Hatch Posted 17 October, 2019 Share Posted 17 October, 2019 saying that why did they choose those locations, surely somewhere a bit more civil like Kensington / Notting Hill etc would not get the same response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 17 October, 2019 Share Posted 17 October, 2019 saying that why did they choose those locations, surely somewhere a bit more civil like Kensington / Notting Hill etc would not get the same response. Don't p!ss on your own doorstep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 17 October, 2019 Share Posted 17 October, 2019 Canning Town?! Should have at least gone to Covent Garden, then they'd just have had vegan iced lattes thrown at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 17 October, 2019 Share Posted 17 October, 2019 I feel really sorry for those protestors. All they were trying to do was disrupt the lives of ordinary working people by illegally jumping on trains. It's a small price to pay when billions will be dead in twenty years and all those horrible commuters could do is give them a good kicking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 17 October, 2019 Author Share Posted 17 October, 2019 Don't p!ss on your own doorstep.lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 18 October, 2019 Share Posted 18 October, 2019 to a degree yes they got abuse. I definitely dont want to see people kicked and beaten by mobs. I felt very uneasy to see the aftermath as he was thrown onto the platform and the terror he faced, but it may make some these people think twice about disrupting peoples day to day lives without having consequences. Perhaps the protesters are better off letting everyone else burn in hell? It comes to something when you get a kicking from the very people whose lives you are trying to improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 18 October, 2019 Share Posted 18 October, 2019 Perhaps the protesters are better off letting everyone else burn in hell? It comes to something when you get a kicking from the very people whose lives you are trying to improve. They are like modern day superheroes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 18 October, 2019 Share Posted 18 October, 2019 A bit ironic that they chose to disrupt one of the most environmentally friendly forms of transport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 18 October, 2019 Share Posted 18 October, 2019 They are like modern day superheroes You would know all about, Batman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Posted 19 October, 2019 Share Posted 19 October, 2019 Perhaps the protesters are better off letting everyone else burn in hell? It comes to something when you get a kicking from the very people whose lives you are trying to improve. They are not trying to ‘improve’ the lives of others, that isn’t their objective. Also, Burn in hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 19 October, 2019 Share Posted 19 October, 2019 Perhaps the protesters are better off letting everyone else burn in hell? It comes to something when you get a kicking from the very people whose lives you are trying to improve. If you are going to do direct action / civil disobedience successfully tactically its just wrong. Shutting off roads to diesel cars whilst giving out flowers at tube stations might have been better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 19 October, 2019 Share Posted 19 October, 2019 They are like modern day superheroes I’m glad some glued on hippy has got my back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 19 October, 2019 Share Posted 19 October, 2019 If you are going to do direct action / civil disobedience successfully tactically its just wrong. Shutting off roads to diesel cars whilst giving out flowers at tube stations might have been better I don’t disagree. But I do think that giving them a kicking is going to far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 19 October, 2019 Share Posted 19 October, 2019 They are not trying to ‘improve’ the lives of others, that isn’t their objective. Also, Burn in hell? It was a joke. And surely improving the environment including the air we breat is improving our lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 October, 2019 Author Share Posted 19 October, 2019 Perhaps the protesters are better off letting everyone else burn in hell? It comes to something when you get a kicking from the very people whose lives you are trying to improve.In their opinion, they are terrifying children who think they are going to die in the next 10 years. They believe they are doing itfor us all but they are affecting peoples lives trying to press their beliefs on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsdinho Posted 5 November, 2019 Share Posted 5 November, 2019 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 6 November, 2019 Share Posted 6 November, 2019 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806It's only 11000 scientists from a 153 different countries what would they know? bunch of middle-class, lefty, vegan, crusties trying to stop me having a holiday.. Untold human suffering': 11,000 scientists from 153 countries warn of 'climate crisis' https://www.itv.com/news/2019-11-05/scientists-from-around-the-world-declare-climate-emergency/ Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 6 November, 2019 Share Posted 6 November, 2019 I prefer their Warning from 1992, thats their best work. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/1992-world-scientists-warning-humanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 6 November, 2019 Author Share Posted 6 November, 2019 I prefer their Warning from 1992, thats their best work. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/1992-world-scientists-warning-humanityUnder the what we must do numbers 4 and 5 dont seem to be part of my understanding re climate change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 6 November, 2019 Share Posted 6 November, 2019 Under the what we must do numbers 4 and 5 dont seem to be part of my understanding re climate change Surely number 3 - "we must stabilize population" - is completely contrary to number 5 - "We must....guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 6 November, 2019 Share Posted 6 November, 2019 Surely number 3 - "we must stabilize population" - is completely contrary to number 5 - "We must....guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions".... How is that contrary? They are both code for "have fewer kids". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsdinho Posted 6 November, 2019 Share Posted 6 November, 2019 How is that contrary? They are both code for "have fewer kids". I think some people are a bit slow on the uptake.... Not all woman in the developing world have full control over the amount of children they have... Fewer kids = fewer people to drain resources, to feed, to have a carbon footprint, to eat meat etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 6 November, 2019 Share Posted 6 November, 2019 Surely number 3 - "we must stabilize population" - is completely contrary to number 5 - "We must....guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions".... So you're blaming overpopulation on women refusing to have forced abortions?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 6 November, 2019 Share Posted 6 November, 2019 Surely number 3 - "we must stabilize population" - is completely contrary to number 5 - "We must....guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions"....Just one example would be the Catholic church and it's stance on contraception which results in more pregnancies, especially in Latin America, and a lack of control for women on their own reproduction decisions (even if it is through their adherence to a ancient out of date religion) which could easily be solved if the pope just changed the rules and told them using a rubber was ok. Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 6 November, 2019 Share Posted 6 November, 2019 It's only 11000 scientists from a 153 different countries what would they know? bunch of middle-class, lefty, vegan, crusties trying to stop me having a holiday.. Untold human suffering': 11,000 scientists from 153 countries warn of 'climate crisis' https://www.itv.com/news/2019-11-05/scientists-from-around-the-world-declare-climate-emergency/ Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk More bull**** from the climate nutters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 Just one example would be the Catholic church and it's stance on contraception which results in more pregnancies, especially in Latin America, and a lack of control for women on their own reproduction decisions (even if it is through their adherence to a ancient out of date religion) which could easily be solved if the pope just changed the rules and told them using a rubber was ok. Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk And yet the flip side is that China has a limit on the number of children that are allowed per family. Maybe Chinese families would like to have more children and more control over their reproductive decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 And yet the flip side is that China has a limit on the number of children that are allowed per family. Maybe Chinese families would like to have more children and more control over their reproductive decisions? The one child policy ( even though it wasn't really a one child policy as there where valid reasons you could have a second) was scrapped some years back and interestingly even though Chinese parents could now have more kids evidence suggests most of them didn't want to. So they do have control well as much as normally people have control of anything in China. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/beijings-one-child-policy-is-gone-but-many-chinese-are-still-reluctant-to-have-more/2019/05/02/c722e568-604f-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 More bull**** from the climate nuttersSeems the British public might not agree A majority of the UK public and almost half of Conservative voters support a radical plan to transform the economy and tackle the climate crisis, a poll suggests. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/07/majority-of-uk-public-back-2030-zero-carbon-target-poll Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 Seems the British public might not agree A majority of the UK public and almost half of Conservative voters support a radical plan to transform the economy and tackle the climate crisis, a poll suggests. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/07/majority-of-uk-public-back-2030-zero-carbon-target-poll Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk With what we are told by the mainstream media that's not surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 With what we are told by the mainstream media that's not surprising.I know right it's like them refusing to tell the world the truth about the world being flat and that we are all being manipulated by the Illuminati... Bastards Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 I know right it's like them refusing to tell the world the truth about the world being flat and that we are all being manipulated by the Illuminati... Bastards I know, it's all a load of nonsense. I mean what kind of idiot would think ten billion people will have a negative effect effect on the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 More bull**** from the climate nutters So because a conservative commentator on Sky News Australia has identified that one or two fake signatories managed to evade the vetting process on the petition (unfortunate, but inevitable given the numbers), you reckon the whole thing is bullsh!t? This guy has form. He's essentially the Australian equivalent of Tucker Carlson on Fox News and has no scientific credibility whatsoever. He claims that this paper has not been peer reviewed, but it's in the BioScience journal published by Oxford University Press... https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/pages/About Since 1964, BioScience has presented readers with timely and authoritative overviews of current research in biology, accompanied by essays and discussion sections on education, public policy, history, and the conceptual underpinnings of the biological sciences. A peer-reviewed, heavily cited, monthly journal with content written and edited for accessibility to researchers, educators, and students alike, BioScience is provided to all AIBS members in print and online as a part of regular AIBS dues. This guy is talking out of his ar$e, and can be confidently ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 So because a conservative commentator on Sky News Australia has identified that one or two fake signatories managed to evade the vetting process on the petition (unfortunate, but inevitable given the numbers), you reckon the whole thing is bullsh!t? This guy has form. He's essentially the Australian equivalent of Tucker Carlson on Fox News and has no scientific credibility whatsoever. He claims that this paper has not been peer reviewed, but it's in the BioScience journal published by Oxford University Press... https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/pages/About This guy is talking out of his ar$e, and can be confidently ignored. No because I do my own research and listen to scientists who totally debunk a lot of this fake news, take a look for yourself there are plenty out there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 No because I do my own research and listen to scientists who totally debunk a lot of this fake news, take a look for yourself there are plenty out there Yes I'm well aware there are a lot of opposing viewpoints to be found online, and sometimes they can even look quite convincing in terms of their professionalism and scientific validity. But, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of the articles/papers out there attempting to 'debunk fake news' can easily be identified as fake news themselves. If you have found some that cannot then I would be very interested to read them, if you're willing to share them with us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 No because I do my own research and listen to scientists who totally debunk a lot of this fake news Any links to these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 No because I do my own research and listen to scientists who totally debunk a lot of this fake news, take a look for yourself there are plenty out thereI know right. Like the best thing about the internet is I can always find someone to tell me my world view is the right one with just a quick goggle search. The world is definitely flat people keep saying it's not but I did my own research.. https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 Any links to these? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ94yX0BC2g Watch this and then do some research into the Connolly's, they ramble a bit and talk over each other but they also talk a lot of sense. Also have a look at this Michael Mann was one of the people who started all this and has now been called out https://www.thegwpf.com/media-ignores-michael-manns-court-loss-it-doesnt-fit-the-warmist-agenda/ You'll not read about this any where yet his graph was used time and time again to say climate change was getting out of control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ94yX0BC2g Watch this and then do some research into the Connolly's, they ramble a bit and talk over each other but they also talk a lot of sense. Also have a look at this Michael Mann was one of the people who started all this and has now been called out https://www.thegwpf.com/media-ignores-michael-manns-court-loss-it-doesnt-fit-the-warmist-agenda/ You'll not read about this any where yet his graph was used time and time again to say climate change was getting out of control Don't believe a single word you read printed by the GWPF. It is a secretly-funded right-wing think tank, based at 55 Tufton Street alongside the Taxpayers Alliance and others, founded by Nigel Lawson with the sole purpose of muddying the waters of the climate change debate. It has ZERO credibility. This article is an absurd twisting of the facts of this case which bears no relationship to the truth. https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1164910044414189568?lang=en http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/litigation/michael-mann-v-timothy-tim-ball-the-frontier-centre-for-public-policy-inc-and-john-doe/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 Don't believe a single word you read printed by the GWPF. It is a secretly-funded right-wing think tank, based at 55 Tufton Street alongside the Taxpayers Alliance and others, Not much of a secret if you know it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 Not much of a secret if you know it "secretly-funded" ffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 "secretly-funded" ffs Not a 'secret' if people know about it. ffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 7 November, 2019 Share Posted 7 November, 2019 Not a 'secret' if people know about it. ffs So who provides the funding? That's the secret the phrase implies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 So who provides the funding? That's the secret the phrase implies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding According to a press release on the organization's website, GWPF "is funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."[4] Annual membership contributions are "a minimum of £100".[19] In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions.[20] In response to the accounts, Bob Ward commented that "Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."[20] Similarly, based on membership fees reported for the year ending 31 July 2012, it appears that GWPF had no more than 120 members at that time.[21] So about as secretive as who funds the RNLI or the RSPCA - ffs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 (edited) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation So about as secretive as who funds the RNLI or the RSPCA - ffs! It's interesting that you have deliberately omitted the rest of the 'funding sources' section of their Wiki entry, which paints a very different picture from their launch statement. The GWPF is no more a charity than Eton school is. The only reason it even has charity status is to avoid paying any tax and revealing its sources of funding. They exist solely to spread disinformation about climate science, and were forced to create a completely separate subsidiary - the GWP Forum - following a ruling from the Charity Commission that their work was of a political rather than an educational nature. https://www.desmog.co.uk/global-warming-policy-foundation They have no scientific credibility whatsoever. They are nothing more than a lobby group for powerful interests who want to see environmental regulations slashed. I would seriously recommend to anybody like Scally who wants to do some independent research into climate issues to completely ignore anything they say on the matter. Edited 8 November, 2019 by Sheaf Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 I heard on the radio that we are the only country on earth pledging to be carbon neutral by 2030 im sure that will save the planet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 I heard on the radio that we are the only country on earth pledging to be carbon neutral by 2030 im sure that will save the planet! It’s a start. Or perhaps we should all just do nothing? One day countries will have no choice but to modify their behaviour. In the meantime someone needs to show the way forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 It’s a start. Or perhaps we should all just do nothing? One day countries will have no choice but to modify their behaviour. In the meantime someone needs to show the way forward. it isnt a start. it is irrelevant as we close 6 coal powered stations (or what ever small number it is) whilst China alone has 2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 So best not do anything to try and change things then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 So best not do anything to try and change things then? yes, if it makes a difference to the 'climate emergency'...which it will not and we pay a fortune for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 Don't believe a single word you read printed by the GWPF. It is a secretly-funded right-wing think tank, based at 55 Tufton Street alongside the Taxpayers Alliance and others, founded by Nigel Lawson with the sole purpose of muddying the waters of the climate change debate. It has ZERO credibility. This article is an absurd twisting of the facts of this case which bears no relationship to the truth. https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1164910044414189568?lang=en http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/litigation/michael-mann-v-timothy-tim-ball-the-frontier-centre-for-public-policy-inc-and-john-doe/ I can't believe you linked to Mann's Twitter page to support the fact you think what was said on my link was wrong, go on Google and do a quick search on the case, Mann had to pay court costs and continually delayed producing the data to support how he came up with his hockey stick graph. The guys a fraud and has been called out over and over again. Take a look at this https://victorygirlsblog.com/michael-mann-whines-about-losing-climate-hockey-stick-libel-case/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now