Well, yes, but

I admire the radicalism of Extinction Rebellion. But, as Roger Hallam explains in the book to which I have linked this morning, whilst its objective is radical social change, and that is almost certainly necessary

Actually, no. Climate change means – if it means anything at all – that we need to reduce emissions. And nowt else.

It’s just an excuse for that radical social change….

11 thoughts on “Well, yes, but”

  1. Dennis, Man of Substance and Girth

    I admire the radicalism of Extinction Rebellion.

    Says the fat middle-aged white guy living in the sort of place where fat middle-aged white guys end up. Radicalism is easy to admire when it’s at a distance.

    And he’s just stupid enough to assume that ‘radical social change’ will leave him in his house in Ely, with toy trains to play with, while he noodles around on his blog site.

  2. Er, NO, Tim
    Extinction Rebellion is all about radical social change. It wants to change the UK, which contributes 1.2% of global CO2 emissions, while doing nothing about China’s increasing CO2 emissions which already amount to 28% of the global total. Climate change is just a fig-leaf for their campaign which will do zilch about CO2 emissions.
    Extinction Rebellion wants to put the UK back to pre-Industrial Revolution standards, with CO2 emitted by burning wood, oil and gas [coal being obsolete] limited to the amount absorbed by the trees and peat bogs so people will freeze to death every January when “Renewables” only produce 1% of electricity demand [everyone’s gas-fired central heating is to be torn out of their houses – even Greenpeace think that this is going to hurt *their* campaign].
    You can ride a bicycle until it wears out, but not replace it as we can’t make steel for the frame of a new one. So we’re going to walk in our wooden clogs

  3. Please give examples of ‘climate change’ being caused by (CO2) emissions with supporting falsifiable evidence. And which climate is supposedly changing? There are 14 distinct climate zones on Earth, each will multiple sub-zones.

    Are they all changing in concert; separately; some changing; some not… and how?

    Climate is not a datum and cannot be observed or measured, so if we reduce (CO2) emissions how can we compare climate before and after, and how will we know in real time if we are ‘stopping’ climate change and how will we know we are only stopping the bit being changed by (CO2) emissions.

    IPCC says no evidence of increase in severe weather events; meteorological data show no trend in key factors to indicate changes in climates. IPCC also says predicting changes in climate impossible.

    So what exactly are we trying to stop anyway?

  4. @ John B

    “So what exactly are we trying to stop anyway?”

    ER are trying to stop people doing things that they can’t afford to do.

  5. The original problem was alleged to be Global Warming. Basic physics states that an increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause temperatures to rise, all other factors being equal. The fact that the calculated effects would be negligible was dealt with by positing positive feedback loops involving water vapour. Water vapour has a much more significant warming effect than CO2 and we would eventually reach a tipping point when the global temperature will spiral off into infinity and we will all burn. Fortunately water vapour tends to condense and produce clouds which have more of a cooling effect and the sort of negative feedback that a thermostat produces. Thus the real world stubbornly refuses to grow significantly hotter.

    Now we have Climate Change instead. This just involves pointing at every single normal weather event and claiming that it is unprecedented and proof of catastrophic climate change.

  6. @john77 October 10, 2019 at 1:58 pm

    +1

    Tim W needs to bin his fake neutrality hidden behind “Economists say” and admit he’s a gullible AGW/CC believer as “I don’t understand science, thus believe what BBC tell me”

  7. @Stonyground October 10, 2019 at 8:01 pm

    Past temps show C02 ppm increased After global temperature rise

    CO2 – 0.04% of atmosphere, a trace gas which plants need to grow

  8. A good question to ask AGW nutters: How much will it cost and what difference will it make?
    My own, back of a fag packet, taking my socks off where necessary calculation using IPCC figures:
    CO2 = 0.004% of the atmosphere
    Natural = 95% (ish)
    Man made = 0.0002%
    UK emissions 1% (ish) = 0.000002% = 390mmt per year
    According to IPCC 1,767,250 mmt CO2 = 1 degree increase
    UK cuts emission to 0 = 0.00002 degree reduction in temp.
    Cost of 2008 Climate Change act (which doesn’t go anywhere near net zero) = £750Bn (ish) by 2050.

  9. @Addolff October 11, 2019 at 9:05 am

    On right track, but figures wrong:

    CO2 = 0.004% ~0.04% of the atmosphere
    Natural = 95% (ish) ~97%
    Man made = 0.0002% ~3%

    For UK Perspective see this Today

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *