Extinction Rebellion Ireland

Jimmy_oc1998 · 24-04-2019 3:15pm

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

The cult exploitation of the vulnerable took another step when Miss Trunburg was chosen to be exploited to promote their doomsday dogma. I really feel sorry for the autistic young Swedish woman who is clearly being used. It is obvious that she has become consumed by fear, the fear of doomsday generated by the cult. The vacant thousand yard stare, the scripted monotone responces, etc .

She was exploited by her greedy parents who want to make money and to give their autistic kid a feeling of being important.

Al Gore has been on about climate change for decades and no one listens yet this 16 year old autist comes along and everyone is bunking off school and work to protest in the streets.

I saw a video a friend on fb shared last week of her speaking in the European Parliament I think it was. A very very creepy video! A young 16 year old autisitic kid crying about forests being cut down etc. Then everyone stands up to applaud her at the end.

The whole thing felt like a pat on the head. It's like as a kid your granddad would say you're a great fella for sweeping up leaves or something.

s7ryf3925pivug · 24-04-2019 3:40pm

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote: »

All these grants etc. people list to claim the government have given incentives are no use.

People still have to spend thousands of euro of their own money.

Why should I have to spend 10 thousand on upgrading my heating system when I'm happy spending 300 euro a year burning turf?

Turf has the immediate effect of emitting high levels of pm2.5. These have an awful effect on health and especially child development.

Otherwise you have a point. The cost of a heat pump based system in an older house is prohibitive for most people. The deep retrofit grant application is onerous and slow.

A condensing gas boiler is far better than turf though, and not excessively expensive. Most fireplaces and stoves are **** and produce loads of pm2.5.

s7ryf3925pivug · 24-04-2019 3:48pm

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote: »

She was exploited by her greedy parents who want to make money and to give their autistic kid a feeling of being important.

Al Gore has been on about climate change for decades and no one listens yet this 16 year old autist comes along and everyone is bunking off school and work to protest in the streets.

I saw a video a friend on fb shared last week of her speaking in the European Parliament I think it was. A very very creepy video! A young 16 year old autisitic kid crying about forests being cut down etc. Then everyone stands up to applaud her at the end.

The whole thing felt like a pat on the head. It's like as a kid your granddad would say you're a great fella for sweeping up leaves or something.

Autism is not relevant.

She represents our children who are the ones who are going to be worst affected. Al Gore represents the aloof elite and has questionable sincerity... One is a lecture from a bit of a git. The other is a plea from someone vulnerable who will be badly harmed.

Grayson · 24-04-2019 3:51pm

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

The cult exploitation of the vulnerable took another step when Miss Trunburg was chosen to be exploited to promote their doomsday dogma. I really feel sorry for the autistic young Swedish woman who is clearly being used. It is obvious that she has become consumed by fear, the fear of doomsday generated by the cult. The vacant thousand yard stare, the scripted monotone responces, etc .

Actually, you're the person using her autism. You're using as a reason to discredit what she says and her motivations.

people who have ASD are perfectly capable of making decisions by themselves. ASD does not mean that she's helpless, or gullible or incapable of controlling her own decisions.

All you're doing is taking the fact that she is ASD to make it appear that she lacks the faculties. It's an ad hominem pure and simple.

I would suggest that you do some research about ASD before you go slurring people with it.

gozunda · 24-04-2019 4:28pm

Daxton Scrawny Plow wrote: »

Autism is not relevant.

She represents our children who are the ones who are going to be worst affected. Al Gore represents the aloof elite and has questionable sincerity... One is a lecture from a bit of a git. The other is a plea from someone vulnerable who will be badly harmed.

The other point here is that she cites Al Gore as one of her environmental heroes and an major influence to her beliefs. Considering Gores investments in such things as the ethically dubious 'finance' company such as M-Kopra which floggs finance plans in various African countries. These finance plans are provided to encourage poor Kenyans and others to buy cheaply produced Chinesse 'green' products from the same company.

tylercheribini · 24-04-2019 4:30pm

I videoed the full event there if anyone is interested, link below:

https://youtu.be/ceyAYEItEMA

gozunda · 24-04-2019 5:09pm

Grayson wrote: »

Actually, you're the person using her autism. You're using as a reason to discredit what she says and her motivations. people who have ASD are perfectly capable of making decisions by themselves. ASD does not mean that she's helpless, or gullible or incapable of controlling her own decisions. All you're doing is taking the fact that she is ASD to make it appear that she lacks the faculties. It's an ad hominem pure and simple.

I would suggest that you do some research about ASD before you go slurring people with it.

