Attempting to destroy famous paintings because fossil fuels

So you think that the human race will be fcuked once the oil and coal runs out? Because fossil fuels availability as a resource running out is guaranteed.

Or do you not think that whatever direction society moves in and that point, could be prioritized on being introduced now?

Something like 50% of all car journeys in the western world are less than 3 miles, in the US its more like 70%. There absolutely are alternatives to what we are doing, the Netherlands literally have shown countries how to do it, to suggest that there are no alternatives is either deliberately or unintentionally ignorant.

You've spoken to the entire British public have you? Because if not, all you're doing is projecting your view on to what they think.

Your argument is the same used to tell railway workers they shouldn't strike for better pay while shareholders make massive profits.

Throughout history, change has frequently come about because of a growing consensus which eventually crossed a threshold to sway the majority of public opinion.

If you're looking at this entire topic, and what you're bringing to the table is only condemnation of those provoking the discussion then you're an obstacle to change. And that change is needed. Keeping your head in the sand, whether looking for oil or ignoring reality, is not going to fix the problems that are already impacting the human race but likely catastrophically so unless we change. Ignorance or distraction from that reality is part of the problem.

It's not about commuting, it's about industry, heavy transport, shipping, the chemical industry, plastics, air transport and so on. In another thread, I barely scratched the surface of the role hydrocarbons play in the manufacture of a wind turbine, and it's near mind boggling how vital they are. The peak oil/hydrocarbon catastrophism doesn't interest me because it's a myth that was well and truly exposed as fallacy.

This is from an article on peak oil written in 2008:

See, peak oil was reached and now the US is stuffed - right? In 2021 the US was producing 16.6 million barrels per day.

No, I'm not a catastrophist - well not your sort of catastrophist , anyway.

Cute.

Ah - No the burning of fossil fuels that has caused the climate crisis involves large scale use of petrol, diesel, coal, ect that we have been "burning" over the years in cars and trucks and in power stations - This has caused a build up of CO2 (agreenhouse gass) in the atmosphere

which is acting like a blanket around the earth and causing the temperature of the entire plannet to rise - and is already changing the climate in some places to devestating effect and has the potential to cause even greater destruction to the entire planet

A completely separate issue is the separation of crede oil into its constituent parts (including into hydrocarbons for manufacturing) or refining - this process can be the cause of the release of toxins into the environment - but like all industrial processes it depends on how strictly procedures are followed and local environmental protection laws are enforced/Inspected

The first issue is a threat to our planet - the second one is not

Has that clarified it ?

So the Rosa Parks comparrison is not a comparrison of her personal suffering with theirs

the comparison is with the establishment doing something blatantly unjust and wrong

in this case - continuing to use fossil fuels in a way that benefits them at a cost to future generations, birds and animal species , the planet, others .

Understand?

I dont know why you are so angry I admire your honesty - You are crystal clear that you are a biggot and mention numerous times that part of your dislike of the protesters relates to their "socio economic group" which is one that you feel you are not part off. If I held such prejudiced opinions I am not sure that I would share them so freely👋

😂🤣Sory I missed the bit at the end 😂🤣are you 😅"not on my side"😭😪😂

Cute.

It is a good thing so that no one was "destroying art"

What are you saying - are you implying that the climate crisis is being exagerated ? or something ?

There is a scientific cosensus saying otherwise - You Know?

JFC, read a book will you.

Such a load of turgid rhetoric that shows a complete absence of scientific process or even position on this topic. To compare their work with that of religions is just so far off the mark it borders on satire.

And no one, absolutely no one is suggesting that the concern here is the demise of the planet, the concern is the ability of humans to co-exist on the planet will all other species of creature whether that be human, mammal, bird, fish or whatever other species you care to mention. And flora and fauna too for that matter.

Afraid not...

You do use preschool type of storytelling about how things work when it is actually quite more complicated.

So you do genuinely believe we put way too much of CO2 in atmosphere and this act as a "blanket" and is warming up the planet?

🤣🤣🤣🤣

I appologise if my tone appeared condescending.

"So you do genuinely believe we put way too much of CO2 in atmosphere"

yes yes yes that is exactly it - there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere Which is acting like the glass in a greenhouse and making the planet warmer- it is often compared to a blanket.

If I were to provide a link to an established source describing the problem in the exact same way - would you read it?

And methane etc.

😶

The effects and lifespan of these molecules in the atmosphere are well documented.