Extinction Rebellion Ireland

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

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

Probably since the 18th century, say the French revolution?

There have been actual books written about the history of the barricade.

gozunda

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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?

Lol attack the poster. You haven't changed one bit Miltiades. Still posting ****e. And again you fail to understand the most basic of statements. Let me restate it for you. Scientists are often in disagreement. Is that easy enough for you to understand? Or would you prefer words of 3 syllables or less? Did I mention the word 'trust'- no I didn't. But there you go ....

And did you bother reading the links provided detailing relevant examples of where that has happened in relation to data used by the UN or that too difficult?

Here they are again in case you missed them.

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

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

The UN who you hold up as the holy grail - have spectacularly got such facts wrong. Do you understand that? No?

If not I believe there's a name for that- it's commonly called wilful ignorance. I'll leave you at it ...

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Scienctists are more often in disagreement than agreement. Is that easy enough for you to understand? Or would you prefer words of 3 syllables or less? Did I mention the word 'trust'- no I didnt. But there you go ....

Again, you're posting lengthy replies to simple questions. I think your main problem is that mainstream science agrees that man-made climate change is a crisis. I'm not sure how you're going to overcome this.

But it doesn't matter. The conversation has moved on. You can remain in the background, wondering whether Newton was an heretic, or whether man-made climate change is real. I don't think anybody is interested anymore. You may keep pegging stones at the axioms of science, but it's all a bit redundant.

Jimmy Garlic

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Probably since the 18th century, say the French revolution?

There have been actual books written about the history of the barricade.

Can I decide to hire or befriend my own 'security' to block any road I take a fancy to so I can dance around like a fairy on it?...and get away with it? Why can't I have a private road party?

Panch18

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.

Well for example “science” in the 1960’s and 70’s actively and worldwide promoted the use of low fat diets and natural products such as butter were replaced with synthetic products such as margarine because they were “better” for you. Fats in food were replaced with sugars

Nowadays we all know this was rubbish and we have a fat epidemic in a lot of western society, primarily caused by far too much sugar in our diets. It is widely accepted now that butter is fact a whole lot better for you than margarine, once not used excessively. There are a million more examples

So that is just one example of science Not always being right

SEPT 23 1989

500?

More people were protesting when the spice burger was near extinction a few years ago

Zorya

weldoninhio wrote: »

NIMAN wrote: »

I suggest you listen to the HardTalk episode.

Their co-founder wants the entire UK to be carbon neutral by 2025. In 6 yrs time! The presenter asked him that would mean no cars, no lorries, no planes, no home heating oil or gas etc, and he said it could be done if the political will was there.

I'm telling you, delusional.

These folk want us back in caves.

https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1181184150549737472

That is the type of absolute wingnut you are dealing with.

The amount of endocrine disrupting estrogen in the environment worries me...thats for sure. Yikes.

railer201

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

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

Most who support the science realise we're in the deep doodoo now at 7.5 billion - another 3.5 billion will only compound the problem. It is generally accepted that a sustainable population level is around 2 billion and we're a long way past that at this stage.

https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

lleti

Day 2 of rag week for the crusties. What's in the schedule today?

pjohnson

lleti wrote: »

Day 2 of rag week for the crusties. What's in the schedule today?

I'd imagine those that were outraged at "the crusties" are planning their budget/welfare/oap/tax whinges so wont be as offended either way today :pac:

Beechwoodspark

So where are they planning on protesting later on does anyone know

Plumbthedepths

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

So where are they planning on protesting later on does anyone know

Surely as someone who claims to be so concerned and right on with the protests you'd be privy to this information. Unless the protests will stop you getting to work though, what difference does it make to you as you said you will only take part at the weekend.

Beechwoodspark

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Surely as someone who claims to be so concerned and right on with the protests you'd be privy to this information. Unless the protests will stop you getting to work though, what difference does it make to you as you said you will only take part at the weekend.

They are intentionally keeping the protest details secret presumably to make most impact

Although I do support them like I said yest morning don’t p1ss off joe public on public transport

_Brian

Panch18 wrote: »

Well for example “science” in the 1960’s and 70’s actively and worldwide promoted the use of low fat diets and natural products such as butter were replaced with synthetic products such as margarine because they were “better” for you. Fats in food were replaced with sugars

Nowadays we all know this was rubbish and we have a fat epidemic in a lot of western society, primarily caused by far too much sugar in our diets. It is widely accepted now that butter is fact a whole lot better for you than margarine, once not used excessively. There are a million more examples

So that is just one example of science Not always being right

There are also the plethora of “funded” scientific reviews that miraculously always to produce a result that agrees with the principles of the funder, it’s not a coincidence though.

Science can be wrong, it can change its mind and yes it is regularly corrupted by those with a vested interest in the outcome.

People here are saying that if your not running round with your hair on fire like ER campaigners then your obviously a science denier.

I’ve saod before, asking developed nations to throw their lifestyle out the window and go back a century will not work, even if it is wait is needed it will not happen.

I’m not denying that humans contribute to climate change, I’m disputing that what ER are calling for is reasonable or achievable. By making the task so unpalatable and unattainable they are switching off the masses to any sensible message.

is_that_so

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

So where are they planning on protesting later on does anyone know

Seemingly they've promised more direct action, whatever that means.

blinding

is_that_so wrote: »

Seemingly they've promised more direct action, whatever that means.

Are they going after the Private Jets ?

is_that_so

blinding wrote: »

Are they going after the Private Jets ?

I'd say road blocking and chaining themselves to things is more likely.

blinding

Many that are lecturing about Climate Change are in the Private Jets . Surely Extinction Rebellion will go after them on the grounds of hypocrisy alone .

Zorya

is_that_so wrote: »

Seemingly they've promised more direct action, whatever that means.

Probably a spot of robust vlogging uploaded to Twitter, a serious face painting sesh, followed by having to assemble an avocado toast al fresco. The wimps on the barricades at the French Revolution had it easy, the saps! :mad:

We're all gonna Diiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!! :mad::mad:

Beechwoodspark

blinding wrote: »

Are they going after the Private Jets ?

Private jets should be taxed out of existence if I had my way

lleti

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:

Lol you just can't make this sh1t up:D

HorrorScope

Poll on The Journal this morning - Do you welcome an increase in the Carbon Tax? 67.6% have replied No,not at all.

Any increase today will come back to bite the government in the arse come election time, mark my words. The majority do not care about this nonsense.

ThunbergsAreGo

HorrorScope wrote: »

Poll on The Journal this morning - Do you welcome an increase in the Carbon Tax? 67.6% have replied No,not at all.

Any increase today will come back to bite the government in the arse come election time, mark my words. The majority do not care about this nonsense.

Dont you know there is a Green Wave coming, a whole 1 in 20 voted for the Greens.....

H3llR4iser

_Brian wrote: »

I’m not denying that humans contribute to climate change, I’m disputing that what ER are calling for is reasonable or achievable. By making the task so unpalatable and unattainable they are switching off the masses to any sensible message.

That's the central point that everyone is missing; especially the media who, let's be honest, are having a field trip with the latest stream of news which for once it's about making "heroes" and not monsters for the front page. The concrete risk is to make this yet another "fad of the moment", something that will keep hold of the headlines for a few more months, then go away in the nothingness.



People can protest all they want but the need is for achievable, realistic, sustainable solutions - not a call for knee jerk "immediate and drastic!" action. All the proposals coming from these groups are childishly naive "how hard can it be" ideas - ban this, tax that.



They don't realize the immense social cost pretty much any "immediate action" would have - loss of livelihood, cultural impoverishment and effectively a social regression of at least two centuries. With bans or supercharges on airplanes, cars and plastics (to mention the big three "boogeymen") the super-rich would still continue to do as they please, comfortably able to pay up fines and taxes; The middle class would plunge back into desperate poverty - the loss of jobs would be compounded by a steep increase in the price of food, which would result from the lack of quick transportation methods and effective clean, cooled storage.



Many of the arguments made by these groups are idiotic at best - "don't fly home to see your family, use Skype!" or that you could "see the world" on Google Maps (these were posted in the very active comments section of an article about "flight shaming" on the Guardian)...if we have "young people" thinking that a screen can effectively and entirely replace personal interaction and direct experience, as a civilization we have a bigger issue than climate change and maybe...well, we deserve to die out.



Solutions and improvements need to be studied, worked on, considered carefully and then implemented when ready; a botched cure is often far worse than the disease, we've experienced this multiple times in history. Scientists and engineers are working to these achievable, long term solutions, and the last thing that's needed is for somebody with very little understanding of either discipline to push for rushed "action". Yet, anyone saying this, today, gets attacked as being "afraid of change", a "conservative" if not much worse.

HorrorScope

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Dont you know there is a Green Wave coming, a whole 1 in 20 voted for the Greens.....

Haha yes I know about the "green wave" - it will be a very very different story when it's a general election.

topper75

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Private jets should be taxed out of existence if I had my way

That type of clientele don't pay tax to any government in the first place. No discs on their windshields!
You could pass legislation alright to discriminate with landing charges for state-controlled airports.

gozunda

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Again, you're posting lengthy replies to simple questions. I think your main problem is that mainstream science agrees that man-made climate change is a crisis. I'm not sure how you're going to overcome this. But it doesn't matter. The conversation has moved on. You can remain in the background, wondering whether Newton was an heretic, or whether man-made climate change is real. I don't think anybody is interested anymore. You may keep pegging stones at the axioms of science, but it's all a bit redundant.

Your previous tirade was indeed simple - my reply to that (if you care to check) was certainly shorter and more relevant. And nope science is not "my" problem. But that you don't understand that is clearly a problem for you. And as already stated none of that is denying global warming btw.

My background is science and do note I have not referenced Newton or any other historical figures. I presented two clear and recent examples where the science used by the UN was shown by other scientists to be deeply flawed. The UN is a body which is just as prone to getting things wrong as any other. Placing absolute faith and trust in all such bodies and denying that science can get it spectacularly wrong - is indeed a very dangerous position of ignorance and not much different from accusations of the heresy you detailed which were prevalent in the medieval church. But hey keep trumpeting that there are no questions to be asked - that certainly worked for the previous dominant dogma - for a time at least.

average_runner

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Private jets should be taxed out of existence if I had my way

But the rich have the private jets and will always have enough money for them.

suicide_circus

this level of hysteria is unsustainable.

climate change wont be fixed "now" or anything close to now.

its a slow process that will require industry lead solutions.

_Brian

suicide_circus wrote: »

this level of hysteria is unsustainable.

Thankfully it’s confined to Dublin and the rest of us can continue living a normal life. It will be over in a few days, nothing will be achieved bar cementing in the minds of even more people that anyone talking about climate issue is a complete fruitcake and to be ignored.