Extinction Rebellion Ireland

railer201

railer201 wrote: »

Problems are never solved until the root causes are identified, all we have here are the 'posh' protesting, screwing up workers lives and solving sweet FA.

Do you believe in science and if so, can you give us all a short paragraph on what you think global warming will mean for Europe vs the Developing World?

HorrorScope

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You're right, it's nothing new. But the eocene era is a good justification for the belief that global temperature will rise by an apocalyptic 10 degrees by 2100, as opposed to 5 degrees, and the latter scenario might only cause us to amalgamate with populations from Africa and parts of Asia and the Middle East.

Drastic global changes in temperatures are nothing new. That's true. This one is different to previous episodes in that it might be réversible. Or it might be too late, who knows.

Or considering the fact it happened before and had a natural decline afterwards, means it is inevitable and nothing will reverse it. So why worry about something like that to the point of apocalyptic dread? If it happens it happens, you or I won’t be here for it but neither will our kids, or their kids or their kids. It’s hysterical horse**** and nothing more.

Dakota Dan

Poor Greta has trouble answering a question about the main cause of her protest when somebody stole her script. A sure sign that she’s only a puppet, but her hardened followers will keep lapping up her nonsense.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0bwLt_5t73g

HorrorScope

HorrorScope wrote: »

Or considering the fact it happened before and had a natural decline afterwards, means it is inevitable and nothing will reverse it. So why worry about something like that to the point of apocalyptic dread? If it happens it happens, you or I won’t be here for it but neither will our kids, or their kids or their kids. It’s hysterical horse**** and nothing more.

If your point is that climate change may be irreversible, then I agree with you.

But it's not hysterical. It's grounded in scientific fact, and it means our descendants will face starvation, or wars based on resources.

There is still a chance it might be réversible, but you just continue gulping on that diesel like it's anti-establishment Kool Aid. Yeah, you are really giving it to the man, my friend.

Panch18

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Do you believe in science and if so, can you give us all a short paragraph on what you think global warming will mean for Europe vs the Developing World?

Science isn’t always right - you do know that don’t you??!!!!

What’s more is science regularly changes its mind, as you would expect when new research, new methods and new technologies come on line

Panch18

Panch18 wrote: »

Science isn’t always right - you do know that don’t you??!!!!

You are joking, aren't you?

Science is always trying to prove itself wrong. The problem is, you need to have a logical basis to reject it. Anything else is superstition.

Apologies if I've missed the sarcasm in your post. It's hard to distinguish sometimes.

Panch18

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You are joking, aren't you?

Science is always trying to prove itself wrong. The problem is, you need to have a logical basis to reject it. Anything else is superstition.

Apologies if I've missed the sarcasm in your post. It's hard to distinguish sometimes.

No sarcasm. Just a simple statement that science isn’t always right

railer201

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Do you believe in science and if so, can you give us all a short paragraph on what you think global warming will mean for Europe vs the Developing World?

Science unfortunately hasn't mentioned the link between over-population and Co2 emissions. The conversation is centering on increasing emissions as being the problem, which it is, but we need to realise this is linked pro-rata to the number of polluters on the planet ie us. Population 2.5 billion in 1950 - no problems at all, population now 7.5 billion and the sh1t is starting to hit the fan.

Now here's the kicker - in another 70 years at that population increase rate, the population is set to at least double again to 15 billion, if not treble. So, reducing carbon emissions is all very well - but that's not the root of the problem.

the_syco

We should replace all coal burning power stations with nuclear power stations.

Panch18

Panch18 wrote: »

No sarcasm. Just a simple statement that science isn’t always right

Do you implement this approach generally, in your life?

I'm not trying to be smart, genuine question. Like, do you think science might also be wrong about the harm in smoking fags, or about the carcinogens in asbestos, or is your skepticism limited to things like global warming?

We shouldn't really be picking and choosing the science we agree with, based on whether we like it, no? Serious question.

Calhoun

railer201 wrote: »

Just listening to one of XR's spokesmen talking on the 9 news about excessive carbon emissions and that's all fine but that's as a result of the world being over-populated.

It's disappointing that they appear not to even realise what the real problem is. Either we start reducing our populations voluntarily or the planet will do it for us.

Reducing carbon emissions without tackling population increase is only putting sticking plasters on the problem.

The reality of this statement is that we would definitely be on the road to war. What country/civilisation would willingly go extinct?

One of the things that we look at is how we can solve scientifically without having to stop reproducing.

We will have to look at off planet solutions.

