I'm going to ask a question here . Expert's say we are doomed due to climate change. But could they be wrong. Last year's summer only just eclipsed 1976 , and was still 3 degree's cooler than the UK record in 2003. And it's not like they have been wrong before. In the eighties they said we would all die of aids , then it was die from eating eggs and then they said diesel was less pollutant than petrol. Just a thought.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Extinction Rebellion transport disruption from 17/04/2019
- Thread starter reddragon
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Who says we are "doomed"?
If that's your argument to claim climate change isn't happening, then that's an extremely weak argument to say the least.
Who is 'they' and can you provide a quote and source?
Who said this? again can you provide a quote?
And again, who said this exactly?
It depends on what pollutants you are measuring, and I doubt any 'expert' has tried to claim all diesels pollute less than all petrol cars.
https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/new-and-used-cars/article/petrol-vs-diesel-cars-which-is-better
It also depends on what filters are fitted, and how often they are replaced/cleaned.
And Yorkie , ok doomed may not be the exact word . But this whole argument is that if we don't do something soon then the world is screwed , doomed etc. And please read properly , I wasn't arguing against climate change. I asked could they be wrong , I didn't say they were . Asking a question is not the same as making a claim against anything.
One of the protesters this morning glueing themselves to something in the City was a retired head teacher aged 53. Since when did teachers retire before age 53? Others on DLR train with banners. I have to agree with them that the financial sector needs to do a lot more to reduce the harm they cause across the globe.
deltic
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 3,224
The UK's weather records are not really relevant - its global measures that are important and they are pretty damning.
It was experts that got people to change their sexual behaviours that reduced the incidence of Aids (and to give credit to Margaret Thatcher's government it ran the most explicit advertising on sexual behaviour ever seen because it accepted the scientific evidence). Lets not forget that at least 35m are estimated to have died of aids worldwide.
With diesel cars the switch from petrol was to address CO2 emissions where they were successful. Unfortunately it led to an increase in pollutants in part because the manufacturers fiddled their emission figures. Again scientific evidence has been used to put in place policies to tackle the issue.
As Greta Thunberg stated addressing politicians
"You don’t listen to science because you’re only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before"
The view that there is not a problem or something will turn up has stymied climate change policy for decades and the action by Extinction Rebellion has helped get the subject back up the political agenda.
deltic
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 3,224
The teachers superannuation fund states "The earliest retirement benefits can be paid is age 55, unless you’re granted ill health benefits" which suggests they probably went early on ill health grounds.
If you saved enough money to cover your expenses you can retire whenever you want.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Well firstly, as Yorkie has pointed out, doomed is a massive exaggeration on what the experts have generally said about all those things.
Also, as far as I can recall, I don't think 'expert' opinion has ever been that diesel was less of a pollutant than petrol. Expert opinion was that diesel cars were more efficient than petrol cars in terms of CO2 emissions/mile travelled. That was completely correct. The Government of the day then made a value judgement that that lower CO2 was more important than the higher particulate levels from diesels. The Government's value judgement has changed in that regard and today probably most of us regard the higher particulates as much more important (partly because of more evidence of just how harmful they are).
Similarly, expert opinion was never that we would all die of AIDS. So if you're going to quote 'expert opinion' you need to be sure that what you're quoting really is expert opinion.
In the case of climate change, yes, there is a theoretical possibility that 'expert opinion' might be wrong - but that's only because in science there's always a theoretical possibility that you might be wrong. Science almost never deals in 100% absolutes. But for the question of man-made climate change being real, that possibility is so tiny that it's pretty safe to say for all practical purposes it's zero. There are still many arguments about the precise extent of climate change and the finer details of how it will impact us, but there is no reasonable doubt that it is real, caused mainly by CO2 emissions, and going to have a serious affect on the World. The weight of evidence backing that up is now huge, the research has been ongoing for decades, and the number of scientists involved is similarly large. Look at some of the links I posted earlier.
Look at those and notice how definite the language in most of them is, and remember that these are respected well established scientific organisations. I used to work as a researcher, so I know from experience that scientists are generally very ready to emphasize any significant doubts in their research conclusions. Most scientists do not use definite language unless they feel very certain of their findings.
Last edited:
https://news.sky.com/story/extincti...o-close-heathrow-airport-with-drones-11742784
Seems they have halted their plan to Close Heathrow in the Summer, but the question is, they would have ruined thousands of holiday makers holidays, that they will have worked hard for and saved up for, what right do they have to ruin other people's lives for what 'they' think is right ?
