FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Just Stop Oil protestors guilty but read what judge said...
Just Stop Oil protestors guilty but read what judge said...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
In all seriousness, the cause and the impact are well known and mainly supported. However, they as people broke the law while protesting, which is pretty much the long and short of it  | |||
"I’m going to say nothing to see here
In all seriousness, the cause and the impact are well known and mainly supported. However, they as people broke the law while protesting, which is pretty much the long and short of it "They did And what do most of us do We just sit and say nothing as big oil companies destroy our planet for profit . I would excuse all of us being guilty through ignorance as we’ve all ought cars etc . The facet Exxon knew in the seventies about global warming and kept quiet shows how horrific those people were. Shame on them | |||
| |||
"I’m going to say nothing to see here
In all seriousness, the cause and the impact are well known and mainly supported. However, they as people broke the law while protesting, which is pretty much the long and short of it
They did
And what do most of us do
We just sit and say nothing as big oil companies destroy our planet for profit .
I would excuse all of us being guilty through ignorance as we’ve all ought cars etc .
The facet Exxon knew in the seventies about global warming and kept quiet shows how horrific those people were. Shame on them "As I said, most agree with wrongs of oil production and the impact is is having on our planet. I will not support the disruption caused by the protesters over the summer, and putting themselves and others at risk. Which is pretty much what the judge said, so is the judge right or wrong? | |||
"I’m going to say nothing to see here
In all seriousness, the cause and the impact are well known and mainly supported. However, they as people broke the law while protesting, which is pretty much the long and short of it
They did
And what do most of us do
We just sit and say nothing as big oil companies destroy our planet for profit .
I would excuse all of us being guilty through ignoranceq as we’ve all ought cars etc .
The facet Exxon knew in the seventies about global warming and kept quiet shows how horrific those people were. Shame on them "Sorry, I didn’t finish.. The rights and wrongs, were driven by consumer needs back in the day, and people were not aware of the impacts of oil production. Today is a different matter, 20p for a carrier bag for life? Still flying off the shelves even now, and I would love to know if it was meant to be for the life of the individual or the planet? The reality here is if the population of the world was asked to make a choice to lose everything made of or powered by oil today ,to save the planet, I would expect oil to win. Oil will soon be a thing of the past, sooner than we think, it is not an endless resource. EV’s are an example of commercial change to oil, is it to save the planet, or to cut cord with oil producers who are running out of oil? | |||
"After initially describing the Just Stop Oil supporters as “self appointed vigilantes,” on hearing the testimonies from the defendants, the prosecutor, Mr Fielding, explicitly retracted that comment and conceded the Just Stop Oil supporters were “good people.” In cross examination Esso’s terminal safety manager, Craig Pugh, explained that the danger caused by the burning of fossil fuels didn’t matter because “there are lots of things going on in the world.” In summation the judge stated: “It’s abundantly clear that you are all good people. You are intelligent, articulate and a pleasure to deal with. It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate emergency. Your aims are admirable and it is accepted by me and the Crown Prosecution Service that your views are reasonable and genuinely held. Your fears are ably and genuinely articulated and are supported by the science.” “When the United Nations Secretary General gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.” “No-one can criticise your motivations. You all gave evidence that was deeply moving. I certainly was moved. The tragedy is that good people have felt so much, without hope, that you feel you have to come into conflict with the criminal justice system.” “Thank you for opening my eyes to certain things. Most, I was acutely and depressingly aware of, but there were certain things.” “I say this and I mean this sadly, I have to convict you. You are good people and I will not issue a punitive sentence. Your arrests and loss of good character are sufficient. Good people doing the wrong thing cannot make the wrong thing right. I don’t say this, ever, but it has been a pleasure dealing with you.” Whilst addressing one of the defendants who had said (through tears) that he felt guilty for not doing enough to save the planet for his daughter, he said: “You should feel guilty for nothing. You should feel proud that you care, have concern for the future. I urge you not to break the law again. Good luck to all of you.”" Take a note of the defendants names, chances are they will be mp's in a few years, the judge is obviously protecting their careers in politics. | |||
"After initially describing the Just Stop Oil supporters as “self appointed vigilantes,” on hearing the testimonies from the defendants, the prosecutor, Mr Fielding, explicitly retracted that comment and conceded the Just Stop Oil supporters were “good people.” In cross examination Esso’s terminal safety manager, Craig Pugh, explained that the danger caused by the burning of fossil fuels didn’t matter because “there are lots of things going on in the world.” In summation the judge stated: “It’s abundantly clear that you are all good people. You are intelligent, articulate and a pleasure to deal with. It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate emergency. Your aims are admirable and it is accepted by me and the Crown Prosecution Service that your views are reasonable and genuinely held. Your fears are ably and genuinely articulated and are supported by the science.” “When the United Nations Secretary General gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.” “No-one can criticise your motivations. You all gave evidence that was deeply moving. I certainly was moved. The tragedy is that good people have felt so much, without hope, that you feel you have to come into conflict with the criminal justice system.” “Thank you for opening my eyes to certain things. Most, I was acutely and depressingly aware of, but there were certain things.” “I say this and I mean this sadly, I have to convict you. You are good people and I will not issue a punitive sentence. Your arrests and loss of good character are sufficient. Good people doing the wrong thing cannot make the wrong thing right. I don’t say this, ever, but it has been a pleasure dealing with you.” Whilst addressing one of the defendants who had said (through tears) that he felt guilty for not doing enough to save the planet for his daughter, he said: “You should feel guilty for nothing. You should feel proud that you care, have concern for the future. I urge you not to break the law again. Good luck to all of you.” Take a note of the defendants names, chances are they will be mp's in a few years, the judge is obviously protecting their careers in politics. " No one who stands up to oil companies will be allowed anywhere near parliament. Lol.  | |||
| |||
"Apart from the all the mps that voted for windfall taxes on oil companies. And net zero. HoC stuffed full of well meaning but utterly ignorant green MPs who don't care about the people they represent. The judge in question should be ashamed. He's there to make a ruling on law not spout political nonsense. " Don't worry, the government works in the interests of the oil companies, and they do not care about you, I, nor the environment. | |||
"Apart from the all the mps that voted for windfall taxes on oil companies. And net zero. HoC stuffed full of well meaning but utterly ignorant green MPs who don't care about the people they represent. The judge in question should be ashamed. He's there to make a ruling on law not spout political nonsense. " Laws are made to fulfill political ends. Protest laws now are hardly just even if you don't necessarily agree with the way protestors go about doing their protesting, when the punishment for protesting is often heavier than other nastier crimes. | |||
| |||
"Why then would they increase the size and scope of windfall taxes on these companies? Why would they ban the sale of new diesel and petrol cars? You are talking nonsense " Because its a quick and easy money grab that plays well to the voters with the prevailing climate of "eat the rich" stemming from deep economic inequality. And because banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in an onrushing near future of barely over a decade when EV battery charging technology still cannot match a fraction of ICE engines' immediate tap on power through prompt refuelling measured in less than 5 minutes instead of hours is actually a brilliant way of restricting individual liberty and freedom of movement that governments are half sleepwalking into and half actively aware of, given how very little has been done to improve and build up the ancient electrical infrastructure in most advanced Western countries such as the UK or US to handle the future EV charging surge. | |||
"Why then would they increase the size and scope of windfall taxes on these companies? Why would they ban the sale of new diesel and petrol cars? You are talking nonsense " The windfall tax is less than peanuts for the multinational oil companies. Bear in mind they received global subsidies of $531bn in 2022. So you do not need to worry about them. The government did this token gesture as part of their mission to ensure reelection. We haven't banned the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. Not sure where you got that from. Again. You do not need to worry, the fossil fuels companies are making record profits, and cracking on destroying the planet. | |||
" We haven't banned the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. Not sure where you got that from. " 7 more years to go before new petrol and diesel cars will be banned from sale in the UK. Hybrid cars will be banned from sale after 2035. https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/108960/uks-2030-petrol-and-diesel-ban-what-it-and-which-cars-are-affected EU is planning to flat out ban from sale all petrol and diesel cars by 2035. No provisions mentioned for hybrids. https://uk.motor1.com/news/652522/european-union-approves-petrol-diesel-cars-sales-ban/ | |||
"After initially describing the Just Stop Oil supporters as “self appointed vigilantes,” on hearing the testimonies from the defendants, the prosecutor, Mr Fielding, explicitly retracted that comment and conceded the Just Stop Oil supporters were “good people.” In cross examination Esso’s terminal safety manager, Craig Pugh, explained that the danger caused by the burning of fossil fuels didn’t matter because “there are lots of things going on in the world.” In summation the judge stated: “It’s abundantly clear that you are all good people. You are intelligent, articulate and a pleasure to deal with. It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate emergency. Your aims are admirable and it is accepted by me and the Crown Prosecution Service that your views are reasonable and genuinely held. Your fears are ably and genuinely articulated and are supported by the science.” “When the United Nations Secretary General gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.” “No-one can criticise your motivations. You all gave evidence that was deeply moving. I certainly was moved. The tragedy is that good people have felt so much, without hope, that you feel you have to come into conflict with the criminal justice system.” “Thank you for opening my eyes to certain things. Most, I was acutely and depressingly aware of, but there were certain things.” “I say this and I mean this sadly, I have to convict you. You are good people and I will not issue a punitive sentence. Your arrests and loss of good character are sufficient. Good people doing the wrong thing cannot make the wrong thing right. I don’t say this, ever, but it has been a pleasure dealing with you.” Whilst addressing one of the defendants who had said (through tears) that he felt guilty for not doing enough to save the planet for his daughter, he said: “You should feel guilty for nothing. You should feel proud that you care, have concern for the future. I urge you not to break the law again. Good luck to all of you.” Take a note of the defendants names, chances are they will be mp's in a few years, the judge is obviously protecting their careers in politics. No one who stands up to oil companies will be allowed anywhere near parliament. Lol. "You are in the present, look forward 10 20 yrs when oil usage is reduced or stopped, mp's will need to to have the mindset of stop oil protesters, oil will be a dirty word and the political climate will change in that direction. | |||
"I’m going to say nothing to see here
In all seriousness, the cause and the impact are well known and mainly supported. However, they as people broke the law while protesting, which is pretty much the long and short of it
They did
And what do most of us do
We just sit and say nothing as big oil companies destroy our planet for profit .
I would excuse all of us being guilty through ignoranceq as we’ve all ought cars etc .
The facet Exxon knew in the seventies about global warming and kept quiet shows how horrific those people were. Shame on them
Sorry, I didn’t finish..
The rights and wrongs, were driven by consumer needs back in the day, and people were not aware of the impacts of oil production.
Today is a different matter, 20p for a carrier bag for life? Still flying off the shelves even now, and I would love to know if it was meant to be for the life of the individual or the planet?
The reality here is if the population of the world was asked to make a choice to lose everything made of or powered by oil today ,to save the planet, I would expect oil to win.
Oil will soon be a thing of the past, sooner than we think, it is not an endless resource. EV’s are an example of commercial change to oil, is it to save the planet, or to cut cord with oil producers who are running out of oil?
"I know you find it hard to believe but I do agree with most of what you say. Our own greed consumerism has got us where we ship bits of oil based plastic made by coal powered factories from one side of the world to the other in pollution belching ships so we can save 50p on a home manufactured product. We have all woken up to the fact it’s destroying us. Our lack of cash means it’s now a shock financially to do the right thing. There is still the argument that the fact remains the big oil companies had hard evidence of what their product was doing and covered it up. The rest of us didn’t . Drug companies would be sued and made to pay to put things right. We subsidise the oil giants to clean up their mess. Make them pay for cleaning up and cap their earnings ( should have taxed properly years ago) to help support cleaner energy and manufacturing maybe? | |||
| |||
"After initially describing the Just Stop Oil supporters as “self appointed vigilantes,” on hearing the testimonies from the defendants, the prosecutor, Mr Fielding, explicitly retracted that comment and conceded the Just Stop Oil supporters were “good people.” In cross examination Esso’s terminal safety manager, Craig Pugh, explained that the danger caused by the burning of fossil fuels didn’t matter because “there are lots of things going on in the world.” In summation the judge stated: “It’s abundantly clear that you are all good people. You are intelligent, articulate and a pleasure to deal with. It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate emergency. Your aims are admirable and it is accepted by me and the Crown Prosecution Service that your views are reasonable and genuinely held. Your fears are ably and genuinely articulated and are supported by the science.” “When the United Nations Secretary General gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.” “No-one can criticise your motivations. You all gave evidence that was deeply moving. I certainly was moved. The tragedy is that good people have felt so much, without hope, that you feel you have to come into conflict with the criminal justice system.” “Thank you for opening my eyes to certain things. Most, I was acutely and depressingly aware of, but there were certain things.” “I say this and I mean this sadly, I have to convict you. You are good people and I will not issue a punitive sentence. Your arrests and loss of good character are sufficient. Good people doing the wrong thing cannot make the wrong thing right. I don’t say this, ever, but it has been a pleasure dealing with you.” Whilst addressing one of the defendants who had said (through tears) that he felt guilty for not doing enough to save the planet for his daughter, he said: “You should feel guilty for nothing. You should feel proud that you care, have concern for the future. I urge you not to break the law again. Good luck to all of you.” Take a note of the defendants names, chances are they will be mp's in a few years, the judge is obviously protecting their careers in politics. No one who stands up to oil companies will be allowed anywhere near parliament. Lol.
