Extinction Rebellion founder blasted after 11,000-mile flight to Central America for luxury break away.

[Paul Hurdsfield - Joint Manchester AO]

Regarding the tube station incident, can they not see the irony in what they did.

We are constantly being told by 'experts' that we need to use electricity to power our transport.

So what do they do? they make thousands of people late for work, people that are using electric powered trains to get to work  well done that guy for dragging one of the protesters off the roof, and well done to the guys that gave him a good kicking  not that i condone violence in any way shape or form of course. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alan France]

20 hours ago, Chris Brading said:

I was thinking of starting a new group.

The Extinction Rebellion Extinction Group

Can I join before it becomes extinct?

[Chris Brading]

On ‎22‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 22:55, SootySport said:

There is scientific proof that the Earths average temperature is increasing and that’s been measured for the last 200 years. 

The reasons are due to Human activity and the natural cycle of Earths climate.   How much change is due to humans is debatable but we don’t want to get to the point where the Human effect on temperature is irreversible.  

Its not just the ER people that have this view,  noted climatologists have the same view.

 

I don't agree with this, look up global cooling, from 1920 to 1990 we worried about entering another ice age, that's 70 years of global paranoia!  1990 to 2000 no global paranoia! all good nothing to worry about for 10 years. 

2000 to present day, global warming ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! were all going to die!!!  that's only 19 years of global paranoia!

The planet is 4.5 billion years old any data we measure over 100 years is not relevant.

 

[Lyonspride]

On 23/10/2019 at 16:17, Paul Hurdsfield said:

Regarding the tube station incident, can they not see the irony in what they did.

We are constantly being told by 'experts' that we need to use electricity to power our transport.

So what do they do? they make thousands of people late for work, people that are using electric powered trains to get to work  well done that guy for dragging one of the protesters off the roof, and well done to the guys that gave him a good kicking  not that i condone violence in any way shape or form of course. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a bunch of posh kids, who don't work, don't have to work and want to cause maximum agro to people they deem to be of a lower social class.

[Blatman]

I was musing on this recently and I had a thought. This is dangerous territory I know, but I will press on...

Major cities, London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool etc etc are where we find the worst pollution, (and for us drivers, the worst congestion on the roads and for public transport users standing room only on the bus/tube/tram) I think we can all agree. Large cities are also where we find the best/fastest/most reliable internet connections, yes?

So change the law. Anyone who is able to work effectively from home should be allowed so to do without fear of reprisal from the boss. Start removing large swathes of workers from city centres and along with them goes pollution, congestion, RTA's etc etc. Now clearly there are some jobs where attendance is non-optional but even some of those can be reduced if there are less people to "service". And that's the downside. TfL would suffer as would many public transport franchises. Many fewer people paying congestion charges and parking fees. Support services like cafe's/bars/restaurants and in fact most retail is likely to suffer. And there's more. What if a building that housed (lets say) 200 staff now only needs to house 100? Office space goes un-used and unpaid for. Rent and rates income will fall and may never recover. We'd be on a downward spiral. Cars get used less so less fuel is used which means less fuel tax revenue for the government BUT more money in OUR pockets. Great! Less mileage on cars means they get serviced less frequently. Bicycles can be used for fun instead of alleviating guilt!. I could go on...

But lets really think about it. How many people, given excellent home internet connections, really actually NEED to sit at a desk when most of the time we email the geezer/bird/non-binary person who sits next to us anyway? It's ridiculous. So I say make working from home compulsory for anyone who can. Trouble is it would be a climatic success but an economic disaster.

Discuss...  

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

I'm easily distracted...  

[stephenh]

On 23/10/2019 at 12:05, Man On The Clapham Omnibus said:

Corbyn the Elder runs Weather Action which is a site that argues against CO2 being an effective greenhouse gas - among other arguments. I must admit that the thought of an atmospheric level of 0.04% of a gas being 'dangerous' to the climate when 0.03% (the pre-industrial level) was not is counter-intuitive. This is especially true when anyone can observe that a cloudy winter's night is usually frost free while a clear one is usually frosty and there has been no change in atmospheric CO2 between the two nights. Water vapour (i..e.cloud cover) is demonstrably an effective heat blanket whereas CO2 (a gas necessary to plant life incientally) in trace quantities doesn't seem very likely to be. Of course if your underlying agenda is political it's easier to legislate against carbon dioxide than clouds!

 

If there is doubt, any doubt at all, as to whether CO2 really is behind the very small rise in global temperatures (if any) then surely it is unwise to splash billions of dollars around in some Quixotic belief that mankind can somehow resist the unstoppable forces of nature? Better by far to work on adaption to a one or two degree rise. Is it really credible that such a minute rise would wreak the havoc that XR would have us believe anyway? Sceptical? Moi? Mais oui! 

Well there may not be a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere in percentage terms, but an increase from 0.03 to 0.04 is by my reckoning an increase in the order of one third, which is very significant. 

Now we might be concerned by what Paul Homewood says about climate change......except that he is a retired accountant. I think I'd rather listen to the vast majority of climate scientists, who at least have some academic knowledge on the subject.

Venus has much more CO2 in its atmosphere, and my recollection is that the surface temperature on Venus is in the order of 800 degrees centigrade, which would make the Sahara seem positively icy in comparison.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

Venus is a heck of a lot closer to the sun than Earth! This fellow seems to think that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas on Venus anyway. My knowledge and attention span do not lie comfortably with this sort of reading, sadly.

[DonPeffers]

On 04/11/2019 at 23:07, Blatman said:

I was musing on this recently and I had a thought. This is dangerous territory I know, but I will press on...

Major cities, London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool etc etc are where we find the worst pollution, (and for us drivers, the worst congestion on the roads and for public transport users standing room only on the bus/tube/tram) I think we can all agree. Large cities are also where we find the best/fastest/most reliable internet connections, yes?

So change the law. Anyone who is able to work effectively from home should be allowed so to do without fear of reprisal from the boss. Start removing large swathes of workers from city centres and along with them goes pollution, congestion, RTA's etc etc. Now clearly there are some jobs where attendance is non-optional but even some of those can be reduced if there are less people to "service". And that's the downside. TfL would suffer as would many public transport franchises. Many fewer people paying congestion charges and parking fees. Support services like cafe's/bars/restaurants and in fact most retail is likely to suffer. And there's more. What if a building that housed (lets say) 200 staff now only needs to house 100? Office space goes un-used and unpaid for. Rent and rates income will fall and may never recover. We'd be on a downward spiral. Cars get used less so less fuel is used which means less fuel tax revenue for the government BUT more money in OUR pockets. Great! Less mileage on cars means they get serviced less frequently. Bicycles can be used for fun instead of alleviating guilt!. I could go on...

But lets really think about it. How many people, given excellent home internet connections, really actually NEED to sit at a desk when most of the time we email the geezer/bird/non-binary person who sits next to us anyway? It's ridiculous. So I say make working from home compulsory for anyone who can. Trouble is it would be a climatic success but an economic disaster.

Discuss...  

 

I heard a story (possibly fake news) that a young Swedish lass had floated on Kate Winslet's Titanic door all the way from Sweden to Chile for a climate conference only to find it had been relocated to Spain after rioting.

 

She might be wishing she'd worked from home by video conferencing.