevent new infections, because some people who ignored the evidence didn't believe HIV was responsible for the syndrome.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it's absolutely nothing whatsoever like your comparison!
 
DK602 said:
Exactly this!

Climate has changed before man existed - we have been much warmer with far higher levels of CO2 and life still went on. Suppose what you are saying is correct and we get to zero carbon emissions; how do we stop the natural climate change that will still go on until planet earth no longer exists?

Do you honestly think that if humans stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere the status quo will last forever?
Click to expand...

You argument seems circular. You assume that we can't be causing global heating, and therefore that it will continue whatever we do. Of course other changes may happen in the future for different reasons, and assuming we are still here we will have to deal with the consequences at the time. But right now a specific man-made problem has been identified which, if it is allowed to continue, is predicted to make the planet much more hostile towards human life in a relatively short time. The last time CO2 was this high, humans did not exist, so we've never dealt with it before. Life may continue, but not necessarily ours. Nothing lasts forever - the sun is scheduled to consume the earth in a few billion years, so there's that.
 
DK602 said:
Sorry, but it's absolutely nothing whatsoever like your comparison!
Click to expand...
Andrew is suggesting we deal with the effects of global heating, but ignore what the scientific consensus tells us is the cause, because he doesn't accept it. You really don't see the analogy with treating the symptoms of a disease but ignoring the scientific consensus about the cause?
 
Retune said:
Andrew is suggesting we deal with the effects of global heating, but ignore what the scientific consensus tells us is the cause, because he doesn't accept it. You really don't see the analogy with treating the symptoms of a disease but ignoring the scientific consensus about the cause?
Click to expand...


Your comparison is like denying climate change didn't exist until humans started burning fossil fuels!

It quite clearly did exist and on a massive scale - we have had numerous glacial periods and inter glacial periods - what caused these then?

My whole problem with your theories is ever since I have been young there have been numerous 'scare stories' - absolutely none of which have turned into reality and I live by the coast!

If you were a gambling man you would pick a theory that you knew was going to happen naturally (climate change) then find a tenuous link to human activity - trouble is they initially called it global warming then when they found this was also false they changed it to climate change.

We can not stop what happens naturally.

Your analogy is like pretending you have found a cure when you haven't.
 
Last edited:
DK602 said:
Your comparison is like denying climate change didn't exist until humans started burning fossil fuels!

It quite clearly did exist and on a massive scale - we have had numerous glacial periods and inter glacial periods - what caused these then?

My whole problem with your theories is ever since I have been young there have been numerous 'scare stories' - absolutely none of which have turned into reality and I live by the coast!

If you were a gambling man you would pick a theory that you knew was going to happen naturally (climate change) then find a tenuous link to human activity - trouble is they initially called it global warming then when they found this was also false they changed it to climate change.

We can not stop what happens naturally.

Your analogy is like pretending you have found a cure when you haven't.
Click to expand...

You argument seems to be - since the climate has changed at various times in the past without our intervention, then it's impossible that anything we do could change the climate. But the one does not follow from the other. Doesn't it strike you that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere than there has been at any time in the history of our species might just have an impact on the planet? And when the scientific consensus tells us that it is not only possible, but extremely likely, that this will cause a very significant rise in temperature, do you think it's wise just to dismiss this as part of some sort of elaborate hoax? You're sceptical about 'scare stories', yet predictions made in the 70s about how the temperature would respond to increasing levels of CO2 have now been vindicated (see links above). Nobody 'knew this was going to happen naturally' - they predicted that CO2 levels would go up as we burned more stuff, and that the temperature would go up with it, which is what has happened in the last half century. There was no no other reason to believe that temperatures were going to rise in this period. Now there are plenty of reasons to believe that the trend will continue, of course.
 
Retune said:
You argument seems to be - since the climate has changed at various times in the past without our intervention, then it's impossible that anything we do could change the climate. But the one does not follow from the other. Doesn't it strike you that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere than there has been at any time in the history of our species might just have an impact on the planet? And when the scientific consensus tells us that it is not only possible, but extremely likely, that this will cause a very significant rise in temperature, do you think it's wise just to dismiss this as part of some sort of elaborate hoax? You're sceptical about 'scare stories', yet predictions made in the 70s about how the temperature would respond to increasing levels of CO2 have now been vindicated (see links above). Nobody 'knew this was going to happen naturally' - they predicted that CO2 levels would go up as we burned more stuff, and that the temperature would go up with it, which is what has happened in the last half century. There was no no other reason to believe that temperatures were going to rise in this period. Now there are plenty of reasons to believe that the trend will continue, of course.
Click to expand...

You really have avoided answering my questions!

How do we stop natural climate change?
 
Last edited:
DK602 said:
It's a real shame you feel the law is optional! I guess it's pointless debating with such a selfish opinion.
Click to expand...

What a peculiar view. The law is optional to anyone willing to pay the price if they are caught breaking it. The law is also not of itself moral, although in some areas it aligns with moral patterns of behaviour - it's more about making sure that people can generally rub along together without causing each other too much damage and that the system of government is adequately funded.
 
ancient_mariner said:
What a peculiar view. The law is optional to anyone willing to pay the price if they are caught breaking it. The law is also not of itself moral, although in some areas it aligns with moral patterns of behaviour - it's more about making sure that people can generally rub along together without causing each other too much damage and that the system of government is adequately funded.
Click to expand...

Probably why the fabric of the Country is breaking down when people hold opinions that the law is optional!
 
If the fabric is breaking down it is more because funding cuts are removing controls, and leaders, who should know better, are lying through their back teeth and not caring one bit.
 
Pound Coin said:
If the fabric is breaking down it is more because funding cuts are removing controls, and leaders, who should know better, are lying through their back teeth and not caring one bit.
Click to expand...

I think the photographs show the huge deployment (and waste of public money) on the public sector because you feel the law is optional?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top