You are in the present, look forward 10 20 yrs when oil usage is reduced or stopped, mp's will need to to have the mindset of stop oil protesters, oil will be a dirty word and the political climate will change in that direction."That's where we should have been in the 90s. I hope you're right though. | |||
" Which is pretty much what the judge said, so is the judge right or wrong? " The Judge is right. Legally. The Judge has had a case presented to him. He has examined it. Legal statutes state that if A happens, the punishment is B. Defendants committed A. So B is applied. So yes, the Judge implemented the correct legal interpretation. The Judge did not apply any moral temperance to the decision. That is also correct. He is not supposed to. He can however have an opinion, and he is free to express that opinion if he so wishes. Perhaps a future case might be the oil companies defending themselves against harm. Regardless of the Judge's previously mentioned personal opinions, the Judge is trained to view the case evidence impartially. | |||
"Apart from the all the mps that voted for windfall taxes on oil companies. And net zero. HoC stuffed full of well meaning but utterly ignorant green MPs who don't care about the people they represent. The judge in question should be ashamed. He's there to make a ruling on law not spout political nonsense. Laws are made to fulfill political ends. Protest laws now are hardly just even if you don't necessarily agree with the way protestors go about doing their protesting, when the punishment for protesting is often heavier than other nastier crimes. " Absolutely. Nothing is black and white anymore. It isn’t as simple as looking at a situation and saying “but they still broke the law”. The law is constantly being changed to outlaw any kind of public protest. Look at the Sarah Everard vigil. A bunch of folk standing in a park with candles was apparently illegal Or the PCSC Act. Parts of that which were defeated have just been regurgitated into the public order bill which basically says you should need to ask permission from the police to protest at all. Do we really think that permission is based on how safe the protest will be? Of course not! The real question the police will consider is whether the protest is about a matter that the powers at be are willing to have attention drawn to If you’re protesting the police will the police give it the thumbs up? Not for Sarah Everard they didn’t Policing by consent, the magma carta, and the right to freedom of expression are no longer with us. In reality, some laws need breaking and on the flip side: if the law was already perfect, we wouldn’t introduce new laws everyday. Why shouldn’t people stand up for their rights against unjust laws? | |||
" Which is pretty much what the judge said, so is the judge right or wrong? The Judge is right. Legally. The Judge has had a case presented to him. He has examined it. Legal statutes state that if A happens, the punishment is B. Defendants committed A. So B is applied. So yes, the Judge implemented the correct legal interpretation. The Judge did not apply any moral temperance to the decision. That is also correct. He is not supposed to. He can however have an opinion, and he is free to express that opinion if he so wishes. Perhaps a future case might be the oil companies defending themselves against harm. Regardless of the Judge's previously mentioned personal opinions, the Judge is trained to view the case evidence impartially." The judge had the discretion to consider whether their actions in breaking the law were necessary. He chose not to do this despite both the Supreme Court ruling (albeit not written into law) and the EU courts ruling that we are guilty of destroying the environment The key word there is “discretion”. It doesn’t matter if he was right or wrong in his ruling. He was given that privilege. It’s naive to think that judges are objective and without vested interests. They’re all on temporary contracts. If he doesn’t rule the way that he is expected to, his contract won’t be renewed and he’ll find himself unemployed | |||
| |||
"The judiciary, main stream media, education system, government, civil service and every other state institution you can think of has been totally taken control of by the woke left. Even if the public got to vote for a true right of centre party nothing could be achieved against the forces arranged against it." If everyone else in the world is "woke left", except you. Maybe you're the outlier? In all seriousness. It's worrying how, despite the world governments catastrophically failing to tackle climate change, you seem to think they are, and that it's a bad thing. Also, not sure why you imply only the "woke left" can understand climate science and the role fossil fuels companies play in exasperating both the cause, and the spread of misinformation of climate change. Surely anyone can choose to learn this, not just non-racist, left leaning people. I find that so bizarre. | |||
"After initially describing the Just Stop Oil supporters as “self appointed vigilantes,” on hearing the testimonies from the defendants, the prosecutor, Mr Fielding, explicitly retracted that comment and conceded the Just Stop Oil supporters were “good people.” In cross examination Esso’s terminal safety manager, Craig Pugh, explained that the danger caused by the burning of fossil fuels didn’t matter because “there are lots of things going on in the world.” In summation the judge stated: “It’s abundantly clear that you are all good people. You are intelligent, articulate and a pleasure to deal with. It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate emergency. Your aims are admirable and it is accepted by me and the Crown Prosecution Service that your views are reasonable and genuinely held. Your fears are ably and genuinely articulated and are supported by the science.” “When the United Nations Secretary General gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.” “No-one can criticise your motivations. You all gave evidence that was deeply moving. I certainly was moved. The tragedy is that good people have felt so much, without hope, that you feel you have to come into conflict with the criminal justice system.” “Thank you for opening my eyes to certain things. Most, I was acutely and depressingly aware of, but there were certain things.” “I say this and I mean this sadly, I have to convict you. You are good people and I will not issue a punitive sentence. Your arrests and loss of good character are sufficient. Good people doing the wrong thing cannot make the wrong thing right. I don’t say this, ever, but it has been a pleasure dealing with you.” Whilst addressing one of the defendants who had said (through tears) that he felt guilty for not doing enough to save the planet for his daughter, he said: “You should feel guilty for nothing. You should feel proud that you care, have concern for the future. I urge you not to break the law again. Good luck to all of you.”" I must be missing something as I don't see the story. People broke the law, were arrested and ended up in court, they were found guilty of the crimes. The judge is allowed a personal view but that view must not cloud him. The fact that he agrees with their overall aim BUT still found them guilty seems to show he has done his job correctly. I'm certainly not a legal expert so just an opinion. Apart from publicity, what is the story | |||