SpaceRocket

This group are just using this "rebellion" to use Merrion square as a base camp for their crap music festival. Just saw a video on twitter of their music blaring and stoners dancing along. 10pm on a weeknight with their young children sleeping in tents nearby, no doubt missing school this week. Nothing more than an excuse for a bunch of adults who never got over their stoner days to have a rave. Absolute wasters!

blinding

Calhoun wrote: »

The reality of this statement is that we would definitely be on the road to war. What country/civilisation would willingly go extinct?

One of the things that we look at is how we can solve scientifically without having to stop reproducing.

We will have to look at off planet solutions.

Well we know who to send off planet first anyways !

theballz

Just got home from town, drove down past Leeson street and one of the roads is still blocked off by security on both ends. I took a quick look down, there is a what looks to be a band playing out the back of a truck with about 5 or 6 people there supporting.

Total waste of taxpayers money - no idea why we entertain such bullsh*t.

theballz

SpaceRocket wrote: »

This group are just using this "rebellion" to use Merrion square as a base camp for their crap music festival. Just saw a video on twitter of their music blaring and stoners dancing along. 10pm on a weeknight with their young children sleeping in tents nearby, no doubt missing school this week. Nothing more than an excuse for a bunch of adults who never got over their stoner days to have a rave. Absolute wasters!

About 30 mins ago there was about 5 or 6 people there, they still had the road closed off on both ends. The mind boggles

Calhoun

blinding wrote: »

Well we know who to send off planet first anyways !

Well all joking aside its a big scientific endeavour and something we have to do if we want to continuing expand as a species.

We need to last long enough for that to happen though which is why we need to change something.

Will I Am Not

theballz wrote: »

Just got home from town, drove down past Leeson street and one of the roads is still blocked off by security on both ends. I took a quick look down, there is a what looks to be a band playing out the back of a truck with about 5 or 6 people there supporting.

Total waste of taxpayers money - no idea why we entertain such bullsh*t.

It better be an acoustic session from the back of a truck powered by their own self righteousness.

theballz

Will I Am Not wrote: »

It better be an acoustic session from the back of a truck powered by their own self righteousness.

Looked like a very crappy lights on the go too. Not a hope they are being solar powered at 10.30pm!

Busterie

Amazing that this lot think if they block the roads the Government must do what they want.
If the crowd from Oughterard arriving blocking the streets and saying all asylum seekers should be kicked out should they get their way?

lleti

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/dek9z3/climate_change_activists_block_city_bridge_tell/

Climate change activists block a bridge and tell cyclist she should have taken a bus :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Calhoun

lleti wrote: »

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/dek9z3/climate_change_activists_block_city_bridge_tell/

Climate change activists block a bridge and tell cyclist she should have taken a bus :pac::pac::pac::pac:

The top comment is amazing.

""You had all week to save up bus fare, then you wouldn't be late"

"I'm on a bike"

The fact that this statement didn't end their arrogance shows that they have no idea what they're actually fighting for. They signed up to make a scene for attention and yell in people's faces, while playing the victim card"

Quantum Erasure

railer201 wrote: »

Now here's the kicker - in another 70 years at that population increase rate, the population is set to at least double again to 15 billion, if not treble. So, reducing carbon emissions is all very well - but that's not the root of the problem.

Population growth is slowing down already, it'll level off around 11 billion,

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

They signed up to make a scene for attention and yell in people's faces, while playing the victim card"

Er, grabbing people's attention is their point.

If a car was hurtling down the N52 and about to fall over the bridge at Portumna, would people not be justified in standing in front of them asking them to stop?

Secondly, as for playing the victim card, most of them seem to be younger than 40. According to what the World Meteorological Society and the United Nations is saying, yeah, they will have to live with the consequences. "Victim" is a bit of a loaded term, but they will have to ensure the consequences of the behaviour of at least two generations who willingly pursued global warming, maybe irreversibly.

JupiterKid

I say more power to them. This planet is on a completely unsustainable collision course with reality and it ain’t pretty. At least they’re doing something to support what they believe is right.

What are the moaners on here doing to help the environment?

gozunda

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Do you implement this approach generally, in your life?I'm not trying to be smart, genuine question. Like, do you think science might also be wrong about the harm in smoking fags, or about the carcinogens in asbestos, or is your skepticism limited to things like global warming?We shouldn't really be picking and choosing the science we agree with, based on whether we like it, no? Serious question.