The poster is not "slurring people" (sic). As detailed above Greta Thungberg has frequently talked about how Autism (Aspergers) and OCD has impacted her thinking. I would suggest you also do some research.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057973897/6/#post109998180

Grayson · 24-04-2019 5:17pm

gozunda wrote: »

The poster is not "slurring people" (sic). As I detailed above Greta Thungberg has frequently talked about how Autism (Aspergers) and OCD has impacted her thinking. I would suggest you also do some research.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057973897/6/#post109998180

Vacant thousand yard stare? That was a direct dig at her asd.

Dakota Dan · 24-04-2019 5:19pm

Daxton Scrawny Plow wrote: »

Autism is not relevant.

She represents our children who are the ones who are going to be worst affected. Al Gore represents the aloof elite and has questionable sincerity... One is a lecture from a bit of a git. The other is a plea from someone vulnerable who will be badly harmed.

Here’s the reason that convinced her, pictures of starving polar bears that her teacher showed her when she was 8. She’s losing her credibility fast. Talking on empty rooms that supposedly ate full of world leaders Evan Theresa May even refused to meet her.

https://mobile.twitter.com/tan123/status/1120669325260668928

s7ryf3925pivug · 24-04-2019 5:25pm

gozunda wrote: »

I detailed in a previous post how she herself says her condition is relevant tbh. She has apparently been raised on a diet of various doomsday scenario type environmentalism which appears to have had a serious impact on her health. There is also a significant difference in being a child and been representative of all children.

The other point here is that she has cited Al Gore as one of her environmental heroes and an major influence to her beliefs. Considering Gore's investment in such things as the ethically dubious 'finance' company such as M-Kopra which floggs finance plans in various African countries. These finance plans are provided to encourage poor Kenyans and others to buy mass produced Chinesse 'green' products from the same company.

From this we now have people within the extiction rebellion movement citing her as an influence on their thinking. And some wonder why others are sceptical?

It's not beliefs. It's logical conclusions based on observed reality. That's the core point. Doesn't matter what you think of anyone who talks about it.

As such I won't ask what the m-kopra thing is about, though I did Google and find nothing apart from this very thread.

gozunda · 24-04-2019 5:57pm

Daxton Scrawny Plow wrote: »

It's not beliefs. It's logical conclusions based on observed reality. That's the core point. Doesn't matter what you think of anyone who talks about it.As such I won't ask what the m-kopra thing is about, though I did Google and find nothing apart from this very thread.

She details how her beliefs have been influenced by others including Al Gore. Funnily enough we can all come to "logical conclusions based on observed reality". (sic). However your reality and mine or anyone elses are not going to be the same. Those setting her up as some kind of savant is not particularly helpful tbh.

As for M-Kopa - I've already provided a link detailing an article done by Bloomberg etc. There has also been several other reviews of the company out there.

gozunda · 24-04-2019 6:01pm

Grayson wrote: »

Vacant thousand yard stare? That was a direct dig at her asd.

Not my quote however I believe the poster was describing what her giving a speech on the video he watched. An observation rather than having a 'dig' imo.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 24-04-2019 6:27pm

gozunda wrote: »

I detailed in a previous post how she herself says her condition is relevant tbh. She has apparently been raised on a diet of various doomsday scenario type environmentalism which appears to have had a serious impact on her health. There is also a significant difference in being a child and been representative of all children.

The other point here is that she has cited Al Gore as one of her environmental heroes and an major influence to her beliefs. Considering Gore's investment in such things as the ethically dubious 'finance' company such as M-Kopa which floggs finance plans in various African countries. These finance plans are provided to encourage poor Kenyans and others to buy mass produced Chinesse 'green' products from the same company.

In short they power people’s homes with solar. Is there a breitbart or other place where you are getting this ill formed nonsense.

From this we now have people within the extiction rebellion movement citing her as an influence on their thinking. And some wonder why others are sceptical?

I’d say you started off sceptical.

Akrasia · 24-04-2019 6:34pm

gozunda wrote: »

It is also important to ask what behaviour 'needs' to be changed and who is seeking this change. Direct health issues such as smoking are not comparable to altering someones right to provide and protect for their family which is what the previous poster referred to.

The behaviour that needs changing is excessive use of CO2 polluting energy sources, and failure to do so will result in harm to your family in the not so distant future. Climate change is already having an impact, if it gets beyond 2 degrees C, the scientific consensus is that this will impose serious risks to the health and safety of you and your family in the decades to come.

Again that is postulation. 'Could / might / may' is not scientific fact. It's little more than scaremongering at this point in time. We could all be wiped out by influenza next winter.

Scientific predictions always refer to probabilities rather than absolute certainties. When the predictions have a high enough confidence attached to them then they should be acted on. In the case of climate change, there certainly are uncertainties, but this is not a good thing. Things might not be as bad as predicted by the likes of the IPCC, but things could also be much worse. We do not know for sure how quickly some of the most dangerous tipping points will be reached.