"The judiciary, main stream media, education system, government, civil service and every other state institution you can think of has been totally taken control of by the woke left. Even if the public got to vote for a true right of centre party nothing could be achieved against the forces arranged against it. If everyone else in the world is "woke left", except you. Maybe you're the outlier? In all seriousness. It's worrying how, despite the world governments catastrophically failing to tackle climate change, you seem to think they are, and that it's a bad thing. Also, not sure why you imply only the "woke left" can understand climate science and the role fossil fuels companies play in exasperating both the cause, and the spread of misinformation of climate change. Surely anyone can choose to learn this, not just non-racist, left leaning people. I find that so bizarre." Despite being bombarded with constant propaganda and doom mongering about climate change the issue continues to be a very low priority for the vast majority of the UK population, compared to other issues it ranks well down the list of problems, every poll that has been taken in the last 5 years has shown , so no I am not an outlier. Politicians know this and know the public will oppose schemes to make their lives harder, colder and poorer. So collectively the main parties are as one, slowly but surely trying to make fossil fuels more expensive and restricting private transport use. There is no democratic mandate for these changes because politicians know they wouldn't get one from the public. So they bring it in through the back door. Politicians also know that they cannot control the weather or climate just like they couldn't control a virus or the millions of other things they claim they are trying to do for us. In reality they are only working for themselves and their masters and to control us. They are the ones spreading "misinformation" on a grand scale and you like countless other, well meaning, naive fools have fallen for it. There will be a backlash to all of this , how big it is and when it will come is unclear, that is why they are not going as fast into insanity as the likes of you would like. | |||
"The judiciary, main stream media, education system, government, civil service and every other state institution you can think of has been totally taken control of by the woke left. Even if the public got to vote for a true right of centre party nothing could be achieved against the forces arranged against it." The woke left are a dangerous breed | |||
"In cross examination Esso’s terminal safety manager, Craig Pugh, explained that the danger caused by the burning of fossil fuels didn’t matter because “there are lots of things going on in the world.”" What a piss-poor argument. Mr. Pugh should be fired immediately and replaced with someone who actually knows what they're talking about and, more importantly, knows how to articulate it properly in these contexts. ""It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate emergency. [...] Your fears are ably and genuinely articulated and are supported by the science." "the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.""  | |||
"The judiciary, main stream media, education system, government, civil service and every other state institution you can think of has been totally taken control of by the woke left. Even if the public got to vote for a true right of centre party nothing could be achieved against the forces arranged against it. If everyone else in the world is "woke left", except you. Maybe you're the outlier? In all seriousness. It's worrying how, despite the world governments catastrophically failing to tackle climate change, you seem to think they are, and that it's a bad thing. Also, not sure why you imply only the "woke left" can understand climate science and the role fossil fuels companies play in exasperating both the cause, and the spread of misinformation of climate change. Surely anyone can choose to learn this, not just non-racist, left leaning people. I find that so bizarre. Despite being bombarded with constant propaganda and doom mongering about climate change " Do you have an example of this "propaganda"? Because this sounds made up. " the issue continues to be a very low priority for the vast majority of the UK population, compared to other issues it ranks well down the list of problems, every poll that has been taken in the last 5 years has shown , so no I am not an outlier. " Yes it's shocking how many people aren't facing up to reality. " Politicians know this and know the public will oppose schemes to make their lives harder, colder and poorer. So collectively the main parties are as one, slowly but surely trying to make fossil fuels more expensive and restricting private transport use. " This seems to contradict your earlier point. The government should be supporting the transition off fossil fuels, and to renewables. They are failing to do this nearly quickly enough. It's costing British people huge amounts of money, causing more greenhouse gasses to be emitted, all the meanwhile oil companies are making record profits. " There is no democratic mandate for these changes because politicians know they wouldn't get one from the public. So they bring it in through the back door. Politicians also know that they cannot control the weather or climate just like they couldn't control a virus or the millions of other things they claim they are trying to do for us. In reality they are only working for themselves and their masters and to control us. They are the ones spreading "misinformation" on a grand scale and you like countless other, well meaning, naive fools have fallen for it. There will be a backlash to all of this , how big it is and when it will come is unclear, that is why they are not going as fast into insanity as the likes of you would like. " Can't make head nor tail of this last bit. Suffice to say, our government doesn't care about climate change, not you, not me. They care about the oil companies that donate large sums of money to them. So you do not need to worry. Oil companies are making record profits, and the atmosphere is still having CO2 pumped into it at alarming levels. | |||
"After initially describing the Just Stop Oil supporters as “self appointed vigilantes,” on hearing the testimonies from the defendants, the prosecutor, Mr Fielding, explicitly retracted that comment and conceded the Just Stop Oil supporters were “good people.” In cross examination Esso’s terminal safety manager, Craig Pugh, explained that the danger caused by the burning of fossil fuels didn’t matter because “there are lots of things going on in the world.” In summation the judge stated: “It’s abundantly clear that you are all good people. You are intelligent, articulate and a pleasure to deal with. It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate emergency. Your aims are admirable and it is accepted by me and the Crown Prosecution Service that your views are reasonable and genuinely held. Your fears are ably and genuinely articulated and are supported by the science.” “When the United Nations Secretary General gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.” “No-one can criticise your motivations. You all gave evidence that was deeply moving. I certainly was moved. The tragedy is that good people have felt so much, without hope, that you feel you have to come into conflict with the criminal justice system.” “Thank you for opening my eyes to certain things. Most, I was acutely and depressingly aware of, but there were certain things.” “I say this and I mean this sadly, I have to convict you. You are good people and I will not issue a punitive sentence. Your arrests and loss of good character are sufficient. Good people doing the wrong thing cannot make the wrong thing right. I don’t say this, ever, but it has been a pleasure dealing with you.” Whilst addressing one of the defendants who had said (through tears) that he felt guilty for not doing enough to save the planet for his daughter, he said: “You should feel guilty for nothing. You should feel proud that you care, have concern for the future. I urge you not to break the law again. Good luck to all of you.” I must be missing something as I don't see the story. People broke the law, were arrested and ended up in court, they were found guilty of the crimes. The judge is allowed a personal view but that view must not cloud him. The fact that he agrees with their overall aim BUT still found them guilty seems to show he has done his job correctly. I'm certainly not a legal expert so just an opinion. Apart from publicity, what is the story" You’re not missing anything. There’s no “gotcha” moment or hidden agenda. It is merely a report of the facts of what happened. | |||
"I’m going to say nothing to see here
