Extinction Rebellion Ireland

I can't even deal with this

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

It's a religion, not a science. Real science is always open to question.

Ok I'll give this a go.

Is that Belgian lad out in Greenland measuring the rate of the ice disappearing part of this religion?

Who exactly is not open to question?

lola85

lola85 wrote: »

Your carbon footprint by using a device hooked up to a broadband provider is off the scale.

So I have to live in a log cabin? It's gotta be all or nothing? Then you'll be complaining about the trees felled for the logs. What's wrong with incremental change

_Brian

Deleted User wrote: »

So I have to live in a log cabin? It's gotta be all or nothing? Then you'll be complaining about the trees felled for the logs. What's wrong with incremental change

ER official spokesmen have said incremental change is no good.
They absolutely want governments to throw modern living under the bus (electric I presume).
They called for governments to initiate policies to drive negative gdp. This would cascade a major worldwide recession and inflict desperate desperate hardships into people, people would loose their jobs, their homes and families.

All this based on the sketchy interpretation of some reports. A pure one sided view.

Literally the cure would be worse than the problem.

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

ER official spokesmen have said incremental change is no good.
They absolutely want governments to throw modern living under the bus (electric I presume).
They called for governments to initiate policies to drive negative gdp. This would cascade a major worldwide recession and inflict desperate desperate hardships into people, people would loose their jobs, their homes and families.

All this based on the sketchy interpretation of some reports. A pure one sided view.

Literally the cure would be worse than the problem.

Fair complaints. I thought people were climate change deniers.

mgn

Great to see everyone is taking climate change seriously.

https://news.sky.com/story/iran-discovers-new-oil-field-that-could-boost-reserves-by-a-third-says-president-rouhani-11858734

_Brian

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair complaints. I thought people were climate change deniers.

From my perspective only a blatant fool would deny climate change, the evidence both scientific and anecdotal is there to be seen.

There are some that are of the opinion that’s it’s a 100% natural phenomenon and we should let it run its course while we continue blindly, I accept they hold that position but actual evidence would point to them being wrong. Changes seem very tightly matched to industrialisation of civilisation.

No matter how small our pet we should take steps to negate it.
Definite incremental movement is a strategy that the population will accept (some begrudgingly) but they will accept.

This fire and brimstone approach suggested by ER is just making any conversation on the topic impossible as it turns people off, and with current short attention spans once you loose someone from a topic they are lost, moved on to funny cat videos or whatever fills the void in their lives.

blueshade

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The boat that they made such a big deal about her travelling to the US on is owned by a lad linked to Formula 1 car racing. Those cars run on fossil fuels to the best of my knowledge.

He's also a Rothschild, a member of the royal family too. St Greta certainly does get about. I doubt travelling the world following F1 is environmentally friendly, the media on a global scale, where very complicit in hiding the fact that a crew had to be flown to America to sail the boat back and the crew that sailed it over with her had to fly home, so basically far more of a carbon footprint than if just she and her father had flown to America. More do as I say not as I do. Haven't heard any criticism from her of China, India or Pakistan, her criticisms don't tend to apply to ethnic minorities, even if they are the biggest polluters on the planet.

20Cent

Can someone explain the conspiracy theory to me?
Thousands of scientists are faking results in order to make everyone think climate change is a big issue so that they can turn the world communist or something. Amirite?

Professor Moriarty

blueshade wrote: »

He's also a Rothschild, a member of the royal family too. St Greta certainly does get about. I doubt travelling the world following F1 is environmentally friendly, the media on a global scale, where very complicit in hiding the fact that a crew had to be flown to America to sail the boat back and the crew that sailed it over with her had to fly home, so basically far more of a carbon footprint than if just she and her father had flown to America. More do as I say not as I do. Haven't heard any criticism from her of China, India or Pakistan, her criticisms don't tend to apply to ethnic minorities, even if they are the biggest polluters on the planet.

Can you explain that please?

Professor Moriarty

20Cent wrote: »

Can someone explain the conspiracy theory to me?
Thousands of scientists are faking results in order to make everyone think climate change is a big issue so that they can turn the world communist or something. Amirite?

Yes, warmunists.

SeanW

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair complaints. I thought people were climate change deniers.

