Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Environmental Protesters
15 Answers
Anyone else sick the back teeth with so called environmental protesters?
Their latest idiotic stunt is to picket a coal fired power station. Some of these planks even tried to break into it to try and shut it down...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8312074.stm
Their latest idiotic stunt is to picket a coal fired power station. Some of these planks even tried to break into it to try and shut it down...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8312074.stm
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Quote from the above article, “Activist Ed Thompson said: "This station is going to be open for the next 30 years under current plans, but science says we have to start decommissioning power stations as soon as possible."“
So what, I wonder, is Ed Thompson's master plan?
Shut down the coal fired power stations before a sustainable alternative is found, therefore plunging the entire country into darkness.
Maybe this idiot and his fellow protesters don't realise is that if this country were without power for just a couple of days, anarchy would rapidly ensue and society as we know it would collapse startlingly quickly.
What a set of t*ssers!
So what, I wonder, is Ed Thompson's master plan?
Shut down the coal fired power stations before a sustainable alternative is found, therefore plunging the entire country into darkness.
Maybe this idiot and his fellow protesters don't realise is that if this country were without power for just a couple of days, anarchy would rapidly ensue and society as we know it would collapse startlingly quickly.
What a set of t*ssers!
Yes how awful of them to protest.
Surely the human race should be allowed to continue to pollute rivers, destroy the ozone layer, concrete over the land, chop down the rain forests, make some animals extinct and so on.
Yes, lets direct our anger at those trying to do something, we dont need to direct our anger at those who are actually polluting the world.
Surely the human race should be allowed to continue to pollute rivers, destroy the ozone layer, concrete over the land, chop down the rain forests, make some animals extinct and so on.
Yes, lets direct our anger at those trying to do something, we dont need to direct our anger at those who are actually polluting the world.
Yes. What intrigues me is the sheer conceit of these people. It's not as though the rest of us aren't aware of the problem of global warming and that man's activities contribute to it ( all right, one of us is [see above] ). What purpose, apart from an ego-trip of their own, do the protestors think they are serving? How do they think what they're doing either advances the argument or stops this or any similar power station ? If anything, this sort of activity has an adverse effect. It encourages neutrals to the belief that only a tiny body of people think that global warming has a man-made element, hence the particular need for protest like this, and/or that those who think that way must be as stupid as the protestors !
VHG - “Surely the human race should be allowed to continue to pollute rivers, destroy the ozone layer, concrete over the land, chop down the rain forests, make some animals extinct and so on.”
No they should not. I agree with you on that point.
VHG - “Yes, lets direct our anger at those trying to do something, we don't need to direct our anger at those who are actually polluting the world.”
I'm sorry but if you think I'm angry with these people because they're “trying to do something” then you have misunderstood my position.
The cold hard fact is that renewables cannot power this country at this point in time. It doesn't matter how many trees you hug or how much you recycle, the energy requirements of this country rely on fossil fuels.
Can this continue indefinitely? No, absolutely not.
Is the answer to switch off our fossil fuel power stations before we have a viable alternative? Yes, if you want front row seats to watch society spectacularly implode. If you think things are bad now with the recession, wait until your lights don't work and you're sat in the dark; your central heating fails; petrol pumps stop working; supermarkets are devoid of food, you can't get money from a cash machine – not that that's a problem, when money becomes worthless overnight...
Obviously, we need to find workable alternative energy sources. But attempting to break into a power station with the intent to shut it down is utter madness. Only the truly monumentally stupid would think switching off power stations because they produce “too much” CO2 is a good idea.
I repeat – What a set of t*ssers!
No they should not. I agree with you on that point.
VHG - “Yes, lets direct our anger at those trying to do something, we don't need to direct our anger at those who are actually polluting the world.”
I'm sorry but if you think I'm angry with these people because they're “trying to do something” then you have misunderstood my position.
The cold hard fact is that renewables cannot power this country at this point in time. It doesn't matter how many trees you hug or how much you recycle, the energy requirements of this country rely on fossil fuels.
Can this continue indefinitely? No, absolutely not.
Is the answer to switch off our fossil fuel power stations before we have a viable alternative? Yes, if you want front row seats to watch society spectacularly implode. If you think things are bad now with the recession, wait until your lights don't work and you're sat in the dark; your central heating fails; petrol pumps stop working; supermarkets are devoid of food, you can't get money from a cash machine – not that that's a problem, when money becomes worthless overnight...
Obviously, we need to find workable alternative energy sources. But attempting to break into a power station with the intent to shut it down is utter madness. Only the truly monumentally stupid would think switching off power stations because they produce “too much” CO2 is a good idea.
I repeat – What a set of t*ssers!
Anyone listen to jeremy vine on radio2? Less than 2% of the CO2 is produced by man... A cow produces 100 times the emissions of a 4x4...It is all a hoax...!!! Global warming is a natural part of the evolution of this world as we know it...if not, someone please explain to me how the ice age was discontinued...?
Rach2008 – Shhhhh!
Don't mention the last ice age! “I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it...”
The so called 'environmentalists' don't want to talk about that anomaly. Nor the myriad of other anomalies in the climate record like the 'Little Ice Age' or the 'Medieval Warm Period'. Both of which Michael Mann* tried to obliterate from history with the ludicrous and one of sciences' most soundly demolished and totally discredited pieces of utterly spurious 'research' – The 'Hockey Stick' graph.
There's a very good reason the greenies don't want to talk about significant historic climatic events - none of them can be linked to human activity. And if they can't be linked to human activity, then they must be part of some natural cycle. But if they're part of some natural cycle and humans have no influence, then the 'Man-Made Global Warming' [MMGW] argument becomes mute.
But assuming that MMGW is real, what these protesters are attempting to bring about is nothing less than societal collapse.