In all seriousness, the cause and the impact are well known and mainly supported. However, they as people broke the law while protesting, which is pretty much the long and short of it "Not really, we had two Policemen convicted of ruining lives. These people just disrupted your day. My problem with protesting is the target is always missed,us we change nothing and are expendable. Believe me, if they disrupted the political and wealthy consistently those specific groups will not like this and will have two choices come down violently on the protestors or change their ways. Both affect the share price. | |||
"After initially describing the Just Stop Oil supporters as “self appointed vigilantes,” on hearing the testimonies from the defendants, the prosecutor, Mr Fielding, explicitly retracted that comment and conceded the Just Stop Oil supporters were “good people.” In cross examination Esso’s terminal safety manager, Craig Pugh, explained that the danger caused by the burning of fossil fuels didn’t matter because “there are lots of things going on in the world.” In summation the judge stated: “It’s abundantly clear that you are all good people. You are intelligent, articulate and a pleasure to deal with. It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate emergency. Your aims are admirable and it is accepted by me and the Crown Prosecution Service that your views are reasonable and genuinely held. Your fears are ably and genuinely articulated and are supported by the science.” “When the United Nations Secretary General gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.” “No-one can criticise your motivations. You all gave evidence that was deeply moving. I certainly was moved. The tragedy is that good people have felt so much, without hope, that you feel you have to come into conflict with the criminal justice system.” “Thank you for opening my eyes to certain things. Most, I was acutely and depressingly aware of, but there were certain things.” “I say this and I mean this sadly, I have to convict you. You are good people and I will not issue a punitive sentence. Your arrests and loss of good character are sufficient. Good people doing the wrong thing cannot make the wrong thing right. I don’t say this, ever, but it has been a pleasure dealing with you.” Whilst addressing one of the defendants who had said (through tears) that he felt guilty for not doing enough to save the planet for his daughter, he said: “You should feel guilty for nothing. You should feel proud that you care, have concern for the future. I urge you not to break the law again. Good luck to all of you.” I must be missing something as I don't see the story. People broke the law, were arrested and ended up in court, they were found guilty of the crimes. The judge is allowed a personal view but that view must not cloud him. The fact that he agrees with their overall aim BUT still found them guilty seems to show he has done his job correctly. I'm certainly not a legal expert so just an opinion. Apart from publicity, what is the story" Just my two pence worth If a wife is beaten and abused daily by her husband such as sexual abuse beating or cigarettes being stubbed out on her. He keeps her imprisoned at home. She eventually breaks and and kills him to stop the years of abuse and escape from her terror. In court she’s found guilty of manslaughter. It’s easy to prove but the judge sends her home due to mitigating circumstances, The crime technically has been committed but the underlying issue which led to the crime is reason enough for the judge to both understand and support her as much as he can. This is a similar concept . The underlying issue in many ways has justified the protests. I personally didn’t agree with blocking city streets to people and am sure they could have drawn attention in other ways . Maybe the fathers got justice is an example. | |||
"After initially describing the Just Stop Oil supporters as “self appointed vigilantes,” on hearing the testimonies from the defendants, the prosecutor, Mr Fielding, explicitly retracted that comment and conceded the Just Stop Oil supporters were “good people.” In cross examination Esso’s terminal safety manager, Craig Pugh, explained that the danger caused by the burning of fossil fuels didn’t matter because “there are lots of things going on in the world.” In summation the judge stated: “It’s abundantly clear that you are all good people. You are intelligent, articulate and a pleasure to deal with. It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate emergency. Your aims are admirable and it is accepted by me and the Crown Prosecution Service that your views are reasonable and genuinely held. Your fears are ably and genuinely articulated and are supported by the science.” “When the United Nations Secretary General gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.” “No-one can criticise your motivations. You all gave evidence that was deeply moving. I certainly was moved. The tragedy is that good people have felt so much, without hope, that you feel you have to come into conflict with the criminal justice system.” “Thank you for opening my eyes to certain things. Most, I was acutely and depressingly aware of, but there were certain things.” “I say this and I mean this sadly, I have to convict you. You are good people and I will not issue a punitive sentence. Your arrests and loss of good character are sufficient. Good people doing the wrong thing cannot make the wrong thing right. I don’t say this, ever, but it has been a pleasure dealing with you.” Whilst addressing one of the defendants who had said (through tears) that he felt guilty for not doing enough to save the planet for his daughter, he said: “You should feel guilty for nothing. You should feel proud that you care, have concern for the future. I urge you not to break the law again. Good luck to all of you.” I must be missing something as I don't see the story. People broke the law, were arrested and ended up in court, they were found guilty of the crimes. The judge is allowed a personal view but that view must not cloud him. The fact that he agrees with their overall aim BUT still found them guilty seems to show he has done his job correctly. I'm certainly not a legal expert so just an opinion. Apart from publicity, what is the story You’re not missing anything. There’s no “gotcha” moment or hidden agenda. It is merely a report of the facts of what happened." Phew, thank you. I thought I was missing something glaringly obvious | |||
| |||
| |||
"If the general secretary of the UN said that then he is an idiot or a liar. For a judge to agree with such twaddle is unbelievable. Ill informed nitwit. " Huh? " The earth is in no danger, there is no mass extinction, ( prove me wrong with examples) and oceans are not boiling. " No one is claiming the oceans are boiling. So you don't need to worry. " The earth is 15% greener now than in the year 2000. " This is completely false. " Crop yield is up. " What's this got to do with climate change? " Biodiversity increasing, coral reefs expanding. " This is completely false. " Life is abundant. " What has this got to do with climate change? " These green activists are motivated more by their hatred of capitalism and the west than saving the planet. " This is just your weird opinion, and again, is completely false. Plenty of capitalist understand climate science. " Unless the earth is going to be hit by an asteroid there is no danger. " The earth will be here until the sun swallows it up in billions of years time. Not sure what this has got to do with climate change. " This is all a power and money transfer and a hatred for people. By condeming hydrocarbons they are condeming the third world to stay poor. You cannot advance without consuming energy. 20% of Russians have an outside toilet. 120 millions chinese live in poverty. Do you really think you will stop them trying to get ahead? To do so they need energy and green bs will never provide it. You need nuclear and hydrocarbons. Good luck without em cause you'll need it. " This last bit is just utterly bonkers. You know, climate science is pretty easy to understand. Why don't you spend a little time reading up on it? It'll help with all this confusion. I know if I had strong opinions on a subject, I would like to at least have a rudimentary understanding of it. | |||