If there was even a 10% chance that there was a virulent strain of influenza that had the potential to 'wipe us all out' then you can be sure that there would be global action to prevent it from spreading and to isolate the source and develop vaccinations against it. We can only act based on the best available information. We have more than enough evidence to compel us to act on climate change.

*
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1092514/disease-x-virus-spanish-flu-what-is-it

*Please note the choice of publication is deliberate ...

You deliberately chose a publication that constantly exaggerates the impact of almost everything it reports on. What does that have to do with climate change and the likes of the IPCC or the WMO or the various national Acadamies of sciences, or the foremost scientific experts in their fields who all warn that climate change poses very severe risks and must be contained to as close to 1.5c above pre-industrial temperatures as possible?

gozunda · 24-04-2019 6:40pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

In short they power people’s homes with solar. Is there a breitbart or other place where you are getting this ill formed nonsense. I’d say you started off sceptical.

Yeah you've posted something similar previously. You've still got it wrong.

In short they flog finance plans to poor Africans to buy their mass produced Chinesse products including solar arrays and televisions. I first learned about this from a group who works with a NGO in Kenya. They were less than enthusiastic regarding the operation. Perhaps a little more research might lead to be a bit more open mindedess and less bias? .

"Scepticism is as much the result of knowledge, as knowledge is of scepticism"

Why the need to get personal with the comments btw?

Akrasia · 24-04-2019 6:41pm

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote: »

All these grants etc. people list to claim the government have given incentives are no use.

People still have to spend thousands of euro of their own money.

Why should I have to spend 10 thousand on upgrading my heating system when I'm happy spending 300 euro a year burning turf?

You've just made an argument for a tax on harvesting turf.

Turf burning has a very high environmental impact and very low heating efficiency, it pollutes the air with damaging particulates which cause serious health impacts on your neighbours (especially if you live in a built up area) and if you burn it in an open fire, it has negative health effects on you and your family.

Or to put it another way, if the EPA allowed a waste to energy incinerator a few miles upwind of your house, you might object to it because of the potential air pollution, but the smoke that comes from that incinerator is likely to be less harmful to your health than the smoke coming from your own fireplace and chimney

gozunda · 24-04-2019 7:15pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The behaviour that needs changing is excessive use of CO2 polluting energy sources, and failure to do so will result in harm to your family in the not so distant future. Climate change is already having an impact, if it gets beyond 2 degrees C, the scientific consensus is that this will impose serious risks to the health and safety of you and your family in the decades to come.

Sigh. Again that's nothing to do with the point the previous posting was making. But whatever you're having yourself.

Akrasia wrote: »

Scientific predictions always refer to probabilities rather than absolute certainties. When the predictions have a high enough confidence attached to them then they should be acted on. In the case of climate change, there certainly are uncertainties, but this is not a good thing. Things might not be as bad as predicted by the likes of the IPCC, but things could also be much worse. We do not know for sure how quickly some of the most dangerous tipping points will be reached.

Is that a lecture on probability theory? If you read what was written - you will note that I referred to various fictional doomsday scenarios that have little if anything to do with research on climate change. Most of these apocalyptic imaginations appear to have been arrived at after adding 2 plus 2 and getting 76 and three quarters.

Akrasia wrote: »

If there was even a 10% chance that there was a virulent strain of influenza that had the potential to 'wipe us all out' then you can be sure that there would be global action to prevent it from spreading and to isolate the source and develop vaccinations against it. We can only act based on the best available information. We have more than enough evidence to compel us to act on climate change.

I was of course referring to the to the 'might / may / could' theorists who appear to base future doomsday scenarios on absolute sensationalism. However that appeared to go straight over your head for some reason...

You deliberately chose a publication that constantly exaggerates the impact of almost everything it reports on. What does that have to do with climate change and the likes of the IPCC or the WMO or the various national Acadamies of sciences, or the foremost scientific experts in their fields who all warn that climate change poses very severe risks and must be contained to as close to 1.5c above pre-industrial temperatures as possible?

I deliberatly chose that publication as a given example of the type of sensationalism similar to that exhibited by some in this movement and apparently taken as a given by many of the extinction rebellion protesters.

Akrasia · 24-04-2019 9:47pm

I don't know why you keep referring to fraudulant and over hyped scare stories that were fabricated in the media. We're talking about Climate change here. Climate change is real and the urgency to act immediately is also real. The kinds of 'alarmism' you and others talk about is justified with reference to the scientific literature. One of the best science journals in the world PNAS published a paper in August last year that had this as part of its conclusion

Our analysis suggests that the Earth System may be approaching a planetary threshold that could lock in a continuing rapid pathway toward much hotter conditions—Hothouse Earth. This pathway would be propelled by strong, intrinsic, biogeophysical feedbacks difficult to influence by human actions, a pathway that could not be reversed, steered, or substantially slowed.