AFAIK there are no "deniers". The term "denier" is most commonly associated with the Holocaust and Holocaust deniers so one should use that particular word carefully. Most people accept that the climate is changing. The questions most skeptics ask though is:

• To what extent is mankind to blame? To what extent would the climate be changing anyway?
• How serious is the problem?
• What level of alarm is required and what measures should be taken to deal with the problem?
• Are there people or entities using the threat of Anthropogenic Climate Change as a pretext for another agenda?

As we've seen on this thread, and indeed in society as a whole, there are most certainly people and groups using ACC as a pretext for the impoverishment of the Irish people or as a pretext for socialism.

Another question that I have that none of the alarmists have answer is this: if the threat of ACC is real and grave, and it is not simply a pretext to hurt people - as I suspect it's being used - is why should major countries not follow France, Sweden and Ontario, Canada in the widespread use of nuclear energy?

By every metric, (CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour, deaths caused to humans per terawatt hour, land usage, use of physical resources (metals etc), capacity factor, reliability) nuclear electricity is as good or better than any other power type including so-called "renewables."

Thusly, if ACC were both a major danger and simply not a pretext for more control over and impoverishment of people, all world Green parties, Greenpeace, AOC, and everyone else in the mainstream environmental movement would be pushing for the broad adoption of nuclear energy on scale not seen before in human history. At least they would be, if they:

1. Were not lying.
2. Were not using ACC as a pretext to a broader agenda.

To be sure, it is possible for two things to be true at one time. That is, it is possible that:

• Anthrophogenic Climate Change is a real problem with grave implications for all life on Earth. As such, very extreme measures are genuinely necessary to counteract it.
• Alexandra Occasional Cortex, Greenpeace, world Green Parties, some posters on this thread (the mainstream environmental movement) are using the threat of ACC as a cudgel to push their own agendas.

Thusly, if you want me to take your climate crusade seriously, you need to prove to me that not only is the threat real, but that you and the broader environmental movement are not using it as pretext to push an agenda. Step one in that would be for all of the world's main environmental organisations to stop lying about nuclear power. Then, and only then, will I consider becoming a vegan, stop driving, move into a yurt, never fly again etc, etc. Until I'm satisfied this is not a pretext, I don't care what you want from me.

20Cent

SeanW wrote: »

AFAIK there are no "deniers". The term "denier" is most commonly associated with the Holocaust and Holocaust deniers so one should use that particular word carefully. Most people accept that the climate is changing. The questions most skeptics ask though is:

• To what extent is mankind to blame? To what extent would the climate be changing anyway?
• How serious is the problem?
• What level of alarm is required and what measures should be taken to deal with the problem?
• Are there people or entities using the threat of Anthropogenic Climate Change as a pretext for another agenda?

As we've seen on this thread, and indeed in society as a whole, there are most certainly people and groups using ACC as a pretext for the impoverishment of the Irish people or as a pretext for socialism.

Another question that I have that none of the alarmists have answer is this: if the threat of ACC is real and grave, and it is not simply a pretext to hurt people - as I suspect it's being used - is why should major countries not follow France, Sweden and Ontario, Canada in the widespread use of nuclear energy?

By every metric, (CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour, deaths caused to humans per terawatt hour, land usage, use of physical resources (metals etc), capacity factor, reliability) nuclear electricity is as good or better than any other power type including so-called "renewables."

Thusly, if ACC were both a major danger and simply not a pretext for more control over and impoverishment of people, all world Green parties, Greenpeace, AOC, and everyone else in the mainstream environmental movement would be pushing for the broad adoption of nuclear energy on scale not seen before in human history. At least they would be, if they:

1. Were not lying.
2. Were not using ACC as a pretext to a broader agenda.

To be sure, it is possible for two things to be true at one time. That is, it is possible that:

• Anthrophogenic Climate Change is a real problem with grave implications for all life on Earth. As such, very extreme measures are genuinely necessary to counteract it.
• Alexandra Occasional Cortex, Greenpeace, world Green Parties, some posters on this thread (the mainstream environmental movement) are using the threat of ACC as a cudgel to push their own agendas.