"If the general secretary of the UN said that then he is an idiot or a liar. For a judge to agree with such twaddle is unbelievable. Ill informed nitwit. Huh? The earth is in no danger, there is no mass extinction, ( prove me wrong with examples) and oceans are not boiling. No one is claiming the oceans are boiling. So you don't need to worry. The earth is 15% greener now than in the year 2000. This is completely false. Crop yield is up. What's this got to do with climate change? Biodiversity increasing, coral reefs expanding. This is completely false. Life is abundant. What has this got to do with climate change? These green activists are motivated more by their hatred of capitalism and the west than saving the planet. This is just your weird opinion, and again, is completely false. Plenty of capitalist understand climate science. Unless the earth is going to be hit by an asteroid there is no danger. The earth will be here until the sun swallows it up in billions of years time. Not sure what this has got to do with climate change. This is all a power and money transfer and a hatred for people. By condeming hydrocarbons they are condeming the third world to stay poor. You cannot advance without consuming energy. 20% of Russians have an outside toilet. 120 millions chinese live in poverty. Do you really think you will stop them trying to get ahead? To do so they need energy and green bs will never provide it. You need nuclear and hydrocarbons. Good luck without em cause you'll need it. This last bit is just utterly bonkers. You know, climate science is pretty easy to understand. Why don't you spend a little time reading up on it? It'll help with all this confusion. I know if I had strong opinions on a subject, I would like to at least have a rudimentary understanding of it. " Climate science is easy to understand is it? No it's not. I know. I've spoken to and listened to many very learned scientists and the last thing if is, is easy to understand. But you crack in Einstein. | |||
"No one is claiming the oceans are boiling. So you don't need to worry." Wrong. Extreme activists, climate alarmists, doomsday-sayers, apocalypse-predictors... whatever you want to call them, have been spouting just such nonsense for years now. A 1.5 degree rise (that's a GLOBAL average) over the next hundred years is going to melt the ice-caps, swallow entire landmasses to rising oceans, boil the oceans and cause desert areas to grow and spread until the Earth is a dust-bowl, blah, blah, blah. First it was going to happen in the next 50 years... until it didn't, then it was in another 100 years... and yet it still hasn't, so now it's "sometime in the not-too-distant-near-ish-but-far-enough-away-to-not-be-able-to-say-for-sure future." Even though we've already had such a rise over the last 100 years, and yet the Earth, and the human race, has done nothing but thrive in that time. "This is completely false." Based on what? "What's this got to do with climate change?" You seriously don't think there's a connection between the climate and crops? "This is completely false." Based on what? "What has this got to do with climate change?" You seriously don't think there's a connection between climate and biodiversity? "This is just your weird opinion, and again, is completely false." No it isn't. Even a quick look into where this ideology comes from and the kinds of statements/attitudes it has promoted reveals a very real, very dark anti-humanist sentiment at its core. Which basically boils down to; "humanity is a cancer on the planet, and as it grows the planet dies, it would be better if a virus came along and took half of us out" etc. "The earth will be here until the sun swallows it up in billions of years time. Not sure what this has got to do with climate change." Because that's not the belief of the climate alarmists. They believe we're fast heading into a global apocalypse caused by humanity's continued growth and use of fossil fuels. Which is, obviously, nonsense. "This last bit is just utterly bonkers. You know, climate science is pretty easy to understand. Why don't you spend a little time reading up on it? It'll help with all this confusion. I know if I had strong opinions on a subject, I would like to at least have a rudimentary understanding of it. " The sheer irony of this statement. If it's so easy to understand, here's you chance to educate us all. I've see you quite a bit on these threads, always talking the talk, but never anything of actual substance, never backed up by any actual facts or science. Well? No time like the present... | |||
"If the general secretary of the UN said that then he is an idiot or a liar. For a judge to agree with such twaddle is unbelievable. Ill informed nitwit. Huh? The earth is in no danger, there is no mass extinction, ( prove me wrong with examples) and oceans are not boiling. No one is claiming the oceans are boiling. So you don't need to worry. The earth is 15% greener now than in the year 2000. This is completely false. Crop yield is up. What's this got to do with climate change? Biodiversity increasing, coral reefs expanding. This is completely false. Life is abundant. What has this got to do with climate change? These green activists are motivated more by their hatred of capitalism and the west than saving the planet. This is just your weird opinion, and again, is completely false. Plenty of capitalist understand climate science. Unless the earth is going to be hit by an asteroid there is no danger. The earth will be here until the sun swallows it up in billions of years time. Not sure what this has got to do with climate change. This is all a power and money transfer and a hatred for people. By condeming hydrocarbons they are condeming the third world to stay poor. You cannot advance without consuming energy. 20% of Russians have an outside toilet. 120 millions chinese live in poverty. Do you really think you will stop them trying to get ahead? To do so they need energy and green bs will never provide it. You need nuclear and hydrocarbons. Good luck without em cause you'll need it. This last bit is just utterly bonkers. You know, climate science is pretty easy to understand. Why don't you spend a little time reading up on it? It'll help with all this confusion. I know if I had strong opinions on a subject, I would like to at least have a rudimentary understanding of it. Climate science is easy to understand is it? No it's not. I know. I've spoken to and listened to many very learned scientists and the last thing if is, is easy to understand. But you crack in Einstein. " It's very established, understood and well documented. Have a go at reading up. It really isn't difficult. A rudimentary understanding of the subject would really help you with all your confusion. | |||