Where such a threshold might be is uncertain, but it could be only decades ahead at a temperature rise of ∼2.0 °C above preindustrial, and thus, it could be within the range of the Paris Accord temperature targets.

The impacts of a Hothouse Earth pathway on human societies would likely be massive, sometimes abrupt, and undoubtedly disruptive.

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

they go on to list the compelling reasons to believe that we may be approaching a tipping point, although we can not be sure exactly where the threshold is, it could be within a couple of decades if we continue on our current emissions pathway

The 'Alarmists' can base their view on an accurate account of perfectly respectable scientific studies, which is what makes them a lot more credible than the likes of the Express or other sensationalist media outlets.

gozunda · 24-04-2019 11:32pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't know why you keep referring to fraudulant and over hyped scare stories that were fabricated in the media. We're talking about Climate change here. Climate change is real and the urgency to act immediately is also real. The kinds of 'alarmism' you and others talk about is justified with reference to the scientific literature. One of the best science journals in the world PNAS published a paper in August last year that had this as part of its conclusion

No we're not. We are talking about shrills and ideologues riding on the back of 'climate change' and that which was the topic of my post. Gerit? What is being pushed is doomsday sensationalism which has bugger all got to do with peer reviewed scientific research.

Akrasia wrote: »

they go on to list the compelling reasons to believe that we may be approaching a tipping point, although we can not be sure exactly where the threshold is, it could be within a couple of decades if we continue on our current emissions pathway

As above. Ditto.

Akrasia wrote: »

The 'Alarmists' can base their view on an accurate account of perfectly respectable scientific studies, which is what makes them a lot more credible than the likes of the Express or other sensationalist media outlets.

The 'alarmists' are exactly that - alarmists. Again the story from the Express is exactly like the type of hyperbole being promoted and pushed by various vested interests.

Jimmy Garlic · 25-04-2019 3:05am

Akrasia wrote: »

The behaviour that needs changing is excessive use of CO2 polluting energy sources, and failure to do so will result in harm to your family in the not so distant future. Climate change is already having an impact, if it gets beyond 2 degrees C, the scientific consensus is that this will impose serious risks to the health and safety of you and your family in the decades to come.

According to Al Gore the ice caps should have melted five years ago. Still there.

Jimmy Garlic · 25-04-2019 3:09am

Akrasia wrote: »

We're talking about Climate change here. Climate change is real and the urgency to act immediately is also real..

There is an urgency to tax and or increase taxes immediately. Full stop. Fur coats and crowns for the officialdom dealing with it and friends.

s7ryf3925pivug · 25-04-2019 4:19am

biolpg looks like it might be the best option if not on natural gas network and not able to afford a heat pump setup. (Dont know how its footprint compares with natural gas, but gas is less than half the cost and way more convenient so it's the default option where available.)

Domestic heating is a huge contributor. Your domestic heating footprint is typically much greater than double your footprint from driving. Our domestic footprint is much greater than the EU average.

It makes no sense that the most damaging options are the most affordable. Taxes and subsidies should reverse this. But right now, for me, kerosene is the cheapest option, followed by LPG, followed by bioLPG, and the outlay to set up a heat pump is unreasonably great.

Subsidies should be seamless also. Some of the grants are slow and onerous to apply for.

A second thing is that it is remarkably awkward to figure out what the carbon footprint is for various things. Assuming you aren't going fully freegan crusty, then you need to make informed decisions about how to make efficient choices.

A little research gives sample ballpark figures like this, which may or may not be accurate:

Electric car: 1 ton CO2 per year.
1.6l diesel car: 1.7 tonnes CO2 per year.
Condensing gas boiler, using LPG: 4 tonnes CO2 per year.
Heat pump: 3 tonnes CO2 per year
One return economy flight from Dublin to LA: 1.3 tonnes CO2 (pro rata) (!)
Each child you have: 59 tonnes per year (!)
Vegetarian diet: 0.8 tonnes less CO2 per year than average diet.
Vegan diet: 1.5 tonnes less CO2 per year than average diet

This sort of practical information needs to be clearly communicated. And people need to be stopped from having lots of children.

Wanderer78 · 25-04-2019 6:01am

Jimmy Garlic wrote:

According to Al Gore the ice caps should have melted five years ago. Still there.

thunberg is dead right, the best way to deal with deniers, is don't

Jimmy_oc1998 · 25-04-2019 8:14am

Daxton Scrawny Plow wrote: »

Autism is not relevant.

