I would like to preference this by saying I do not sit on either side of the argument, I am neutral and on the fence whether or not protesting about Oil is right or wrong. That isn't really the debate here. What I want to point out the danger these demonstrations are puting the protestor's and the general public in. Walking in the middle of a busy London Street is madness. Now I know protesting is legal and a human right, and there is no law (that I know of) that says people cannot protest peacefully. However, what this organisation is doing is beyond the means of anything we have seen probably since the Suffragette of the nineteenth centuary. How long is it going to be before one of these protestors pushes the wrong driver/member of the public's buttons too much and we have a death on our hands? I can see it happening, and I in no way condone such a thing if were to pass. Inturupting sporting events by throwing orange chemical dye everywhere is not helping anyone, not at least themselves. You want the general public on your side, especially on a protest of this scale. I do understand why they are protesting, but surely they could be going about it in a less dangerous method? I know even the police (who at first were on their side) are even pushing protesters away and i've even seem some arrested for disturbing the peace. Because in essence, that is what they are doing right now. Disturbing people's lives and getting the general public angrier everytime this happens. On a side note, maybe they should protest in China, who are the one of the planet's biggests users of Oil? But then again China is not a soft touch like the UK is. Thoughts?
It only gets in the news and therrfore people only see the protest if there's disruption. What do you want JSO to do instead? Write a letter? I thought the greenpeace protest at one of sunak's houses was very clever indeed. No damage done. Nothing permanent. No injuries. But it still made the news. Even so, listen to the rich and powerful moan. Oh they shouldn't have done that. Oh that's gone beyond what's acceptable. And so on and so on. What they really want to say is "SHUT HIM UP!"
I had a look on their website a couple of months ago, offers no solutions at all. Tells you all you to know about them really. If they were serious there would be a ton of science papers on the way forward etc but they offer nothing.
But they’re a pressure group. They are raising awareness of an issue. It’s not incumbent on them to design the way forward. And if they did their ideas would be immediately dismissed by the same people who are currently hoping they’d just shut up and go away. Just look at the reaction to anyone who says anything about this issue. People point out that they went on a plane or drive a car and the only point of that response is a desire for them to stop pointing out things that make others feel uncomfortable. Let’s face it, there’s a sizeable number of people who just want to bury their heads in the sand and carry on without making any changes (macro or micro) whatsoever.
For many, the message is lost and it appears from some investigations that a core of the protestors are just in it for the chaos and care little about the cause. Their tactics are turning the public against them and the cause.
Many people are in support of their message and even their tactics. The thing is, it’s not a popularity contest. They are doing what they believe is right. And they are prepared to take personal risk to make their point. I’d like to see a source for your claim about the investigations suggesting they’re in it for chaos rather than the cause. Please post one if you can. I’d argue the message is anything but lost. People know exactly what they stand for. The problem is that many people don’t like hearing that message. At the end of the day, it literally doesn’t matter if anyone likes the message or not. Reality will decide whether they have a point or not.
I agree with you but just to say stop without offering evidence of a way forward doesnt help them. They should be posting links to research papers on room temperature semi conductors or anti gravity propulsion. There must be scientific papers out there on some kind of substance that can be used to replace oil from the earth or devices that dont need to use oil etc. I agree with the cause but educating people should be more at the forefront of their mission than upsetting people.
If ever I need cheering up I find watching this short film of the 'rich and powerful' showing climate change protestors what they think of their campaign usually helps
I would not trust meme stream media sources and the amount of disinfo agents on the payroll is staggering. Saw it and continue to see it with the meme stock thing and seeing it all again with the UAP/UFO thing. If the establishment feel they are being threatened paid actors, disinfo agents on social media and the news outlets they own all come into play. Cover the truth by over exaggerating the truth or by saying whatever the subject is is lies. Social media is worst of all these days as bot accounts start the trend then people wanting to feel part of something chime in, its all very clever psychology.