Thusly, if you want me to take your climate crusade seriously, you need to prove to me that not only is the threat real, but that you and the broader environmental movement are not using it as pretext to push an agenda. Step one in that would be for all of the world's main environmental organisations to stop lying about nuclear power. Then, and only then, will I consider becoming a vegan, stop driving, move into a yurt, never fly again etc, etc. Until I'm satisfied this is not a pretext, I don't care what you want from me.

Nuclear waste has to be stored for tens of thousands of years.
Nuclear power plants are more expensive to run than renewable energy methods.

c.p.w.g.w

SeanW wrote: »

AFAIK there are no "deniers". The term "denier" is most commonly associated with the Holocaust and Holocaust deniers so one should use that particular word carefully. Most people accept that the climate is changing. The questions most skeptics ask though is:

• To what extent is mankind to blame? To what extent would the climate be changing anyway?
• How serious is the problem?
• What level of alarm is required and what measures should be taken to deal with the problem?
• Are there people or entities using the threat of Anthropogenic Climate Change as a pretext for another agenda?

As we've seen on this thread, and indeed in society as a whole, there are most certainly people and groups using ACC as a pretext for the impoverishment of the Irish people or as a pretext for socialism.

Another question that I have that none of the alarmists have answer is this: if the threat of ACC is real and grave, and it is not simply a pretext to hurt people - as I suspect it's being used - is why should major countries not follow France, Sweden and Ontario, Canada in the widespread use of nuclear energy?

By every metric, (CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour, deaths caused to humans per terawatt hour, land usage, use of physical resources (metals etc), capacity factor, reliability) nuclear electricity is as good or better than any other power type including so-called "renewables."

Thusly, if ACC were both a major danger and simply not a pretext for more control over and impoverishment of people, all world Green parties, Greenpeace, AOC, and everyone else in the mainstream environmental movement would be pushing for the broad adoption of nuclear energy on scale not seen before in human history. At least they would be, if they:

1. Were not lying.
2. Were not using ACC as a pretext to a broader agenda.

To be sure, it is possible for two things to be true at one time. That is, it is possible that:

• Anthrophogenic Climate Change is a real problem with grave implications for all life on Earth. As such, very extreme measures are genuinely necessary to counteract it.
• Alexandra Occasional Cortex, Greenpeace, world Green Parties, some posters on this thread (the mainstream environmental movement) are using the threat of ACC as a cudgel to push their own agendas.

Thusly, if you want me to take your climate crusade seriously, you need to prove to me that not only is the threat real, but that you and the broader environmental movement are not using it as pretext to push an agenda. Step one in that would be for all of the world's main environmental organisations to stop lying about nuclear power. Then, and only then, will I consider becoming a vegan, stop driving, move into a yurt, never fly again etc, etc. Until I'm satisfied this is not a pretext, I don't care what you want from me.

The complete opposition to Nuclear is bizarre as its the only way to met current energy demands and when done correctly low impact re: environment

20Cent

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The complete opposition to Nuclear is bizarre as its the only way to met current energy demands and when done correctly low impact re: environment

Why?
It is massively expensive, creates waste that has to be managed for tens of thousands of years. Very inefficient, dirty, expensive and potentially dangerous.

c.p.w.g.w

20Cent wrote: »

Why?
It is massively expensive, creates waste that has to be managed for tens of thousands of years. Very inefficient, dirty, expensive and potentially dangerous.

The set up is the most expensive, once its set up the energy it produces can be ridiculous. And when properly done, its very low impact on the environment

SeanW

20Cent wrote: »

Nuclear waste has to be stored for tens of thousands of years.
Nuclear power plants are more expensive to run than renewable energy methods.

Your ridiculous non-analysis just proved everything I've been saying. Thanks :rolleyes:

While it is true that nuclear energy produces waste, it is also true that ALL forms of power generation incur some kind of waste or another. Thermal power types (coal, peat, gas, oil) simply dump their wastes (including CO2) into the air. Renewables generate enormous amounts of e-waste from fiberglass on wind turbine blades to the toxic heavy metals used to make solar panels. (Environmental Progress found that toxic waste per kwh of solar power is 300 times more voluminous than to generate the same kwh from a nuclear reactor).