She represents our children who are the ones who are going to be worst affected. Al Gore represents the aloof elite and has questionable sincerity... One is a lecture from a bit of a git. The other is a plea from someone vulnerable who will be badly harmed.

One is from an extremely intelligent man who has put his money where his mouth is and the other is an autistic kid used as a pawn by her parents to make money and give her a self of importance.

Jimmy_oc1998 · 25-04-2019 8:20am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

thunberg is dead right, the best way to deal with deniers, is don't

Just make the 16 year old money maker for her parents as PM of the world! AND BUY THEIR BOOK.

s7ryf3925pivug · 25-04-2019 8:29am

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote: »

One is from an extremely intelligent man who has put his money where his mouth is and the other is an autistic kid used as a pawn by her parents to make money and give her a self of importance.

I just remember he redirected a load of water to provide rapids for him to canoe down while campaigning in 1999. It was a dry summer so it risked drought. It's beside the point anyway. The point is the point, not the person making it.

Dakota Dan · 25-04-2019 8:37am

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote: »

Just make the 16 year old money maker for her parents as PM of the world! AND BUY THEIR BOOK.

And her rich parents dress her up like an 8 year old pauper so gullible fools will lap up her nonsense.

Jimmy_oc1998 · 25-04-2019 9:38am

Dakota Dan wrote: »

And her rich parents dress her up like an 8 year old pauper so gullible fools will lap up her nonsense.

Sure that sums up society perfectly....get someone to tug on the heart strings to influence them how you want.

It's why those stories about kids being sent back because they're not legal always have the face of the kid in the story to humanise it.

Effects · 25-04-2019 10:28am

gozunda wrote: »

I doubt very much anyone would believe the video has been edited video to have an Extinction Rebellion activist appear to be shouting 'Racist Pig at the police.

You don't have a clue mate. I don't know whether you're wilfully ignorant or just trolling again.

Wanderer78 · 25-04-2019 10:33am

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote:

One is from an extremely intelligent man who has put his money where his mouth is and the other is an autistic kid used as a pawn by her parents to make money and give her a self of importance.

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote:

Just make the 16 year old money maker for her parents as PM of the world! AND BUY THEIR BOOK.

You clearly don't have a fcuking clue about autism or environmental matters

Real Jazz Book · 25-04-2019 10:42am

This discussion is crazy. Whether you believe in global warming or not, the way we are currently treating the Earth is completely unsustainable. If you take Ireland as a microcosm of the world, an island which has had inhabitants for a long time – all wilderness has been destroyed, nearly all wildlife, and there are pretty much no trees on the island. We have something like 7 million cattle in Ireland now, and most of their products are exported. Is that really necessary? Why do we need to produce that much beef? We know it has a pretty bad environmental impact. Could we not use some of that land to try and plant some broad leaf trees or “rewild” some of the country?
So even if temperatures aren’t rising, we’re destroying our oceans and forests and anything we can get our hands on to make ourselves richer. The whole world needs to slow down. And yes, shock horror, maybe we need to have a lower standard of living. Do people think we can just continue as is and have more and more stuff and take more holidays and buy more things, until the end of time?
For all the talk of India and China, look at our own back yard. If the rest of the world exploit what’s left on the planet the way we’ve done with our own island, there will be nothing left at all. We need to give back to nature in Ireland.
Something needs to change. Except it wont – we’ll continue to rape the sh*t out of the planet until there isn’t much left and that will lead to war and totalitarianism. Can’t wait.

Akrasia · 25-04-2019 10:46am

gozunda wrote: »

No we're not. We are talking about shrills and ideologues riding on the back of 'climate change' and that which was the topic of my post. Gerit? What is being pushed is doomsday sensationalism which has bugger all got to do with peer reviewed scientific research.

As above. Ditto.

The 'alarmists' are exactly that - alarmists. Again the story from the Express is exactly like the type of hyperbole being promoted and pushed by various vested interests.

Sometimes alarm is genuine justified. If you're just after buying a house and you discover while doing some renovations that the electrics are wired extremely badly and there's a major fire risk.

The actual risk of the house burning down could be less than .1 percent per day of occupation, but a prudent owner would still be justified in moving out of the house while the wiring is repaired at great expense. If the owner was a landlord who intended to rent out the property, then if the owner didn't resolve the wiring issue that he knew about, he would be legally responsible if there was a fire even though a fire was never guaranteed, it was only an elevated possibility due to structural defects that experts warned him were likely to cause a fire eventually

Sure, he/she could ignore the problem and hope that there isn't a fire, and most days he would be fine, but that one damp morning when there's a short circuit and his house burns down with a family in it....

When the consequences of something are catastrophic then even low probability events become alarming.

There are always going to be individuals who are misinformed on specifics or who believe things based on bad sources or who get their facts wrong on certain things but on balance, is the extinction rebellion cause grounded in the evidence, and the answer is yes.

There genuinely is a climate emergency. There genuinely are extinction level threats because of climate change. Whole swathes of the eco system are dying off. Flying insects are being annihilate, most of the coral reefs could be gone within a few decades and with them goes the majority of aquatic species in our oceans.
We are almost guaranteed to exceed the 2c of warming that already puts us at risk of crossing tipping point that could drive the climate upwards beyond even 5 to 7 celcius by the end of this century with even further increases into the future.

With climate disruption on that scale possible, it is almost impossible to actually overstate how dangerous that is to human survival as long as you include the next generation of humans into your calculations. Humans that are born today will be bearing the brunt of the impacts we are failing to prevent.

Akrasia · 25-04-2019 11:15am

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

According to Al Gore the ice caps should have melted five years ago. Still there.

According to actual scientists, we'll have an ice free summer in the Arctic by the middle of this century. Could even be sooner

That will have profound impacts on the climate in the northern hermisphere

Jimmy_oc1998 · 25-04-2019 11:23am

Akrasia wrote: »

According to actual scientists, we'll have an ice free summer in the Arctic by the middle of this century. Could even be sooner

That will have profound impacts on the climate in the northern hermisphere

We will have an ice free summer in the Arctic at some stage no matter if we're eating grass and ****ting into a hole in the ground.

Accept that. Might as well enjoy life while we can.

gozunda · 25-04-2019 11:28am

Akrasia wrote: »

Sometimes alarm is genuine justified. If you're just after buying a house and you discover while doing some renovations that the electrics are wired extremely badly and there's a major fire risk.

The actual risk of the house burning down could be less than .1 percent per day of occupation, but a prudent owner would still be justified in moving out of the house while the wiring is repaired at great expense. If the owner was a landlord who intended to rent out the property, then if the owner didn't resolve the wiring issue that he knew about, he would be legally responsible if there was a fire even though a fire was never guaranteed, it was only an elevated possibility due to structural defects that experts warned him were likely to cause a fire eventually
Sure, he/she could ignore the problem and hope that there isn't a fire, and most days he would be fine, but that one damp morning when there's a short circuit and his house burns down with a family in it....When the consequences of something are catastrophic then even low probability events become alarming.[/]

There are always going to be individuals who are misinformed on specifics or who believe things based on bad sources or who get their facts wrong on certain things but on balance, is the extinction rebellion cause grounded in the evidence, and the answer is yes.

...

I wonder where I've heard the 'burning house ' analogy before?

One of Ms Thungbergs favourite piece of rhetoric is the phrase "I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house is on fire. and on occasion has been accompanied by similar scaremongering sentiments including

“I don’t want you to be hopeful, I want you to panic, I want you to feel the fear I feel every day,”

Reminds me of the parable of the biblical burning bush and just like the Bible it is potrayed as a story from which we can derive meaning and lead us to of greater understanding through fear etc because evidently many people are 'too thick' and the point must be ramed home with a colourful picture etc

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bu_wX_1AoCm/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_mid=W6ykigABAAEpyIEbTNB4i8T0z3Pp

So there we have it in a nutshell - hyperbole, panic and fear that our 'house is on fire'

It's interesting that you've devoted more than a half of your comment to this language of hyperbole which is what xr is all about imo. As a movements it uses alarm and doomsday type scenarios to convince people that the world is about to end even though the scaremongering has little if anything to do with real climate research. So no extiction rebellion is not grounded in the evidence. Rather it tries to use panic and fear as a weapon to make people believe that they should be 'with them'

xckjoo · 25-04-2019 11:42am

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote: »

We will have an ice free summer in the Arctic at some stage no matter if we're eating grass and ****ting into a hole in the ground.

Accept that. Might as well enjoy life while we can.

Deep....

Lucky us that you decided waffling on the internet is the best way to maximise your enjoyment of life!

Akrasia · 25-04-2019 11:46am

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote: »

We will have an ice free summer in the Arctic at some stage no matter if we're eating grass and ****ting into a hole in the ground.

Accept that. Might as well enjoy life while we can.

So you accept that climate change is happening and we're responsible for it then?

We're already too late to avoid a lot of bad sh1t from happening largely because we didn't act soon enough, but we haven't crossed any of the major tipping points yet, and until we do, we have a chance of avoiding the utterly catastrophic consequences of climate change.

You might not care about the future, but I do, and I don't want to leave future generations with a planet so depleted that it can barely sustain human civilisation anymore.

Akrasia · 25-04-2019 11:54am

gozunda wrote: »

I wonder where I've heard the 'burning house ' analogy before?

