Page 1 of 4 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,040
Location: Oz

12 Oct 2019, 7:11 pm

Quote:
Hilarious video of Extinction Rebellion’s Zion Lights struggling to answer basic questions about the science behind ER’s claims.

Andrew Neil rips apart Extinction Rebellion claim that ‘billions of children will die’
ANDREW NEIL dismantled the argument made by an Extinction Rebellion member that “billions of children will die in the next 10 to 20 years” because of climate change.
By NAOMI ADEDOKUN
PUBLISHED: 22:29, Wed, Oct 9, 2019 | UPDATED: 22:34, Wed, Oct 9, 2019 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/10/ ... te-claims/



Quote:
Andrew Neil exposes the inaccurate and alarmist claims of Extinction Rebellion.


https://youtu.be/H3kJwQBZOkM


_________________
I'm a thinker. Some think I'm a stinker. Pepe le Pew. ;)
Down with big business!...
I'm not here to change the world...There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin... ;)
Autistic/scout motto: "Give me a better argument and I will listen..."
"Honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8) I'm a rationalist...Deal with it...:mrgreen:


Irimias
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 46

12 Oct 2019, 10:28 pm

I don't see what the aim is to continue attacking extinction rebellion, other than to play down the imminent threat of global temperature rises, because we are unwilling to take steps to face up to the problem.



firemonkey
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,569
Location: Calne,England

12 Oct 2019, 11:22 pm

Exaggerated claims don't help people accept that climate change is an issue that needs to be tackled.


_________________
Support mental health research
Please support mental health research
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/


Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 133 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 47 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,040
Location: Oz

12 Oct 2019, 11:41 pm

Irimias wrote:
I don't see what the aim is to continue attacking extinction rebellion, other than to play down the imminent threat of global temperature rises, because we are unwilling to take steps to face up to the problem.


You are new here and aren't privy to the nuances of the subject matter discussed previously.

If you watched the video you would have seen the demolishing of one of their alarmist/catastrophist claims:
"Billions of people will die in the near future due to man-made climate change."
This is hysterical nonsense that even the scientists in agreement with the man-made climate change model/theory dispute.
And this sort of irrational and irresponsible rhetoric has completely destroyed their credibility, ergo, damage to their general cause.

These are the people who dance half-naked in the street to make a point.
There doesn't seem to be a rational reason for their mode of behaviour other than:" Look at me, look at me."
They have been described as anarchists rather than eco-warriors.

But I have an open mind and will listen to a better argument.
Please supply one if you have one. :wink:


_________________
I'm a thinker. Some think I'm a stinker. Pepe le Pew. ;)
Down with big business!...
I'm not here to change the world...There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin... ;)
Autistic/scout motto: "Give me a better argument and I will listen..."
"Honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8) I'm a rationalist...Deal with it...:mrgreen:


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,040
Location: Oz

12 Oct 2019, 11:42 pm

firemonkey wrote:
Exaggerated claims don't help people accept that climate change is an issue that needs to be tackled.


Precisely.


_________________
I'm a thinker. Some think I'm a stinker. Pepe le Pew. ;)
Down with big business!...
I'm not here to change the world...There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin... ;)
Autistic/scout motto: "Give me a better argument and I will listen..."
"Honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8) I'm a rationalist...Deal with it...:mrgreen:


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,142
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

13 Oct 2019, 12:09 am

Not exactly on the 'Extinction Rebellion' topic but RationalityRules spelling out how dangerous moral incoherence is on these topics:


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Deepthought 7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2018
Posts: 684
Location: United Kingdom

13 Oct 2019, 12:43 am

Irimias wrote:
I don't see what the aim is to continue attacking extinction rebellion, other than to play down the imminent threat of global temperature rises, because we are unwilling to take steps to face up to the problem.

Well on one level the disinformation by way of argument and debate allows for acceptance or consideration of the actual information, and as such this prevents mass panic and keeps people in work maintaining national and international cohesion involving industry and commerce and so on and so fourth.

Here follows though an article from the Guardian on the 8th of October 2018 about the IPCC report mentioned during the Andrew Neil interview:

Quote:
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

Urgent changes needed to cut risk of extreme heat, drought, floods and poverty, says IPCC

The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

The authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on Monday say urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris agreement pledge to keep temperatures between 1.5C and 2C.

The half-degree difference could also prevent corals from being completely eradicated and ease pressure on the Arctic, according to the 1.5C study, which was launched after approval at a final plenary of all 195 countries in Incheon in South Korea that saw delegates hugging one another, with some in tears.

“It’s a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now,” said Debra Roberts, a co-chair of the working group on impacts. “This is the largest clarion bell from the science community and I hope it mobilises people and dents the mood of complacency.”

Policymakers commissioned the report at the Paris climate talks in 2016, but since then the gap between science and politics has widened. Donald Trump has promised to withdraw the US – the world’s biggest source of historical emissions – from the accord. The first round of Brazil’s presidential election on Sunday put Jair Bolsonaro into a strong position to carry out his threat to do the same and also open the Amazon rainforest to agribusiness.

The world is currently 1C warmer than preindustrial levels. Following devastating hurricanes in the US, record droughts in Cape Town and forest fires in the Arctic, the IPCC makes clear that climate change is already happening, upgraded its risk warning from previous reports, and warned that every fraction of additional warming would worsen the impact.

Scientists who reviewed the 6,000 works referenced in the report, said the change caused by just half a degree came as a revelation. “We can see there is a difference and it’s substantial,” Roberts said.

At 1.5C the proportion of the global population exposed to water stress could be 50% lower than at 2C, it notes. Food scarcity would be less of a problem and hundreds of millions fewer people, particularly in poor countries, would be at risk of climate-related poverty.

At 2C extremely hot days, such as those experienced in the northern hemisphere this summer, would become more severe and common, increasing heat-related deaths and causing more forest fires.

But the greatest difference would be to nature. Insects, which are vital for pollination of crops, and plants are almost twice as likely to lose half their habitat at 2C compared with 1.5C. Corals would be 99% lost at the higher of the two temperatures, but more than 10% have a chance of surviving if the lower target is reached.

Sea-level rise would affect 10 million more people by 2100 if the half-degree extra warming brought a forecast 10cm additional pressure on coastlines. The number affected would increase substantially in the following centuries due to locked-in ice melt.

Oceans are already suffering from elevated acidity and lower levels of oxygen as a result of climate change. One model shows marine fisheries would lose 3m tonnes at 2C, twice the decline at 1.5C.

Sea ice-free summers in the Arctic, which is warming two to three times faster than the world average, would come once every 100 years at 1.5C, but every 10 years with half a degree more of global warming.

Time and carbon budgets are running out. By mid-century, a shift to the lower goal would require a supercharged roll-back of emissions sources that have built up over the past 250 years.

The IPCC maps out four pathways to achieve 1.5C, with different combinations of land use and technological change. Reforestation is essential to all of them as are shifts to electric transport systems and greater adoption of carbon capture technology.

Carbon pollution would have to be cut by 45% by 2030 – compared with a 20% cut under the 2C pathway – and come down to zero by 2050, compared with 2075 for 2C. This would require carbon prices that are three to four times higher than for a 2C target. But the costs of doing nothing would be far higher.

“We have presented governments with pretty hard choices. We have pointed out the enormous benefits of keeping to 1.5C, and also the unprecedented shift in energy systems and transport that would be needed to achieve that,” said Jim Skea, a co-chair of the working group on mitigation. “We show it can be done within laws of physics and chemistry. Then the final tick box is political will. We cannot answer that. Only our audience can – and that is the governments that receive it.”

He said the main finding of his group was the need for urgency. Although unexpectedly good progress has been made in the adoption of renewable energy, deforestation for agriculture was turning a natural carbon sink into a source of emissions. Carbon capture and storage projects, which are essential for reducing emissions in the concrete and waste disposal industries, have also ground to a halt.

Reversing these trends is essential if the world has any chance of reaching 1.5C without relying on the untried technology of solar radiation modification and other forms of geo-engineering, which could have negative consequences.

In the run-up to the final week of negotiations, there were fears the text of the report would be watered down by the US, Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries that are reluctant to consider more ambitious cuts. The authors said nothing of substance was cut from a text.

Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, said the final document was “incredibly conservative” because it did not mention the likely rise in climate-driven refugees or the danger of tipping points that could push the world on to an irreversible path of extreme warming.

The report will be presented to governments at the UN climate conference in Poland at the end of this year. But analysts say there is much work to be done, with even pro-Paris deal nations involved in fossil fuel extraction that runs against the spirit of their commitments. Britain is pushing ahead with gas fracking, Norway with oil exploration in the Arctic, and the German government wants to tear down Hambach forest to dig for coal.

At the current level of commitments, the world is on course for a disastrous 3C of warming. The report authors are refusing to accept defeat, believing the increasingly visible damage caused by climate change will shift opinion their way.

“I hope this can change the world,” said Jiang Kejun of China’s semi-governmental Energy Research Institute, who is one of the authors. “Two years ago, even I didn’t believe 1.5C was possible but when I look at the options I have confidence it can be done. I want to use this report to do something big in China.”

The timing was good, he said, because the Chinese government was drawing up a long-term plan for 2050 and there was more awareness among the population about the problem of rising temperatures. “People in Beijing have never experienced so many hot days as this summer. It’s made them talk more about climate change.”

Regardless of the US and Brazil, he said, China, Europe and major cities could push ahead. “We can set an example and show what can be done. This is more about technology than politics.”

James Hansen, the former Nasa scientist who helped raised the alarm about climate change, said both 1.5C and 2C would take humanity into uncharted and dangerous territory because they were both well above the Holocene-era range in which human civilisation developed. But he said there was a huge difference between the two: “1.5C gives young people and the next generation a fighting chance of getting back to the Holocene or close to it. That is probably necessary if we want to keep shorelines where they are and preserve our coastal cities.”

Johan Rockström, a co-author of the recent Hothouse Earth report, said scientists never previously discussed 1.5C, which was initially seen as a political concession to small island states. But he said opinion had shifted in the past few years along with growing evidence of climate instability and the approach of tipping points that might push the world off a course that could be controlled by emissions reductions.

“Climate change is occurring earlier and more rapidly than expected. Even at the current level of 1C warming, it is painful,” he told the Guardian. “This report is really important. It has a scientific robustness that shows 1.5C is not just a political concession. There is a growing recognition that 2C is dangerous.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,040
Location: Oz

13 Oct 2019, 1:29 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Not exactly on the 'Extinction Rebellion' topic but RationalityRules spelling out how dangerous moral incoherence is on these topics:


Explain to me what you mean by: "moral incoherence".
And how does this affect the man-made climate change narrative/discussion.?


_________________
I'm a thinker. Some think I'm a stinker. Pepe le Pew. ;)
Down with big business!...
I'm not here to change the world...There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin... ;)
Autistic/scout motto: "Give me a better argument and I will listen..."
"Honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8) I'm a rationalist...Deal with it...:mrgreen:


Irimias
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 46

13 Oct 2019, 1:54 am

Pepe wrote:

You are new here and aren't privy to the nuances of the subject matter discussed previously.

If you watched the video you would have seen the demolishing of one of their alarmist/catastrophist claims:
"Billions of people will die in the near future due to man-made climate change."
This is hysterical nonsense that even the scientists in agreement with the man-made climate change model/theory dispute.
And this sort of irrational and irresponsible rhetoric has completely destroyed their credibility, ergo, damage to their general cause.

These are the people who dance half-naked in the street to make a point.
There doesn't seem to be a rational reason for their mode of behaviour other than:" Look at me, look at me."
They have been described as anarchists rather than eco-warriors.

But I have an open mind and will listen to a better argument.
Please supply one if you have one. :wink:


What action should the public be taking that a) you consider appropruate and b) will ensure governments respond and wake up to the problem? The climate change protest movement is hardly new. I even went on a large peaceful protest myself 13 years ago.



Deepthought 7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2018
Posts: 684
Location: United Kingdom

13 Oct 2019, 1:59 am

Pepe wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Not exactly on the 'Extinction Rebellion' topic but RationalityRules spelling out how dangerous moral incoherence is on these topics:


Explain to me what you mean by: "moral incoherence".
And how does this affect the man-made climate change narrative/discussion.?

