| XR PR 09:12 - Sep 11 with 27146 views | hampstead_blue |
Interesting resignation and thoughts from their PR talking head.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54103163
XR "peddle messages of doomsday gloom that alienate" and offer "little in the way of positive solutions", she added.
co-founder Roger Hallam's claim that science predicts six billion people will die this century due to climate change - a claim that he made to BBC's HARDtalk.
Ms Lights said: "It's a headline-grabbing assertion - but unfortunately, it's also not true,
peer-group tribal pressure to stick to an outdated mainstream green line".
"peddling the notion that the solution to the climate crisis was to turn back the clock to a simpler time".
I think I mentioned last week that XR wanted us to live in caves. That got me a lot of tap. Well, their former head of PR agrees. Tap away.
A few interesting clips from the BBC piece.
I've said before that I am not a fan of them and how they make their point. THis simply reinforces it.
|  |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |  |
| XR PR on 11:28 - Sep 11 with 4608 views | WeWereZombies |
| XR PR on 11:08 - Sep 11 by StokieBlue |
You're of course right with regards to confirmation bias but I would posit that the founder making such unscientific claims allows people to more actively discredit what they are trying to do.
In these situations it's important to be scientifically and factually correct thus not to give free ammunition to the deniers.
SB |
Good to see you back Stokie, I was getting worried about your not posting for the last two or three weeks.
I watched the HARDtalk interview with Roger Hallam, that Hampstead referred in his first post, a few weeks ago. Hallam is not a measured interviewee, he is a polemicist. He is also studying for a PhD at Kings and was an organic farmer (who blames climate change for the failure of his enterprise) so he is not just rent-a-mob off the street either.
His claims are extreme, but then the situation is about to become extreme too (for most of us, although it is already extreme for people in deserts and low lying islands - and innumerable species). I think is was Niels Bohr who said prediction is always a tricky business and especially so when it is about the future. In other words, the confirmation bias analysis is less useful when no one can know what will happen but Hallam should at least be considered rationally (as I believe Stephen Sackur did - his interviewing style is one of almost playing devils advocate almost all the time but then making you wonder if he has had a hand on getting interviewees on who he actually agrees with). [Post edited 11 Sep 2020 11:34]
|  |
| |
| XR PR on 11:30 - Sep 11 with 4607 views | Ryorry |
| XR PR on 11:26 - Sep 11 by hampstead_blue |
Exactly.
Problem with the likes of XR is that they turn the right people away with their silliness and shouty state and wealth crushing antics. |
I'd say that in one way, Extinction Rebellion may have been very successful with you and people like your Porsche-loving friend.
You're heatedly discussing the topic, which spreads debate. Would you have been doing so if it had't been for XR? |  |
| |
| XR PR on 11:31 - Sep 11 with 4605 views | Herbivore |
| XR PR on 11:26 - Sep 11 by hampstead_blue |
Exactly.
Problem with the likes of XR is that they turn the right people away with their silliness and shouty state and wealth crushing antics. |
They only turn away those who don't want to look in the first place. |  |
| |
| XR PR on 11:33 - Sep 11 with 4601 views | hampstead_blue |
| XR PR on 11:16 - Sep 11 by eireblue |
If I have some time, I’ll look some stuff up.
Of course Hampstead should have done this himself.
Fact checkers will say there is no peer reviewed scientific consensus on his claim.
That is not the same as there is no science.
There is. If the planet warms by 4 degrees, it is a possibility that human population can only survive at around 10% of what it is now.
As previously suggested, it is worth thinking about other animal populations that outgrow their environment.
Such science is quite hard, you have to make assumptions about how effective measures will or won’t be.
The amusing thing for me is people like Hampstead, i.e. people that don’t like policies that they seem extreme, also tend to say thing like, well it is pointless anyway because China, US, developing nations will ignore things.
That being the case, the worse case scenarios are more likely to occur. |
Pipe-down treacle.
The amusing thing for me is people like Hampstead, i.e. people that don’t like policies that they seem extreme, also tend to say thing like, well it is pointless anyway because China, US, developing nations will ignore things.
Utter tripe to put me in there. That's 100% not what I think. f you want my opinion be polite and ask. If you are unsure, be polite and ask.
Don't assume when I am in the room.
I've quoted the BBC website and the former XR PR person. There is a small opinion piece at the end. I think you will also find many others agree with me | |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| XR PR on 11:37 - Sep 11 with 4593 views | Ryorry |
| XR PR on 10:14 - Sep 11 by Swansea_Blue |
Some people will like how they make their point, some won't. That's going to be a very subjective argument. Personally, I don't see why they need to be offering solutions. There's nothing wrong with protesting to highlight an issue that's the responsibility of others to address. And the message is grim, there's little way to sugarcoat it.
The nuclear debate is going to rumble on forever I imagine. We all know the pros and cons around it. I'd like to see what we can achieve without it given the high consequences of safety breaches (tidal being an area we really should be making more of an effort). Continuing with offshore wind, a vast ramping up of micro renewable generation and tidal may be all we need to do. But I can see the argument for nuclear, for sure. |
Add *wave* power into that - well, various Govts. could have been doing so for at least a quarter of a century if they hadn't been personally invested in the oil and gas industries ... as the technology for wave-power generation has been around since the early 1990s.
The UK is surrounded by blinkin' waves & tides for cryin' out loud!  All those decades of letting it go unharnessed has me tearing my hair out  | |
| |
| XR PR on 11:48 - Sep 11 with 4579 views | hampstead_blue |
| XR PR on 11:26 - Sep 11 by StokieBlue |
A warming of 4C is right on the far percentiles of what is even possible in the next 50 years, over longer timescales (70+ years) it's definitely possible but he cited 50 years in his point.
I don't disagree with you, just feel that selecting an outlier scenario as a headline point makes is easier for people like Hampstead to dismiss it when what we need is for them to be engaged in the task with a realistic goal.
With regards to only 10% being able to survive, I don't doubt that but is it in existing population centres or inclusive of migration to areas that become more habitable (Siberia for instance)? Once again it's a number I fear can be dismissed/ignored by those unwilling to look into it.
Once again, ER are right to highlight these incredibly pressing matters and things need to be done, just feel that taking the most extreme percentiles of the modelling as a headline point is probably not going to help their message as has been demonstrated in this thread.
If the message isn't clear and accepted then it's not going to help any of us in the long run.
SB |
Please don't state I dismiss the point of global warming. I do not.
I dismiss the way that XR go about it. They switch-off millions with their patronising and insulting rhetoric.
By always going for the worst case scenario, and by definition the one with probably the smallest probability, they are treating us like children.
To gain any credibility you need to show a balanced argument in a polite and reasoned manner.
That is my stance. Please don't allow others to confuse you. That really grips my solid waste! | |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| XR PR on 11:49 - Sep 11 with 4578 views | eireblue |
| XR PR on 11:26 - Sep 11 by StokieBlue |
A warming of 4C is right on the far percentiles of what is even possible in the next 50 years, over longer timescales (70+ years) it's definitely possible but he cited 50 years in his point.
I don't disagree with you, just feel that selecting an outlier scenario as a headline point makes is easier for people like Hampstead to dismiss it when what we need is for them to be engaged in the task with a realistic goal.
With regards to only 10% being able to survive, I don't doubt that but is it in existing population centres or inclusive of migration to areas that become more habitable (Siberia for instance)? Once again it's a number I fear can be dismissed/ignored by those unwilling to look into it.
Once again, ER are right to highlight these incredibly pressing matters and things need to be done, just feel that taking the most extreme percentiles of the modelling as a headline point is probably not going to help their message as has been demonstrated in this thread.
If the message isn't clear and accepted then it's not going to help any of us in the long run.
SB |
People like Hampstead will dismiss anything that they don’t like.
What is a realistic goal, if you decide to prepare for the worst and 4 degrees warming is only 70 ish years away?
I know you understand this, but I think this was a where COVID is useful.
Even if 4 degrees in 70 years is worst case, to avoid that, understanding that humans really should have started 20 years ago maybe helpful.
For all the people saying, we would listen to a more gentle approach, my observation is that over the last 20 years, Nigel Farage has been getting quite popular, the Green Party, hasn’t. |  | | |
| XR PR on 11:49 - Sep 11 with 4577 views | EdwardStone |
| XR PR on 11:26 - Sep 11 by hampstead_blue |
Exactly.
Problem with the likes of XR is that they turn the right people away with their silliness and shouty state and wealth crushing antics. |
If you have a spare moment Mr H, perhaps you could just reflect on this simple message
" When you have chopped down the last tree, caught the last fish and polluted the last stream maybe you will understand that you can't eat money"
A quote attributed to numerous different sources, but reliably thought to be Native American in origin
Highly pertinent to your argument about the "silliness" of the XR case |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| XR PR on 11:50 - Sep 11 with 4575 views | hampstead_blue |
| XR PR on 11:49 - Sep 11 by eireblue |
People like Hampstead will dismiss anything that they don’t like.
What is a realistic goal, if you decide to prepare for the worst and 4 degrees warming is only 70 ish years away?
I know you understand this, but I think this was a where COVID is useful.
Even if 4 degrees in 70 years is worst case, to avoid that, understanding that humans really should have started 20 years ago maybe helpful.
For all the people saying, we would listen to a more gentle approach, my observation is that over the last 20 years, Nigel Farage has been getting quite popular, the Green Party, hasn’t. |
Petal, not me.
Feel free to amend and remove. | |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| XR PR on 11:54 - Sep 11 with 4570 views | WeWereZombies |
| XR PR on 11:37 - Sep 11 by Ryorry |
Add *wave* power into that - well, various Govts. could have been doing so for at least a quarter of a century if they hadn't been personally invested in the oil and gas industries ... as the technology for wave-power generation has been around since the early 1990s.
The UK is surrounded by blinkin' waves & tides for cryin' out loud! All those decades of letting it go unharnessed has me tearing my hair out |
https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/scotlands-first-floating-tidal-power-f | |
| |
| XR PR on 11:55 - Sep 11 with 4569 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| XR PR on 11:48 - Sep 11 by hampstead_blue |
Please don't state I dismiss the point of global warming. I do not.
I dismiss the way that XR go about it. They switch-off millions with their patronising and insulting rhetoric.
By always going for the worst case scenario, and by definition the one with probably the smallest probability, they are treating us like children.
To gain any credibility you need to show a balanced argument in a polite and reasoned manner.
That is my stance. Please don't allow others to confuse you. That really grips my solid waste! |
Balanced arguments in a polite and reasoned manner don't work - otherwsie we wouldn't be leaving the EU. |  |
| |
| XR PR on 11:57 - Sep 11 with 4565 views | Ryorry |
| XR PR on 11:49 - Sep 11 by EdwardStone |
If you have a spare moment Mr H, perhaps you could just reflect on this simple message
" When you have chopped down the last tree, caught the last fish and polluted the last stream maybe you will understand that you can't eat money"
A quote attributed to numerous different sources, but reliably thought to be Native American in origin
Highly pertinent to your argument about the "silliness" of the XR case |
What I find utterly baffling is that those with real power, such as world leaders and other politicians, mostly have children and either have, or are likely to have, grandchildren and further descendants into the future - if the planet remains fit for human habitation.
Yet they still seem to care more about their personal wealth - promoting the gas & oil industries because they have shares in them eg, when they could be investing in renewables - a fantastic economic opportunity if ever there were one. It constantly grinds my gears. [Post edited 11 Sep 2020 11:58]
| |
| |
| XR PR on 12:01 - Sep 11 with 4556 views | WeWereZombies |
| XR PR on 11:48 - Sep 11 by hampstead_blue |
Please don't state I dismiss the point of global warming. I do not.
I dismiss the way that XR go about it. They switch-off millions with their patronising and insulting rhetoric.
By always going for the worst case scenario, and by definition the one with probably the smallest probability, they are treating us like children.
To gain any credibility you need to show a balanced argument in a polite and reasoned manner.
That is my stance. Please don't allow others to confuse you. That really grips my solid waste! |
The mass extinction of species is not necessarily climate related, it is more about habitat loss. There are common causes shared by those concerned about climate change and those concerned about species loss, the way we use resources and how that contributes to environmental degradation as well as the greenhouse effect for example. You are shifting around all over the place in this thread though so may I suggest that you, metaphorically, check you have your underpants on the right way round before complaining that there is no Y-front in them? | |
| |
| XR PR on 12:01 - Sep 11 with 4556 views | Ryorry |
Great stuff, albeit that's tidal not generation from wave power (as I understand from a quick read anyway) - which differs in that it uses the motion of waves themselves & isn't dependant on tides. | |
| |
| XR PR on 12:06 - Sep 11 with 4550 views | eireblue |
| XR PR on 11:33 - Sep 11 by hampstead_blue |
Pipe-down treacle.
The amusing thing for me is people like Hampstead, i.e. people that don’t like policies that they seem extreme, also tend to say thing like, well it is pointless anyway because China, US, developing nations will ignore things.
Utter tripe to put me in there. That's 100% not what I think. f you want my opinion be polite and ask. If you are unsure, be polite and ask.
Don't assume when I am in the room.
I've quoted the BBC website and the former XR PR person. There is a small opinion piece at the end. I think you will also find many others agree with me |
One of the topics that I like to discuss is veganism.
Many debates are started about it. People that have a very different views ask lots of questions, some silly, some very thoughtful. I answer every single one put to me. I was a bit short with one response once.
Sometimes on political debates there is a poster that likes to frame questions, I will explicitly tell them, they are doing that and will refuse their framing.
I have asked you countless questions on many topics.
If you want your opinions to be known, engage in debate.
That requires a certain degree of interaction.
"Pipe-down treacle".
Bully, cancel culture, or snow flakery?
Any cancelling of debate, and limits of posting, is done by Phil.
I'll continue to use my free speech as determined by the T&C's. | | | |
| XR PR on 12:09 - Sep 11 with 4546 views | Ryorry |
| XR PR on 12:06 - Sep 11 by eireblue |
One of the topics that I like to discuss is veganism.
Many debates are started about it. People that have a very different views ask lots of questions, some silly, some very thoughtful. I answer every single one put to me. I was a bit short with one response once.
Sometimes on political debates there is a poster that likes to frame questions, I will explicitly tell them, they are doing that and will refuse their framing.
I have asked you countless questions on many topics.
If you want your opinions to be known, engage in debate.
That requires a certain degree of interaction.
"Pipe-down treacle".
Bully, cancel culture, or snow flakery?
Any cancelling of debate, and limits of posting, is done by Phil.
I'll continue to use my free speech as determined by the T&C's. |
Sorry to be flippant, but that sounds just like how the EU are currently having to talk to our toddler-tantrumming Cabinet! | |
| |
| XR PR on 12:20 - Sep 11 with 4532 views | Half_Idiot |
| XR PR on 11:48 - Sep 11 by hampstead_blue |
Please don't state I dismiss the point of global warming. I do not.
I dismiss the way that XR go about it. They switch-off millions with their patronising and insulting rhetoric.
By always going for the worst case scenario, and by definition the one with probably the smallest probability, they are treating us like children.
To gain any credibility you need to show a balanced argument in a polite and reasoned manner.
That is my stance. Please don't allow others to confuse you. That really grips my solid waste! |
Balanced arguments delivered in a polite and reasoned manner are more often than not ignored, they don't work. If they did there would be no need for any protests.
It been proven time and time again that for society to change and develop you need to repeatedly scream in peoples faces until they listen. |  | | |
| XR PR on 12:28 - Sep 11 with 4522 views | eireblue |
| XR PR on 12:09 - Sep 11 by Ryorry |
Sorry to be flippant, but that sounds just like how the EU are currently having to talk to our toddler-tantrumming Cabinet! |
Being flippant is one of my favourite things to do. | | | |
| XR PR on 12:36 - Sep 11 with 4517 views | eireblue |
| XR PR on 12:20 - Sep 11 by Half_Idiot |
Balanced arguments delivered in a polite and reasoned manner are more often than not ignored, they don't work. If they did there would be no need for any protests.
It been proven time and time again that for society to change and develop you need to repeatedly scream in peoples faces until they listen. |
Would you say that fair and balanced arguments, that also make it clear on the overwhelming consensus on climate change science, and the subsequent issues that are faced by humans in the next 70 years or so, are covered appropriately in media outlets, such as say, newspapers?
Or maybe that lack of coverage, of even perfectly reasonable discussions, may need highlighting, in some way shape or form? | | | |
| XR PR on 12:51 - Sep 11 with 4497 views | WeWereZombies |
| XR PR on 12:01 - Sep 11 by Ryorry |
Great stuff, albeit that's tidal not generation from wave power (as I understand from a quick read anyway) - which differs in that it uses the motion of waves themselves & isn't dependant on tides. |
To be honest I have hardly even skimmed that article, it was just the most recent one that came up when I Googled. But I have met people working out of Stromness on projects like this and there are multiple challenges. The use of turbines that harvest the power from that ferocious tidal race between the Orkney mainland and mainland Scotland seems to have been settled upon because they are small enough not to present a barrier that can be breached by extreme conditions and also light enough not to need excessive infrastructure for tethering and also transmission networking.
As we are talking XR PR on this thread we cannot ignore the problems that tidal barriers raise (sic) for cetaceans and the adverse publicity that would arise if whales started to be stranded in even larger numbers than is happening at present. | |
| |
| XR PR on 13:08 - Sep 11 with 4490 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| XR PR on 09:26 - Sep 11 by jeera |
Because you're making the same mistake as those who label BLM Marxists and the like.
Treating movements as a collective only and ignoring that they are made up of individuals, some of whom will be more radical than others.
Many members will have the core values at heart and not be pushing the rhetoric that a few of the others may be. It's a shame it's always the wrong messages that grab the headlines whilst the main important message gets pushed aside by people who generally aren't really interested. [Post edited 11 Sep 2020 10:56]
|
There's also the fact that XR isn't "a movement" but a distributed network of autonomous local groups of individuals. Each local group is independent of all other local groups, and makes their own collective decisions as to which actions they will organise. Each individual member of the local group is then free to opt into or out of each action.
I have two good friends who are part of an XR group. One is highly radicalised and has taken part in a raid on Barclaycard's HQ. Those taking part deliberately caused criminal damage by throwing paint at logo and then waited for Police. They want to be arrested.
The other primarily organises litter picks, information stalls in the marketplace, and campaigning to save a local beauty spot from development. He is standing as a Green Party candidate and doesn't want to be arrested.
I'm proud to call both of them my friends. They both do more than I do, even though I know that things are seriously wrong.
In the past I've asked why on earth XR do stupid things like disrupt trains or dig up lawns in Cambridge, and they have explained the distributed structure and said that they can't stop other groups organising whatever actions they like. I've said "But the medium is the message- surely airports not railway stations?" And they just shrug. I've said " So your structure means that Special Branch infiltrators can dominate a local group and suggest actions which will damage the cause?" And they just shrug. I suspect that this has been the case with some of the actions which have caused most controversy.
So any rogue wannabe leader is able to position themselves as spokesperson for a group and become an easy media booking by conforming to an outrageous stereotype. State infiltrators could fill these roles, as could people who are forceful and ideologically more extreme than many members. Either way some more moderate prominent members may reach the point where they say "I'm out!" | | | |
| XR PR on 13:13 - Sep 11 with 4483 views | DanTheMan |
| XR PR on 12:20 - Sep 11 by Half_Idiot |
Balanced arguments delivered in a polite and reasoned manner are more often than not ignored, they don't work. If they did there would be no need for any protests.
It been proven time and time again that for society to change and develop you need to repeatedly scream in peoples faces until they listen. |
For evidence of this, see the last 20 years or so when scientists and other politicians have been making these arguments only to find themselves ignored and attacked by the press as being "alarmists".
There are people on here who I respect who have used typical climate change denial tactics when reports have been warning humanity that we need to polute less. Things like picking one small part of a 1,000+ page report to dismiss the entire report out of hand.
Do I wish there was a better way than the way XR protests? Absolutely.
Have we tried all the other methods? Yes. |  |
| |
| XR PR on 13:14 - Sep 11 with 4480 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| XR PR on 10:51 - Sep 11 by solomon |
When we look at this from a purely environmental perspective, it’s clear people like Elon musk have achieved far more in a shorter period of time than anyone else.
The battle ground is Jason and Sophie at number 28, how do we change the way they and their family live? It’s all about making change a desirable and aspirational ideal. Mr Musk has understood this and this is the way things will change for the environment. I can’t tell you the number of petrol head fiends I have who are openly talking seriously about buying electric vehicles now, one is even looking at a Porsche Taycan, 6 months ago he was adamant he would never have one over his 911, this is off course now happening at lower price points too, this is where the battle is and where it will be won not at the gates of a newspaper making futile gestures that change nothing. |
Would that be the Elon Musk who keeps blasting rockets into space, or another one?
As an individual his environmental credentials are "complicated" to say the least. | | | |
| XR PR on 13:24 - Sep 11 with 4466 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| XR PR on 11:26 - Sep 11 by StokieBlue |
A warming of 4C is right on the far percentiles of what is even possible in the next 50 years, over longer timescales (70+ years) it's definitely possible but he cited 50 years in his point.
I don't disagree with you, just feel that selecting an outlier scenario as a headline point makes is easier for people like Hampstead to dismiss it when what we need is for them to be engaged in the task with a realistic goal.
With regards to only 10% being able to survive, I don't doubt that but is it in existing population centres or inclusive of migration to areas that become more habitable (Siberia for instance)? Once again it's a number I fear can be dismissed/ignored by those unwilling to look into it.
Once again, ER are right to highlight these incredibly pressing matters and things need to be done, just feel that taking the most extreme percentiles of the modelling as a headline point is probably not going to help their message as has been demonstrated in this thread.
If the message isn't clear and accepted then it's not going to help any of us in the long run.
SB |
As Siberian permafrost melts, methane is released. Methane-rich environments aren't very conducive to human habitation. Siberia is a very long-term solution.
Canada is the place to be. Lots of fresh unpolluted water sources and land which will become more habitable as temperatures rise by a couple of degrees. On the negative side: lots of Deep South redneck American climate refugees with guns incoming... | | | |
| XR PR on 13:28 - Sep 11 with 4463 views | Clapham_Junction |
Am I the only person who finds it odd that a supposed committed environmental activist would choose the Mail and the Telegraph - two papers well known for downplaying climate change - as the outlets to write for? I don't think any I know would touch them with a bargepole.
The organisation she now works for is run by someone funded by the nuclear industry (the organisation itself might be as well - they do not appear to disclose their funding). The pieces in both newspapers will certainly have pleased them.
Is this actually just some PR for her new bosses? |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