Science is frequently in disagreement with regard to many issues. Peer reviewed research can both damn and praise the same issue. It's not unusual to have contradictory advice coming from different scientists. Science needs to be evaluated and deemed applicable in each instance. And even at that scientific findings can be turned on its heads over time. None of that is new.

You referred earlier to the UN and taking their predictions as gospel - Just one thing - off the top of my head I can cite at least two examples where the UN has twice presented incorrect figures regarding greenhouse gas emissions

The issue with the 'hockey stick' data revealed following a recent court case

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/michael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case.php?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw

Also the UN were left with eggs on their collective faces when it was found and later admitted significant flaws in report on meat and climate change. In this report they claimed that animal agriculture emissions were greater than that of transport - this was challenged by scientists and found to be solely based on flawed data calculations.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html

And none of that is denying global warming btw.

Its simply that bodies like the UN can and do get things badly wrong and it takes other scientists to stand up and say so ....

Potential-Monke

How about they start with some of the bigger causes and reduce their emissions? Some article I read said a cargo ship produces the same amount of pollution as 50 million cars in the same time frame. Another article was from some lad whose obviously very smart, and he used available data and stats to create a more realistic version, and compared a single 2 stroke cargo ship (iirc 45k HP) against a 2017 Ford Focus 1.5d. His findings: cargo ships produce the same as 19 million Focus'. Maybe we should ban cruise holidays? Are airplanes the same? Ban flight maybe?

Also, do we not want to star the developing countries on the right foot so they don't have to do what we're trying to do now and reverse? An article from 2015 stated developing countries are responsible for 63% of man made carbon emissions.

At the end of the day, there's nothing I can do to really make an impact. Can't afford an electric car, can't afford to rent in the city so have to drive, i don't go on foreign holidays (or really leave the home tbh). I could give up smoking, maybe get a smaller car. Fix all the other bigger problems, then get back to me for my bit.

holliehobbie

For some strange reason all the Luas (don't know if there is a plural of that noun?) were appearing one or two minutes after each other when I left work at 5.30pm yesterday. Even though the announcement board said there were 10 to 15 mins delays due to the protest march!! Normally they are jampacked at that hour but I even got a seat on one straight away. Maybe the Luas is green enough for them?

Calhoun

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Er, grabbing people's attention is their point.

If a car was hurtling down the N52 and about to fall over the bridge at Portumna, would people not be justified in standing in front of them asking them to stop?

Secondly, as for playing the victim card, most of them seem to be younger than 40. According to what the World Meteorological Society and the United Nations is saying, yeah, they will have to live with the consequences. "Victim" is a bit of a loaded term, but they will have to ensure the consequences of the behaviour of at least two generations who willingly pursued global warming, maybe irreversibly.

I thought it was a funny quote, from reddit. I know you like to soap box for anything these folk are doing but as another member of the under 40's who will be impacted by this i don't see this as the way of doing it.

I agree we should do something but as i said we need to have an honest and frank discussion on what it would mean to our lives. Bus connect, Irish Water, Wind farms are only but a few of the projects that have failed in Ireland because most people on the ground dont consider the bigger picture.

JupiterKid wrote: »

I say more power to them. This planet is on a completely unsustainable collision course with reality and it ain’t pretty. At least they’re doing something to support what they believe is right.

What are the moaners on here doing to help the environment?

How about you go first?

Atlantic Dawn

theballz wrote: »

Just got home from town, drove down past Leeson street and one of the roads is still blocked off by security on both ends. I took a quick look down, there is a what looks to be a band playing out the back of a truck with about 5 or 6 people there supporting.

Total waste of taxpayers money - no idea why we entertain such bullsh*t.

Security blocking a public road? When was this ever allowed?

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Science is frequently in disagreement with regard to many issues. Peer reviewed research can both damn and praise the same issue.

I'm only quoting two sentences from your post because most of it is vague, meaningless nonsense.

"science is frequently in disagreement with regard to many issues" -- Jesus man. Listen to yourself. What does that sentence mean in common english speech?

I think the point you're getting at is that science has, in the past, been wrong -- therefore why should we trust science? Is that your point?

That's probably not the smartest thing you've ever said. The point could just as easily be made that "science once though that epilepsy was witchcraft therefore why should I believe that fags cause cancer?"

Seriously, that's the level of debate you seem to be pursuing. It seems you're implying that the laws of physics are incorrect because science has been wrong in the past. Surely you see how that's a logical fallacy -- in fact, a total stupidity?

You can't possibly believe that's a sustainable argument?