Moral incoherence in the given context involved climate change advocates being hypocritical. Such as the call to use more plant based foods rather than eating meat at a fast food chain ~ which one of the teenagers said he was not prepared to give up doing for the environment, as therefore sets a poor motivational example and validates for some a dismissive rhetorical attitude of why bother or take it seriously if he won't.



firemonkey
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,569
Location: Calne,England

13 Oct 2019, 4:34 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Helm

He was in the same house as me, but a year above me , at public school . He believes in establishing a carbon tax. I don't know whether that's a good idea or not .


_________________
Support mental health research
Please support mental health research
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/


Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 133 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 47 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,142
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

13 Oct 2019, 9:14 am

Pepe wrote:
Explain to me what you mean by: "moral incoherence".
And how does this affect the man-made climate change narrative/discussion.?

Is the video allowed to answer that or no?


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,651
Location: Reading, England

13 Oct 2019, 12:09 pm

Very, very good from Neil. Measured but robust, accepting of the science and defending it. I know he has the advantage in these interviews (as seen when he pivots away from discussion of BECCS for example) but still impressive.

Yes, Extinction Rebellion often exaggerate to the point of dishonesty, and I think that puts people off. From a selfish point of view I quite like it when they shut down the roads because it means I don't need to worry about cars.

Irimias wrote:
I don't see what the aim is to continue attacking extinction rebellion, other than to play down the imminent threat of global temperature rises, because we are unwilling to take steps to face up to the problem.

I understand your concern. I do think some (but of course by no means all) criticism of XR comes from people who don't want to do anything about climate change. However, most governments are committed to tackling climate change, including the UK government who are arguably the most ambitious in the world (other countries are decarbonising faster, but are generally set up better to do so).

Personally I'm quite committed to the truth, so when I see someone lying or making a mistake then I tend to correct them, even when they agree with me. It's not necessarily a useful habit and I'm not even sure it is virtuous.

I do much prefer XR to the Yellow Vests. Ultimately they care about the climate, even if they're not very good at science or politics.
firemonkey wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Helm

He was in the same house as me, but a year above me , at public school . He believes in establishing a carbon tax. I don't know whether that's a good idea or not .

I was suspected of leaking Dieter Helm's appointment to write the review that now bears his name. Fortunately I had a watertight alibi which proved it wasn't me.

A carbon tax is very good policy. It helps ensure that polluters pay the cost of their pollution and encourages them to switch to greener measures. The revenue can also be used to fund other decarbonisation projects, or redistributed to the people who are bearing the cost (I don't know much about how this policy idea works economically). However, a carbon tax alone is not going to solve the problem. Climate change is not merely an externality issue, but there are also other market failures, like inappropriate legacy infrastructure and underinvestment in R&D, which the tax alone is not going to solve. It isn't a magic bullet.



Deepthought 7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2018
Posts: 684
Location: United Kingdom

13 Oct 2019, 1:10 pm

firemonkey wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Helm

He was in the same house as me, but a year above me , at public school . He believes in establishing a carbon tax. I don't know whether that's a good idea or not .

One difficulty with carbon taxation is that the fossil fuel corporations just 'up' their prices and continue doing business as usual, which currently includes lobbying against and dodging taxation given that free market capitalists have been somewhat more into corporate greed than actually recognizing species wide ecological necessity. Another difficulty presently with the free market capitalist system ~ is that it involves less regulation in the pursuit of profit rather than appropriate regulation for sociological and ecological prosperity.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,651
Location: Reading, England

13 Oct 2019, 1:15 pm

Deepthought 7 wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Helm

He was in the same house as me, but a year above me , at public school . He believes in establishing a carbon tax. I don't know whether that's a good idea or not .

One difficulty with carbon taxation is that the fossil fuel corporations just 'up' their prices and continue doing business as usual, which currently includes lobbying against and dodging taxation given that free market capitalists have been somewhat more into corporate greed than actually recognizing species wide ecological necessity. Another difficulty presently with the free market capitalist system ~ is that it involves less regulation in the pursuit of profit rather than appropriate regulation for sociological and ecological prosperity.

If they up their prices, then people will buy less of their product and carbon emissions will be reduced.