It will. And likely or not, it will not be favourable to them. They are fiddling while Rome burns. Climate change is an Earthly fact that has existed since this planet has had anything that could be considered a climate. Their proposals, literally, offer no practical assistance to the people of this world. We could do everything they ask for, and it would make not the slightest bit of difference, because if this world is going to get hotter, it’s gonna get hotter, and if it is gonna get cooler, it’s gonna get cooler, and there is not a thing they or any of us can do about it. What people should be campaigning for is the ‘science’ to do its job and for us to gain a proper understanding of the changes that are going to occur. It is only fifty years since predictions of a new ice age were the thing. Do not be surprised if, in the next fifty years, such an idea becomes the accepted norm once again. What we need to do is consider easy ways to adapt to the changes, whichever way they go. Just stop Oil are simply the unimaginative and anti-social (Sociophobes?) who cannot handle reality and, like the immature child brains that they are, have decided that the best therapy for them is to throw their rattle out of the pram. They have no real practical goal based on science (again, do everything they demand and it will achieve nothing except, most likely, negatively impact on the least well off), and yet otherwise sane people have suspended their own sense of reality, and are giving them their virtue signalling support; by lazily saying “but it is for a good cause”. Well, it’s not. It is idiotic and ill thought out. Why is it that extremists always insist on forcing their idiotic views on the rest of us, when there are so many good arguments (that just require a bit more effort to figure out) that they ignore or reject? Sadly, because that is what they do, we are completely overlooking the most effective ways to deal with the unfortunate realities (and unfathomable predictabilities and consequences) of genuine climate change. They would be carrying out exactly the same campaign if global cooling were the issue.
Science is doing it's job. You obviously don't seem to understand what it's about. Namely collecting data, testing models and seeing what the predicted results measure to the actual ones and then refining those models. You're simply espousing the same old tripe the climate change doubters or those who seem to think it's some conspiracy trot out. Of course climate change occurs. The evidence is clearly there and it can change suddenly too as with the PETM some 55.6Mya. Even in the space of a decade with current changes. However what you conveniently ignore is what the models climate scientists and many other points of scientific evidence from other fields that this is anthropogenic climate change. Other factors have been accounted for. The models insofar in their predictions are proving to be generally accurate. Those predictions in the past which you proudly trot out were not based on evidence and at a time when the amount of data collected was paltry compared to what we have now. Not to mention scientists being paid by the oil industry to take the opposite view. These people in particular should be ashamed of themselves as science is a search for truth untainted by political dogma. Idiotic you say ? Truly ? Good arguments they refuse or reject ? The cost of warming the oceans alone will not be trillions but far beyond that. It will impact food security, water security, cause enormous population displacement and worse. Safeguarding coastal cities will be an enormous cost. Not to mention yet another mini extinction event. Fossil fuel use has been a huge contributor to the warming effect not just through CO2 emission but also release of water vapour. So if politicians and those who control them in big business as seen in the US had any sense or decency they would have made policy changes a long time ago. The technologies are there. Some require more development and help to expand. There also need to be changes to urban development and transportation. Yet despite this they still get scant funding and policy change especially here with Sunak who seems to care not one whit about the environment is so painfully slow despite what we've seen this summer which is a mere forerunner of what is to come. Of course the climate may get cooler but I don't along with vulcanologists expect a continuous stream of aerosols being injected into the stratosphere by a series of prolonged vulcanicity from larger VEIs. Currently we're heading into disaster because of boneheads in power and business. Who still peddle this idea that man made climate change is a myth. We've been very fortunate that the last ten thousands years has been a relatively stable climate allowing agriculture to flourish and consequently civilization.
Ha. I was talking about JSO. Clearly, your post above is non secutor to my comments. Unless you are saying JSO ARE THE SCIENCE. Though I think some of the science is questionable (what reasonable person would ever place science beyond question?), it was not part of my comments on the tactics of JSO, whether they are misguided or not. That, rather than climate change, is the subject of the thread, after all. It is clear from what I say that I believe JSO would use the science to justify its actions, no matter what the science says. It is a shame that your basic understanding of what is going on around you, and what you choose to insert yourself into, is so poor. Otherwise, in general, you appear to completely agree with me. Which is nice.
I wonder how high up the agenda climate change will be at the Brics summit? Hopefully they won't spend too much time discussing gender diversity before they get round to it
It's on the agenda between 'Your state secret police don't need secret pronouns' and 'Making ULEZ work in the favela'.
I'm intrigued by some people's willingness not to question science. After all, that is the very essence of what science is. What is our understanding? Is it sound? Consider more information. Science IS the constant questioning of what we know, and our experiences tell us that some science, even in a period as short as our own life time, has been guided by idiotic ideas and deliberate miss-information. I imagine that leaches and ice pick lobotamy would still be mainstream medicines, were the powers that be subject only to the enquiring minds of those who do not find 'the science' automatically questionable, as the science of science dictates it should be. Thank heavens there are adults still roaming the world.