"No one is claiming the oceans are boiling. So you don't need to worry. Wrong. Extreme activists, climate alarmists, doomsday-sayers, apocalypse-predictors... whatever you want to call them, have been spouting just such nonsense for years now. A 1.5 degree rise (that's a GLOBAL average) over the next hundred years is going to melt the ice-caps, swallow entire landmasses to rising oceans, boil the oceans and cause desert areas to grow and spread until the Earth is a dust-bowl, blah, blah, blah. First it was going to happen in the next 50 years... until it didn't, then it was in another 100 years... and yet it still hasn't, so now it's "sometime in the not-too-distant-near-ish-but-far-enough-away-to-not-be-able-to-say-for-sure future." Even though we've already had such a rise over the last 100 years, and yet the Earth, and the human race, has done nothing but thrive in that time. This is completely false. Based on what? What's this got to do with climate change? You seriously don't think there's a connection between the climate and crops? This is completely false. Based on what? What has this got to do with climate change? You seriously don't think there's a connection between climate and biodiversity? This is just your weird opinion, and again, is completely false. No it isn't. Even a quick look into where this ideology comes from and the kinds of statements/attitudes it has promoted reveals a very real, very dark anti-humanist sentiment at its core. Which basically boils down to; "humanity is a cancer on the planet, and as it grows the planet dies, it would be better if a virus came along and took half of us out" etc. The earth will be here until the sun swallows it up in billions of years time. Not sure what this has got to do with climate change. Because that's not the belief of the climate alarmists. They believe we're fast heading into a global apocalypse caused by humanity's continued growth and use of fossil fuels. Which is, obviously, nonsense. This last bit is just utterly bonkers. You know, climate science is pretty easy to understand. Why don't you spend a little time reading up on it? It'll help with all this confusion. I know if I had strong opinions on a subject, I would like to at least have a rudimentary understanding of it. The sheer irony of this statement. If it's so easy to understand, here's you chance to educate us all. I've see you quite a bit on these threads, always talking the talk, but never anything of actual substance, never backed up by any actual facts or science. Well? No time like the present..." Did you create a second account? | |||
| |||
"After initially describing the Just Stop Oil supporters as “self appointed vigilantes,” on hearing the testimonies from the defendants, the prosecutor, Mr Fielding, explicitly retracted that comment and conceded the Just Stop Oil supporters were “good people.” In cross examination Esso’s terminal safety manager, Craig Pugh, explained that the danger caused by the burning of fossil fuels didn’t matter because “there are lots of things going on in the world.” In summation the judge stated: “It’s abundantly clear that you are all good people. You are intelligent, articulate and a pleasure to deal with. It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate emergency. Your aims are admirable and it is accepted by me and the Crown Prosecution Service that your views are reasonable and genuinely held. Your fears are ably and genuinely articulated and are supported by the science.” “When the United Nations Secretary General gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.” “No-one can criticise your motivations. You all gave evidence that was deeply moving. I certainly was moved. The tragedy is that good people have felt so much, without hope, that you feel you have to come into conflict with the criminal justice system.” “Thank you for opening my eyes to certain things. Most, I was acutely and depressingly aware of, but there were certain things.” “I say this and I mean this sadly, I have to convict you. You are good people and I will not issue a punitive sentence. Your arrests and loss of good character are sufficient. Good people doing the wrong thing cannot make the wrong thing right. I don’t say this, ever, but it has been a pleasure dealing with you.” Whilst addressing one of the defendants who had said (through tears) that he felt guilty for not doing enough to save the planet for his daughter, he said: “You should feel guilty for nothing. You should feel proud that you care, have concern for the future. I urge you not to break the law again. Good luck to all of you.”" It is this type of attitude in the judiciary that has made this country go completely down the tubes. The "Just Stop Oil" protesters caused massive disruption and cost trying to achieve a goal that is impossible in the short term. They are criminals and should have been punished harshly much earlier on. Our whole society is built on the pursuit of "growth", mainly on the back of excessive consumption by stupid people. Those people are not likely to change their mindset and will therefore continue to use resources at an unsustainable rate. We have become a wasteful "throw away" society. Instead of buying a few good quality things then keeping them for a long time, repairing as necessary, we buy cheap and the items are generally designed to make them easy to make but difficult to repair. Stupid people also always want something "bigger and better". For example cars, compared with cars from when I grew up in the 1970s modern cars are much bigger and heavier. It is very difficult to buy a small basic car these days and even when you do, they are comparatively large. Roads are not any bigger and there are more vehicles on them so having larger cars is stupid. Modern cars are much more fuel efficient than old ones but they could be much better again if they weren't so bloated. So, "Use Less Oil and Natural Resources" would be an achievable aim. "Just Stop Oil" can't be done anytime soon. | |||
"This remarks of this Judge indicate that he is totally unfit to serve office. He is out of touch with reality and has no right to express his personal opinions in court.. Very few people have any sympathy with these protestors who caused endless disruption and people missed hospital appointments and funerals because of them . I spent two hours stuck in a traffic jam because of them as did numerous other people. Imagine what would happen to these protestors in other countries. They would receive instant justice . These eco warriors are simply a middle class privileged educated elite who do not care about anyone but themselves . Thw judge is insulated from reality. Did he lose any money from being stuck in a queue? " He found the protesters guilty. Maybe you missed that part. | |||
"This remarks of this Judge indicate that he is totally unfit to serve office. He is out of touch with reality and has no right to express his personal opinions in court.. Very few people have any sympathy with these protestors who caused endless disruption and people missed hospital appointments and funerals because of them . I spent two hours stuck in a traffic jam because of them as did numerous other people. Imagine what would happen to these protestors in other countries. They would receive instant justice . These eco warriors are simply a middle class privileged educated elite who do not care about anyone but themselves . Thw judge is insulated from reality. Did he lose any money from being stuck in a queue? " I don’t understand how people missed appointments etc. the protest went on for days and was well publicised. Did you not check your route before you set off? Besides, if you consider the closing of one road to be “endless disruption” you wouldn’t cope with Lancashire road works let alone the disruption global warming will bring! The defence of necessity is well established in British law. The question is whether the actions taken, whether contrary to legislation or not, were reasonable and proportionate based on defendant’s personal belief of the circumstances The judge says here they accept their beliefs were genuinely held and reasonable but what he isn’t saying, and clearly didn’t accept, was that the actions taken were not proportionate In other words, he thinks that causing a traffic jam is disproportionate to their aim of preventing the road itself from being destroyed I agree this judge is clearly out of touch and not fit for office, but for very different reasons to you | |||
"Did you create a second account?" Wow. What a masterfully composed and comprehensively explained response. I particularly like how you've backed up each of your claims with multiple citations to actual scientific facts and to subject-matter experts. You're right, that WAS so very easy and rudimentary to explain, and therefore to understand. Great job. Pathetic. | |||
"Did you create a second account? Wow. What a masterfully composed and comprehensively explained response. I particularly like how you've backed up each of your claims with multiple citations to actual scientific facts and to subject-matter experts. You're right, that WAS so very easy and rudimentary to explain, and therefore to understand. Great job. Pathetic." I didn't make any claims. Just replied to the claims you made from your other account. | |||