One of Ms Thungbergs favourite piece of rhetoric is the phrase "I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house is on fire. and on occasion has been accompanied by similar scaremongering sentiments including

“I don’t want you to be hopeful, I want you to panic, I want you to feel the fear I feel every day,”

Reminds me of the parable of the biblical burning bush and just like the Bible it is potrayed as a story from which we can derive meaning and lead us to of greater understanding through fear etc because evidently many people are 'too thick' and the point must be ramed home with a colourful picture etc

So there we have it in a nutshell - hyperbole, panic and fear that our 'house is on fire'

It's interesting that you've devoted more than a half of your comment to this language of hyperbole which is what xr is all about imo. As a movements it uses alarm and doomsday type scenarios to convince people that the world is about to end even though the scaremongering has little if anything to do with real climate research. So no extiction rebellion is not grounded in the evidence. Rather it tries to use panic and fear as a weapon to make people believe that they should be 'with them'

It's a very simple and apt analogy. Thungberg didn't come up with it, it's so obviously analagous to climate change that it has been used thousands of times to explain the urgency of climate change and why we need to act to prevent as much of it as possible.

One of the problems with global warming is that it is cumulative and the effects that we are locking in today won't become apparent until the future, so we have to use comparisons with other risks that people understand need to be mitigated, like the risk of your building burning down, or the risk of cancer from smoking, or the risk of getting killed or injured in a car accident...

gozunda · 25-04-2019 11:56am

Daxton Scrawny Plow wrote: »

I just remember he redirected a load of water to provide rapids for him to canoe down while campaigning in 1999. It was a dry summer so it risked drought. It's beside the point anyway. The point is the point, not the person making it.

Wrong. The cult of the person is a well known phenomena in appealing to peoples beliefs

Ms Thungberg has been likened to Joan of Arc, Ghandi etc - near semi mystical figures who were set up on a pedestal by believers and adherents

We have many climate breakdown celebrities now, we have the twitterati who have huge followings, who cheer and clap and lap up every word.

Most movements have at least a nominal figurehead who cannot be criticised or questioned. This movement appears to be little different.

See the video here as an example.
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article191077953/Greta-Thunberg-Klimaschutz-Aktivistin-ueberrascht-von-ihrer-Generation.html?jwsource=cl

Real Jazz Book · 25-04-2019 12:01pm

gozunda wrote: »

Wrong. The cult of the person is a well known phenomena in appealing to peoples beliefs

Ms Thungberg has been likened to Joan of Arc, Ghandi etc - near semi mystical figures who were set up on a pedestal by believers and adherents

We have many climate breakdown celebrities now, we have the twitterati who have huge followings, who cheer and clap and lap up every word.

Most movements have at least a nominal figurehead who cannot be criticised or questioned. This movement appears to be little different.

See the video here as an example.

how do you suggest we keep exploiting resources in a finite world without it leading to environmental calamity? You can knock Greta as much as you like and this whole movement but we're on a one way ticket to absolute disaster and at least they're trying to highlight the issue.

Akrasia · 25-04-2019 12:10pm

gozunda wrote: »

Wrong. The cult of the person is a well known phenomena in appealing to peoples beliefs

Ms Thungberg has been likened to Joan of Arc, Ghandi etc - near semi mystical figures who were set up on a pedestal by believers and adherents

We have many climate breakdown celebrities now, we have the twitterati who have huge followings, who cheer and clap and lap up every word.

Most movements have at least a nominal figurehead who cannot be criticised or questioned. This movement appears to be little different.

See the video here as an example.
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article191077953/Greta-Thunberg-Klimaschutz-Aktivistin-ueberrascht-von-ihrer-Generation.html?jwsource=cl

The only people who are turning people into personality cults are the climate change 'skeptics' who keep talking about Al Gore and Greta Thungburg.

Nobody is looking to Thungberg for any scientific evidence about climate change, she is popular because she is passionate and well spoken and it is a wake-up call to hear young people pleading with their parents generation to not destroy the planet.

Al Gore is irrelevant to the scientific debate. He made a couple of documentaries where he was mostly accurate, made a few mistakes but got the general message correct and suddenly he's being thrust forward as the climate change guy who the denial movement focus their attacks on.

It's a very obvious tactic, to set up figureheads to focus on and then tear them down. It's where the straw man fallacy comes from.

None of the climate science depends on anything that Gore or Thungberg has ever said. They are political activists who are trying to get people to change based on the warnings from the foremost experts in the relevant scientific fields.

Dakota Dan · 25-04-2019 12:15pm

Real Jazz Book wrote: »

how do you suggest we keep exploiting resources in a finite world without it leading to environmental calamity? You can knock Greta as much as you like and this whole movement but we're on a one way ticket to absolute disaster and at least they're trying to highlight the issue.