Land requirements are also much worse. To generate power from a nuclear power station, you need land for the power station (which is tiny relative to the amount of power produced) processing facilities and the uranium mine/harvesting operation. By contrast, to get a similar amount of power from windmills or solar panels you have carpet bomb a much larger area with the damn things. You can argue that this makes sense for rooftop solar, as the roof space would be "wasted" otherwise, but I find that argument very weak when it comes to carpet bombing scenic mountaintops and seasides with windmills. Then there is also the requirement to build large amounts of new electric grid, because the renewable installations often have to be placed in very remote areas. Again, this wastes money and natural resources, again, it is ridiculously and needlessly destructive. This is of course before you consider bird and bat kills from renewable power installations. Bird and bat kills occur in a few different ways:

1. Large soaring birds such as eagles are often hit and killed by wind turbine blades. You cannot kill large birds like that in large numbers without endangering the species because they have long breeding cycles relative to smaller birds, e.g. robins, sparrows, crows etc.
2. Bats often mistake wind mills for potential roosting sites, this kills them en-masse in one of two ways: 1) by direct strike of a turbine blade. 2) by barotrauma. The way windmills mess up air flow currents and pressure in their immediate vicinity that a key organ in a bats body explodes. This in turn can happen in two areas: one - lungs, the bats lungs explode and the bat dies immediately. two - the bats eardrums explode, these provide the bat with radar so that it can "see" without it's ears, it flies around blind for a while and then dies. Windmills now kill more bats than White Nose Syndrome, itself an extinction level threat. Note that it is not necessary for a bat to fly into a wind mill to be killed by barotrauma, only to get close to it. Given that bats are a major ally of humans in the area of pest control (bats eat enormous amounts of insects) it doesn't take a genius to wonder if allowing this is not a good idea.
3. In solar power installations that are not photovaltaic, e.g. the mirror and tower setup, the mirrors super-heat the air between the mirrors and the water tower. If a bird flies into that space, it gets cooked and dies.

Windmills also cause local climate change by sapping the winds in their area, and are subject to the law of diminishing returns.

Renewable power is literally as reliable as the weather, nuclear is dispatchable though normally best suited to baseload supply. So in addition to being ugly, expensive, environmentally destructive, counter-productive and pointless, renewables serve only a limited function in actually reducing carbon emissions. Which is the number one reason (if ACC alarmism is correct) that they should not be used.

For proof, just look at https://www.electricitymap.org/ and compare places like Ontario, France and Sweden with more "woke" places like Ireland and Germany. Remember that Ireland has had people like you setting the energy agenda since the Carnsore Point protests of '78, the results are obvious: more CO2 emissions than necessary. The same is true in Germany where the Energiewende has been around in some form or another since 1980.

There are two ways to effectively remove (e.g. 50g/kwh or less) CO2 from a nations electricity generation system. Those are hydro and nuclear.

Of course, the most common argument against nuclear is often simply "Cher-NO-byl" which seems to make sense until you realise that the Chernobyl-4 reactor was a type so dangerous it never would have been permitted to be used outside the former Soviet Union. And that having designed a dangerous POS (which the RMBK reactor design was) they then proceeded to build and run it the way you would expect Soviet Bolsheviks to build and run anything, that is, awfully badly and with a process marred by corruption, carelessness and incompetence at every stage.

On the basis of what I have seen and researched, I am satisfied that the objections to nuclear energy are ideologically, rather than factually based and that has not changed. Therefore, I expect ACC alarmists to make ideological sacrifices before turning to the people and saying "you must sacrifice X, Y and Z."

beejee

All the pictures and selfies and Internet use burning gigawatts of energy to end up going nowhere and achieving nothing.

Zero impact outside of a pretend feeling of being a useful mammal.

high_king

20Cent wrote: »

Can someone explain the conspiracy theory to me?
Thousands of scientists are faking results in order to make everyone think climate change is a big issue so that they can turn the world communist or something. Amirite?

looks more like typically pretending what the argument is because you can't refute the actual one.

c.p.w.g.w

@seanw hydro has its negatives to with regards the rivers natural stages, something what happens is the river stages restart after the dam.

The water down river can have lower oxygen levels affecting fish & vegetation.

Can also affect the natural areas for sedaiment deposits, which causes areas to flood that never historically flood.