Seems they have halted their plan to Close Heathrow in the Summer, but the question is, they would have ruined thousands of holiday makers holidays, that they will have worked hard for and saved up for, what right do they have to ruin other people's lives for what 'they' think is right ?
Last edited by a moderator:
None but they want publicity, and they no doubt consider that bad publicity is good for their cause.
Their anti-public transport and extremist stance has turned me off them.
But it's still important that we, as a society, change our ways. But the change should be realistic and not imposed by disruptive extremists.
I doubt that the police would have allowed them to cause any significant disruption at Heathrow. As for drones, anyone found guilty of using them to disrupt flights, would face a significant prison sentence. This may well of deterred them.
You mean may have? No, it wouldn't.
reddragon
Established Member
They won in court over the Stanstead disruption as the use of the law was excessive.
They were deterred more by the risk of alienating newly-won supporters from the cause by taking extremely drastic action at Heathrow. I agree with their cause but not exactly this method.
This just concerns me. I understand that this is hypothetical but the problem is that people I have spoken to have made comments such as these that show their lack of belief in genuine research and greater understanding of the natural processes taking place. Extinction Rebellion, as much or as little as anyone likes, have drawn considerable awareness to this through their methods - but again, myself and my friends agreed that disrupting Heathrow to this extent is counterproductive as it is unlikely to gain sympathy from the general public.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
It's probably turned off a lot of people from their cause, inculding me.
Extinction Rebellion planning a blockade of roads in Cambridge next weekend (https://twitter.com/xr_cambridge/status/1143542221163155456?s=20)
Coincides with The Big Weekend and Race for Life. The traffic on the weekend last year (thankfully that I didn't even try to drive in - walked and bussed instead) was awful, even by Cambridge standards.
Apparently includes a blockade of one of the main (busy and expensive) city centre car parks - the Grand Arcade car park.
Don't think they've thought through how badly it'll screw up the city's bus network... (even if buses are let through - the chaotic traffic is likely to make schedules unmanageable)
Coincides with The Big Weekend and Race for Life. The traffic on the weekend last year (thankfully that I didn't even try to drive in - walked and bussed instead) was awful, even by Cambridge standards.
Apparently includes a blockade of one of the main (busy and expensive) city centre car parks - the Grand Arcade car park.
Don't think they've thought through how badly it'll screw up the city's bus network... (even if buses are let through - the chaotic traffic is likely to make schedules unmanageable)
reddragon
Established Member
Their buses are diesels too!
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Ah yes, Cambridge, great target. Deeply unfriendly to the car. A fine park and ride system, a brand new railway station, and one of the world’s finest universities which researches climate change.
Geezertronic
Established Member
Looks like the idiots are back causing trouble in the big village again...
reddragon
Established Member
But not as bad as the dinosaurs who think burning stuff is a good idea, are fine with loosing places like Fairbourne, Kingston upon Hull and Dawlish to the sea in the next few years!
They have 99% support in the UK because they accept what the scientists are saying. Pity the muppets in power holding onto their oil greed do not
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
They've never had my support. Good message, horrendous execution.
Geezertronic
Established Member
Please provide references for the 99% support figure - I think you'll be proved completely wrong.
Their cause is lost in their constant disruption and idiocy
Exactly. The disruption of commuters' journeys with the intention of getting Parliament to do something about climate change isn't fair - what if I stood at the end of their drive at their house, for example, and made getting to work a right pain in the proverbial? They wouldn't like it.
-Peter
*Prepares for backlash about how life isn't fair*
Terry Tait
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2019
- Messages
- 196
Most of them don't work anyway, I wouldn't employ any of them.
nlogax
Established Member
99% of whom, exactly?
CaptainHaddock
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 2,214
Guardian readers and BBC viewers, I suspect. The more rational amongst us remain skeptical both about the movement and their motives.
telstarbox
Established Member
Got a source for that?
NoMorePacers
Established Member
I remember reading recently (I cannot remember the source, I would provide it if I did) that Extinction Rebellion take up more police resources than terrorist groups like ISIS do.
So you could indirectly list Extinction Rebellion as a terrorist organisation. Not that I would necessarily support that.
So you could indirectly list Extinction Rebellion as a terrorist organisation. Not that I would necessarily support that.
- Status