Jaysus, you are painting a bleaker picture than any alarmists. I suppose you have shunned fossil fuels years ago and only go walking or cycling distance from your house?

gozunda · 25-04-2019 12:16pm

Real Jazz Book wrote: »

how do you suggest we keep exploiting resources in a finite world without it leading to environmental calamity? You can knock Greta as much as you like and this whole movement but we're on a one way ticket to absolute disaster and at least they're trying to highlight the issue.

I believe that has already been covered in ths tread. Joining a protest movement waving a placard in the hope of being a nuisance / wanting to get arrested is not doing something no matter what way you look at it.

The problem is that anyone who has questioned this movements hyperbole or how it has evolved keeps getting hit on the head with the usual "it's better than nothing" fallacy. I would disagree tbh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivi20kEurJc

Real Jazz Book · 25-04-2019 12:20pm

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Jaysus, you are painting a bleaker picture than any alarmists. I suppose you have shunned fossil fuels years ago and only go walking or cycling distance from your house?

I never said that. I do cycle to work though yes and have never owned a car.
How can wanton environmental exploitation and capitalism lead to anything but disaster? I'm all ears.

Wanderer78 · 25-04-2019 12:21pm

Dakota Dan wrote:

Jaysus, you are painting a bleaker picture than any alarmists. I suppose you have shunned fossil fuels years ago and only go walking or cycling distance from your house?

Since we re complete fossil fuel junkies, 'shunning' these fuels could in fact lead to starvation of many, very quickly, this won't be an easy fix

Wanderer78 · 25-04-2019 12:23pm

Real Jazz Book wrote:

I never said that. I do cycle to work though yes and have never owned a car. How can wanton environmental exploitation and capitalism lead to anything but disaster? I'm all ears.

Capitalism hasn't been all bad, it may in fact be a part of the solution

Real Jazz Book · 25-04-2019 12:26pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Capitalism hasn't been all bad, it may in fact be a part of the solution

I'm not an economist but isn't it based on perpetual growth? I can't see how that can be anything but terrible for the planet.
It's like when they talk about population reduction and people say who would look after our old people and pay for their care etc?
Maybe some old people will have to suffer a little? Maybe I will when I'm old? Maybe a generation will have to go through some hardship? Maybe we'll all have to suffer a little for the greater good? When did we become such wimps?

gozunda · 25-04-2019 12:29pm

Akrasia wrote: »

It's a very simple and apt analogy. Thungberg didn't come up with it, it's so obviously analagous to climate change that it has been used thousands of times to explain the urgency of climate change and why we need to act to prevent as much of it as possible.One of the problems with global warming is that it is cumulative and the effects that we are locking in today won't become apparent until the future, so we have to use comparisons with other risks that people understand need to be mitigated, like the risk of your building burning down, or the risk of cancer from smoking, or the risk of getting killed or injured in a car accident...

It's simple alright. A bit too simple and is just part of the usual alarmist arsenal of fear and scare. You're right similar have been used to lead masses of people rather similarly useless pathways in the past. And all manner of disasters may potentially befall us - however that does nor excuse us having to cover ourselves in sack cloth and in ashes.

I think if you check Ms Thungberg uses that phrase repeatedly. Not only does it uses the distressing imagery of someone's house on fire - it is as she says designed to make people feel fear and panic. Well that's just lovely....

The girl has been evidently reared on a diet of doomsday scenarios, has suffered from depression brought on by these beliefs and she now wants everyone to join her in a feast of the this. Eh no thanks all the same.

I'm sorry but the whole approach is bulk**** and the little more than rabble rousing and of absolutely no use to the solution of any of the worlds problems no matter what way you look at it.

mariaalice · 25-04-2019 12:34pm

Real Jazz Book wrote: »

I'm not an economist but isn't it based on perpetual growth? I can't see how that can be anything but terrible for the planet.
It's like when they talk about population reduction and people say who would look after our old people and pay for their care etc?
Maybe some old people will have to suffer a little? Maybe I will when I'm old? Maybe a generation will have to go through some hardship? Maybe we'll all have to suffer a little for the greater good? When did we become such wimps?

What hardship would that be?

So will we be haveing modern cancer drugs and treatment, modern dentistry, antibiotics reading glasses to mention just a few in this new society and im curious how will the eco-tourists get here by flying?

Real Jazz Book · 25-04-2019 12:36pm

mariaalice wrote: »

What hardship would that be?

So will we be haveing modern cancer drugs and treatment, modern dentistry, antibiotics reading glasses to mention just a few in this new society and im curious how will the eco-tourists get here by flying?

Well I was saying that people worry about population decline because old people won't be looked after as well. The hardship may be that they won't be looked after as well!
What eco-tourists?

Extinction Rebellion Ireland

Comments