The Random thought thread

[willedoo]

14 minutes ago, red750 said:

Those idiots that blocked three lanes of the Westgate bridge during peak hour to protest the climate crisis -- used a diesel truck!

Have you seen this bloke giving the Just Stop Oil protesters a serve in London? Just Stop Oil are the same mob who have been vandalising oil paintings in art galleries.

 

 

Edited March 5 by willedoo

[willedoo]

The bloke's got a point. I don't see too many of them wearing hand woven hemp clothes. And I don't see their horses tied up anywhere.

[old man emu]

Two of those Melbourne protesters immediately got 21 days in the slammer. The third is yet to face court.

[red750]

A woman was forced to give birth on the roadside, assisted by two teachers on a bus, due to these idiots.

[facthunter]

THAT sort of thing won't win them any friends. It risks lives.   Nev

[red750]

A bit of excitement tonight. There was a knock on the door and a guy said "Theres a fire at your back fence." We went out to find flames leaping higher than the 6ft 6in fence. It was rubbish behind the back neighbours shed, which had spread into the shed, and set the fence to their side neighbour alight. Two fire trucks arrived and had it extinguished fairly quickly. Fortunately of fence and yard were not affected.

[red750]

Fire location.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 05/03/2024 at 11:27 AM, willedoo said:

The bloke's got a point. I don't see too many of them wearing hand woven hemp clothes. And I don't see their horses tied up anywhere.

He sort of does, but sort of doesn't. Yes, the vests are made of oil and no doubt the back packs were, but I couldn't tell whether the clotes were synthetic or not. Be that as it may, it is incredibly hard these days to find natural materials clothing except in very expensive fashion shops. This is driven by profits.. we can make synthetic materials that are vey close to the real thing iin feeling, but they can be done much cheaper, but because they now almost feel and look like the real thing, we can sell them for more and make a better margin.

 

I don't see their horses tied up, but most have probably ridden their bicycles or taken public transport.

Also, Just Stop Oil is not about the immediate cessation of using oil products. If you go to their website, it is about the UK government not granting any more leases to extract the stuff to try to enforce a rapid but to immediate change in behaviour - both consumer and corporate. https://juststopoil.org/background/ Of course, this requies investment in renewables/green energy

 

They sometimes don't think through their protests properly.

[spenaroo]

I see most of these protest groups as a cult now,

stuck inside their own bubble with the beliefs reinforced by the select few - ignoring everyone else's views.

"our cause is right - therefore our actions are right"

Edited March 6 by spenaroo

[Jerry_Atrick]

Evidence for that? Science looks to be on just stop oil's side..

[pmccarthy]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Evidence for that? Science looks to be on just stop oil's side..

I would argue that public opinion may be, but science is certainly not. The consequences of "stop oil" are horrendous, but it will not happen because it cannot happen.

[octave]

Just now, pmccarthy said:

I would argue that public opinion may be, but science is certainly not.

Does CSIRO count as merely public opinion?

[pmccarthy]

I would argue that CSIRO is driven by politics and economics. As are the many large companies who had embraced "woke" causes and are now having to back down and get in touch with the real world.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I guess you would argue that a worldwide body of reptable scientific evidence - you know - where they deal in facts and peer review - is dominated by politics and economics.. Quite unlike the oil companies and shrinking number of scientists who are playing to their fiddle as they are employed by them or they have a vested interest in th fossil fuel industry.. Ibecause these organisations are not dominated by money and politics... Is that the basis of your facts?

 

Honestly, evey time you have provided something to debunk the facts of human driven climate change, they have usually been easily debunked themselves. I get you have made a bit of dough out of the mining industry (I am guessing) And I get that to stop fossil fuels now would be an immediate catastrophe for humanity. Bur pardon me if I go with the reputable science on this and realise, like just stop oil, is that we have to transition away from - not immediately stop using - oils and other fossil fuels as much as possible. The technology is moving forward to do this; there are still gremlims, but that has been the same with any new technology.

 

We will never come off oil (although there are low volume substitutes) or gas as there are some things that are unlikely to be a viable substitute. But, we can greatly reduce its usage and this will be enough to avoid an even bigger human catastrophe looming on the horizon. Or is that all just made up BS to appease poorly paid scientists in their endeavours of world polittical and economic domination while the fossil fuel companies and their cooat-tail hangers-on are quitely going about their business with no damage to the planet or climate?

 

(BTW, there is greenwashing out there.. somehow I am not sure CSIRO is in it.. but fossil fuel companies - you know - with green gas and green coal - are absolutely definitely not into greenwashing, right?)

Edited March 7 by Jerry_Atrick

[pmccarthy]

Nothing wrong with reducing usage, I agree. But setting impossible targets does no one any good. Unfortunately any debate quickly gets political. For example, I see more good science and common sense in the discussions of Peta Credlin and Malcolm Roberts than any of the current government. That makes me impossible to talk to, I guess.

[spacesailor]

I , have noticed over many years .

All The universities are very politicised. 

They are pumping out the next generations of politicised world leaders .

They cannot give a single word answer, to any simple question . ( yes or no ).

spacesailor

 

 

 

[octave]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

Unfortunately any debate quickly gets political. For example, I see more good science and common sense in the discussions of Peta Credlin and Malcolm Roberts

 

Malcolm Roberts, you must be joking.  You only have to read Roberts comments on vaccination to realize he is a bit of a tosser.  

[Marty_d]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

..., I see more good science and common sense in the discussions of Peta Credlin and Malcolm Roberts 

Good joke!  Between the two of them they'd have less knowledge or interest in actual science (or sense, common or otherwise) than Donald Trump has in telling the truth.

 

 

 

Edited March 7 by Marty_d

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, Marty_d said:

than Donald Trump has in telling the truth

Or accurately valuing commercial real estate...

[Jerry_Atrick]

9 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

But setting impossible targets does no one any good.

Setting totally timid targets so as not to affect real change has the same, if not worse effect.

[pmccarthy]

Told you it was political!

Edited March 7 by pmccarthy

[Jerry_Atrick]

So setting under-achieving goals is political? Of course it is.. that was my point...

 

[facthunter]

The Tories in the UK WERE  acknowledging  Anthropomorphic Climate  Change. Oil Companies know about it Insurance people know about it. People make money out of not wanting the Masses to know about it, but they are a decreasing minority. CO 2 in the seas and atmosphere has increased markedly. Nev

[Marty_d]

4 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Told you it was political!

It's not political, it's scientific.

 

The results are in.  It's proven.  The only people who don't agree that anthropomorphic climate change is both real and a very urgent problem to be solved, are either those who on ideological/religious grounds will not accept the possibility no matter how much evidence is presented, and those who are in or benefit financially from industries which add to the problem - who either don't believe the science or, worse, know it's real but choose short term profits over the future of humanity.

 

How it SEEMS political is that certain politicians, usually from the conservative side (conservative = "we don't want anything to change" - so it's hard for them to accept the NEED for major change) - are at best just representing the views of their constituents who work in coal/oil/gas and associated industries, or else cynically supporting those industries for personal gain of money or power instead of looking after the interests of the public.  Some will even try to float unworkable and extremely costly "alternatives" like large nuclear plants instead of just following the science and making use of our huge natural resources for solar, wind, pumped hydro and battery because it either doesn't fit with their worldview or because they just want a political point of difference from their enemies across the aisle.

[spacesailor]

When the ' evidence ' is one sided , in that. The world,  millennium ago was hotter than it now is . And fauna & flora, were larger than today's species. 

All the coal in the ground ,was growing at a phenomenal 

Rate above the ground ,

spacesailor