We need to start incentivising population control in places like Africa, India & China.

Maybe pay poor people to get steralized, and give them an allowance for life. Would certainly help bring large chunks of adults out of poverty. And bring the world wide population down.

We are struggling to feed people in these countries as it is, and water will soon become an issue for the whole Indian subcontinent in the next few years.

20Cent

high_king wrote: »

looks more like typically pretending what the argument is because you can't refute the actual one.

People are claiming it's all a hoax to turn the world socialist or something. This hoax would involve thousands of people cooperating with each other. Not very likely.

Dr. Bre

20Cent wrote: »

People are claiming it's all a hoax to turn the world socialist or something. This hoax would involve thousands of people cooperating with each other. Not very likely.

More likely to get more money out of people- climate hysteria

20Cent

Dr. Bre wrote: »

More likely to get more money out of people- climate hysteria

Massive, if true.

blinding

Dr. Bre wrote: »

More likely to get more money out of people- climate hysteria

This is why it is so Popular with Politicians .TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX .

Thats why Politicians are always so happy discussing ‘ The End of the Planet “


Its a free License to Tax . No Politician is going to turn down a Free License to Tax .

cnocbui

20Cent wrote: »

People are claiming it's all a hoax to turn the world socialist or something. This hoax would involve thousands of people cooperating with each other. Not very likely.

No, it only involves people believing that a falsehood is true because of the perceived credibility of the message.

If you were a Physicist in 1900, you would have believed Newton's theory of gravity was correct, along with every other physicist on the Planet.

If you went to a doctor in 1980 with a recurring pain in your stomach, and he told you you had an ulcer and that it was caused by stomach acid, you probably would have believed him, even though he was actually completely wrong. Even after he and every other doctor and gastroenterologist on the planet had been proved wrong, there were still doctors, particularly in the US, who didn't believe they were wrong and continued to treat ulcers with Tagamet, instead of antibiotics.

You know that list of over 11,000 scientists declaring a climate emergency? It was signed by Mickey Mouse, Albus Dumbledore and others. Good to know they are also concerned.

Wanderer78

cnocbui wrote:

No, it only involves people believing that a falsehood is true because of the perceived credibility of the message.

Of course elements of our understanding of climate science is wrong, but we don't know that yet, but I think people that deny are extra special

cnocbui

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Of course elements of our understanding of climate science is wrong, but we don't know that yet, but I think people that deny are extra special

I'm a sceptic, which means I allow for the idea I may be wrong.

I'm glad you use the term denier, it just confirms that your belief and approach is religious in nature.

Wanderer78

cnocbui wrote: »

I'm a sceptic, which means I allow for the idea I may be wrong.

I'm glad you use the term denier, it just confirms that your belief and approach is religious in nature.

no its not, ive been lucky enough to study under some of irelands top academics on the matter, and ive educated myself well enough outside of academia, and have come to the conclusion, we really are fcuking the planet up, im also agnostic, so religion has played no part in my understanding of this matter

cnocbui

Wanderer78 wrote: »

no its not, ive been lucky enough to study under some of irelands top academics on the matter, and ive educated myself well enough outside of academia, and have come to the conclusion, we really are fcuking the planet up, im also agnostic, so religion has played no part in my understanding of this matter

Ok, then you will be able to tell me which weather models fully account for water vapour - by a huge amount, the most potent greenhouse gas - in their computations?

I'd also like to know the accepted mechanism by which atmospheric CO2, causes warming of the planet prior to the increase of said CO2 in the atmosphere - as is shown happens by ice core data?

Jimmy Garlic

20Cent wrote: »

Why?
It is massively expensive, creates waste that has to be managed for tens of thousands of years. Very inefficient, dirty, expensive and potentially dangerous.

Your view of nuclear is stuck in the 1950s like your uncle Joe. Thorium salt reactors for example are light years ahead of wind farms that have twenty year lifespans and need thousands of tons of concrete and thousands of acres dug up to accommodate them. The Greens and other communists masquerading as enviromentalists want energy poverty, not security. That's the only way they can have their socialist control grid, by inpoverishing most people. Check out Saoirse McHughs piece in the journal today, Marx would be proud.