*
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13830/
Don't mention the last ice age! “I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it...”
The so called 'environmentalists' don't want to talk about that anomaly. Nor the myriad of other anomalies in the climate record like the 'Little Ice Age' or the 'Medieval Warm Period'. Both of which Michael Mann* tried to obliterate from history with the ludicrous and one of sciences' most soundly demolished and totally discredited pieces of utterly spurious 'research' – The 'Hockey Stick' graph.
There's a very good reason the greenies don't want to talk about significant historic climatic events - none of them can be linked to human activity. And if they can't be linked to human activity, then they must be part of some natural cycle. But if they're part of some natural cycle and humans have no influence, then the 'Man-Made Global Warming' [MMGW] argument becomes mute.
But assuming that MMGW is real, what these protesters are attempting to bring about is nothing less than societal collapse.
*
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13830/
These waste of space erks make me sick.
I thought their intentional was to care for and protect their fellow man? And yet a number of police officers were injured, one had to be air lifted to hospital, so much for their caring for mankind venture.
If they want to protest about something and thus doing more to protect their fellow man, perhaps they would be better "employed" (oh! sorry to use this word, I bet it sends shivers down their spines) in protesting against the war in Afghanistan?
I thought their intentional was to care for and protect their fellow man? And yet a number of police officers were injured, one had to be air lifted to hospital, so much for their caring for mankind venture.
If they want to protest about something and thus doing more to protect their fellow man, perhaps they would be better "employed" (oh! sorry to use this word, I bet it sends shivers down their spines) in protesting against the war in Afghanistan?
Just because you don't like a piece of evidence birdie doesn't mean you can just say that it's discredited and get away with it.
It's only discreditied with a ragbag collection of head cases and political activists.
Pretty much every major scientific institution on the planet acknowledges man-made global warming and that even went for George Bush before he left office!
Rach - If your glass is full and I add another 2% your cup will runneth over as they say
What percentage of the Earths atmosphere do you think were ChloroFlouro hydrocarbons? And they gave us the Ozone hole (Presuming you don't think that was a hoax too)
In Climate scince very small amounts can trigger very large changes
All the same this osrt of action is not helpfull and Birdies is right we have a 20-40 year holl that needs filling
It needs filling with nuclear power stations though - I do wonder if they'll try and shut those down
It's only discreditied with a ragbag collection of head cases and political activists.
Pretty much every major scientific institution on the planet acknowledges man-made global warming and that even went for George Bush before he left office!
Rach - If your glass is full and I add another 2% your cup will runneth over as they say
What percentage of the Earths atmosphere do you think were ChloroFlouro hydrocarbons? And they gave us the Ozone hole (Presuming you don't think that was a hoax too)
In Climate scince very small amounts can trigger very large changes
All the same this osrt of action is not helpfull and Birdies is right we have a 20-40 year holl that needs filling
It needs filling with nuclear power stations though - I do wonder if they'll try and shut those down
Hi Jake. Your quote, “Just because you don't like a piece of evidence birdie doesn't mean you can just say that it's discredited and get away with it... It's only discredited with a ragbag collection of head cases and political activists.” is simply not true.
Guess what? The only place where CO2 is causing temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models.
In every record of any duration for any time period in the history of the Earth, temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. So an incorrect assumption that a CO2 increase will cause temperature increase is built into the computer models. That is damaging enough, but the computer models themselves are completely inadequate to represent global climate or make any predictions about future climate. But don’t believe me. The IPCC Technical Report (“The Physical Science Basis”) produced by Working Group I and released in November 2007, says so.
Guess what? The only place where CO2 is causing temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models.
In every record of any duration for any time period in the history of the Earth, temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. So an incorrect assumption that a CO2 increase will cause temperature increase is built into the computer models. That is damaging enough, but the computer models themselves are completely inadequate to represent global climate or make any predictions about future climate. But don’t believe me. The IPCC Technical Report (“The Physical Science Basis”) produced by Working Group I and released in November 2007, says so.
Even the IPCC don't trust their own computer models to accurately predict future climate. Don't believe me? The IPCC calls their computer models, “Projections”.
Projection is defined (by the IPCC) as follows, “A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the help of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning e.g. future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty”.
“SUBSTANTIAL UNCERTAINTY”.
Or put another way – “Our computer models are effectively useless at predicting future climate.”
That's quite an admission isn't it?
So you assertion that only, “... head cases and political activists.” doubt that global warming is not correct unless you include the IPCC in that definition.
Projection is defined (by the IPCC) as follows, “A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the help of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning e.g. future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty”.
“SUBSTANTIAL UNCERTAINTY”.
Or put another way – “Our computer models are effectively useless at predicting future climate.”
That's quite an admission isn't it?
So you assertion that only, “... head cases and political activists.” doubt that global warming is not correct unless you include the IPCC in that definition.
People need to wake up to the fact that the whole Man-made Global Warming [MMGW] theory is just a scam. It provides the Governments of the world with a multitude of new revenue streams from both businesses and individuals, while simultaneously ensuring that third world countries cannot develop.
This disgusting lie is condemning millions (possibly billions) of people to an impoverished future by bribing third world Governments not to exploit their natural resources – the privileged few continue to live in luxury while the ordinary men and women die in the street. Thus, the status-quo of cheap consumer goods flowing to the West continues unabated.
And this is being done under the auspices of “saving the planet”.
This disgusting lie is condemning millions (possibly billions) of people to an impoverished future by bribing third world Governments not to exploit their natural resources – the privileged few continue to live in luxury while the ordinary men and women die in the street. Thus, the status-quo of cheap consumer goods flowing to the West continues unabated.
And this is being done under the auspices of “saving the planet”.
1 to 15 of 15
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
News3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