Anyone seen the outrage at the latest criminal damage from protestors? Vandalising public priory and wasting taxpayers money? The ulez camera destroyers? No I haven't seen much from the daily mail and Facebook brigade either, apparently protesting and inconveniencing others is now ok if it's something you agree with
Science is literally questioned all the time. Its findings are peer reviewed, challenged, revised. Science never stands still – unlike dogma, which never moves. And dear me there's a lot of dogma about. A heck of a lot of dogma. Most of it barely researched, or poorly sourced, but nevertheless clung to unflinchingly with a great degree of confidence. I've spoken to a few climate scientists over the past few years and my mind is never not blown by their restraint, calm, knowledge and sheer depth of understanding of a complex picture. Since speaking to them, asking questions, thinking I've got my head round it and then realising there's so, so much more they understand that I don't, I struggle to take the media's representation of the issue seriously. The mainstream media's coverage of the issue is like looking at a skyscraper made out of Duplo – nice big bricks in primary colours. Once science has been questioned and challenged by people who know what they are talking it about, science is then questioned by the likes of Nigel Lawson, radio talk show hosts, tabloid newspaper writers and people who 'reckon' they understand what they're talking about. And these people who 'reckon' stuff are noisy and confident and think they've poked clever holes in the argument and seen the light. And maybe they have, but I have my doubts. The thing is, science just rolls on and the facts of the matter don't care a jot for what people 'reckon'. On this issue more than any other, it really doesn't matter what people reckon. Nothing anyone 'reckons' is going to make the slightest bit of difference. Frankly, I'm with those climate scientists who carry on working to increase the human race's understanding of the issue and quietly hope for the best.
Meanwhile the RSPB has apologised for its strident statement yesterday. I'm sure this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact some Tufton Street wonk is a trustee of the RSPB. These a***holes get everywhere – undermining and destroying things as they go. The funny thing is, the Government prides itself on its clarity of thought, strength and decisiveness but it sure is fragile whenever anyone points out how dreadful all their ideas are. Just stick 'wildlife' on the list of lefty, woke conspirators along with Chris Packham and the concept of having clean air and water.
Still waffling on again. Like the facebook scientists and their doctorates and diplomas ? Not one whit of scientific knowledge yet knowing all there is about virology, spread theory but when asked what a MHC is going uhhh ? Science questions itself all the time. That's it's raison d'etre to build an understanding of the universe from the smallest to largest scale in multiple fields through experimentation, testing of hypotheses. Yet when the data is proffered, the models are sound but don't fit your agenda they must be questioned by social media scientists. The sort that harangue the very people who are experts in their field. Your comments are laughable. Adults. You need to grow up.
When asked to itemise what aspects of ‘the science’ are questionable, and in which ways, the silence is normally deafening. Funny that.
What utter rubbish. You could just as easily be talking about yourself as me. The OP posted to say he was intrigued to know how “the science” was questionable. So your post obliterates his silly argument as much as mine. You are agreeing with me, but because I am Hooter, you have to torture your argument to make out you disagree. You have said nothing that I did not say. Thank you for your support.
Yes. But again you have missed the point. And, to follow the thread off topic for a moment, self questioning cannot exist without a thing being questionable. I look forward to a tortured response in which you prove (to yourself) that black is white, that god does not exist, but if he did, he would agree with you. I await with baited breath...
Something can't be considered questionable unless it can be questioned. Whether it is questioned or not by oneself or somebody else doesn't affect it's questionableness. Until something is questioned the value of questioning it must be questionable.
‘Questionable’ as an adjective carries the meaning of something being of doubtful veracity or validity, even a suggestion of wilful mendacity. A hypothesis may be quite readily subjected to ‘questioning’ without any inference of it being ‘questionable’ in this manner. That is a process undertaken by all academics no matter which discipline. If such ‘questioning’ results in the conclusion that the hypothesis is based upon doubtful or invalid premisses, then, yes, it can then be accused of being ‘questionable’. Quite easy to understand, really. We still await a presentation of which specific hypotheses are ‘questionable’ and why.
We cant really trust what our eyes see, the sky isnt really blue so black and white probably arent black and white. Which God are you talking about? Hinduism has thousands of Gods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TalkTV_(British_TV_channel) Murdoch owned enterprise, I dont think I need to say more do I?