"I didn't make any claims." Yes you did. They’re right there in my original reply to you, where I call out each one in turn. I’m still waiting for you to qualify anything you claimed in any way, shape or form. Instead you’re continuing to swerve, duck and dodge, likely because you don’t actually have anything to back your argument. I guess I’ll just keep waiting in vain for you to cut the playground bullshit and post something substantive? Or are you genuinely labouring under the impression there’s no possible way for more than one other person to disagree with you? That’s called narcissism. | |||
"I didn't make any claims. Yes you did. They’re right there in my original reply to you, where I call out each one in turn. I’m still waiting for you to qualify anything you claimed in any way, shape or form. Instead you’re continuing to swerve, duck and dodge, likely because you don’t actually have anything to back your argument. I guess I’ll just keep waiting in vain for you to cut the playground bullshit and post something substantive? Or are you genuinely labouring under the impression there’s no possible way for more than one other person to disagree with you? That’s called narcissism." Blimey you've very cross today. Once again. I didn't make any claims. I replied to your bizarre unscientific hocus pocus, pointing out that it's nonsense. Why don't you spend a little time reading up on the basics of climate change? It would not take long. NASA, the Royal Society, the Met office all have good pages with the basics layed out in an easy to understand format. This would be a good place to start instead of losing your shit with randomers on a swingers forum. | |||
" The earth is 15% greener now than in the year 2000. This is completely false. " To save all your backward and forward avoidance. I'll just ask, is this 'completely false' or is the percentage wrong? | |||
" The earth is 15% greener now than in the year 2000. This is completely false. To save all your backward and forward avoidance. I'll just ask, is this 'completely false' or is the percentage wrong?" It's completely false. Just think about it for a second. Russia, the world's largest country is 11% of the landmass on the planet. This person claimed that an area nearly one and a half times the size of Russia is greener. Just think about that claim for a second. | |||
| |||
" The earth is 15% greener now than in the year 2000. This is completely false. To save all your backward and forward avoidance. I'll just ask, is this 'completely false' or is the percentage wrong? It's completely false. Just think about it for a second. Russia, the world's largest country is 11% of the landmass on the planet. This person claimed that an area nearly one and a half times the size of Russia is greener. Just think about that claim for a second. " Have a look at this link. I'd say his figure is off but not 'completely false' https://www.statista.com/chart/17230/earth-is-greener-than-20-years-ago-2000-2017/ | |||
| |||
" The earth is 15% greener now than in the year 2000. This is completely false. To save all your backward and forward avoidance. I'll just ask, is this 'completely false' or is the percentage wrong? It's completely false. Just think about it for a second. Russia, the world's largest country is 11% of the landmass on the planet. This person claimed that an area nearly one and a half times the size of Russia is greener. Just think about that claim for a second. Have a look at this link. I'd say his figure is off but not 'completely false' https://www.statista.com/chart/17230/earth-is-greener-than-20-years-ago-2000-2017/" I have just googled 'is the planet 15% greener than in 2000'. The first result was a website called country living and they speak about the NASA report on this. Apparently NASA say it is correct that the planet is greener than the year 2000 and its largely due to changes in China and India that is the reason. They say 5% greener which is only a third of the initial claim. However at least it is in the right direction. | |||
"In any case. I'll leave this to the festival of anti-science. It's utterly boring. Ta-ra. " Greens don't like facts or substantive arguments that go against their anti human agenda. They are not used to it , politicians at the current time lap up their BS and the public suffer. Greens haven't a clue about science apart from paying scientists to produce junk studies to scare people to conform to their depressing way of life. | |||
"In any case. I'll leave this to the festival of anti-science. It's utterly boring. Ta-ra. Greens don't like facts or substantive arguments that go against their anti human agenda. They are not used to it , politicians at the current time lap up their BS and the public suffer. Greens haven't a clue about science apart from paying scientists to produce junk studies to scare people to conform to their depressing way of life." Time to go 4 wheeling in the dirty gas guzzling jeeps throughout the woods and river. Then going to start a huge bonfire listen to music and have great conversations. Guess my carbon footprint today is going to be appalling. Chao ( | |||
"In any case. I'll leave this to the festival of anti-science. It's utterly boring. Ta-ra. Greens don't like facts or substantive arguments that go against their anti human agenda. They are not used to it , politicians at the current time lap up their BS and the public suffer. Greens haven't a clue about science apart from paying scientists to produce junk studies to scare people to conform to their depressing way of life. Time to go 4 wheeling in the dirty gas guzzling jeeps throughout the woods and river. Then going to start a huge bonfire listen to music and have great conversations. Guess my carbon footprint today is going to be appalling. Chao ( "Ciao? I was expecting Yeehaw | |||
| |||
| |||
"In any case. I'll leave this to the festival of anti-science. It's utterly boring. Ta-ra. Greens don't like facts or substantive arguments that go against their anti human agenda. They are not used to it , politicians at the current time lap up their BS and the public suffer. Greens haven't a clue about science apart from paying scientists to produce junk studies to scare people to conform to their depressing way of life. Time to go 4 wheeling in the dirty gas guzzling jeeps throughout the woods and river. Then going to start a huge bonfire listen to music and have great conversations. Guess my carbon footprint today is going to be appalling. Chao (
Ciao? I was expecting Yeehaw
"lol that's Texas. No country music here all Rock/ metal | |||
| |||
"In any case. I'll leave this to the festival of anti-science. It's utterly boring. Ta-ra. Greens don't like facts or substantive arguments that go against their anti human agenda. They are not used to it , politicians at the current time lap up their BS and the public suffer. Greens haven't a clue about science apart from paying scientists to produce junk studies to scare people to conform to their depressing way of life. Time to go 4 wheeling in the dirty gas guzzling jeeps throughout the woods and river. Then going to start a huge bonfire listen to music and have great conversations. Guess my carbon footprint today is going to be appalling. Chao (
Ciao? I was expecting Yeehaw
lol that's Texas. No country music here all Rock/ metal "Enjoy, whatever it is you’re doing! Ciao, Yeehaw, see ya later, y’all hear my rock monsters of evil ?? | |||
| |||
"Even the judiciary recognise that there is a climate emergency. Government have shot themselves in the foot. If they continue to pursue these climate protesters like this it’s going to create lots of problems, as it sets up more challenges in the courts regarding climate change which could probably be used against fossil fuel companies. " How you going to force other countries to comply? | |||
"How you going to force other countries to comply? " I think your John Kerry and COP27 are formulating plans to drive change in that regards. From www.state.gov "Mobilizing a whole-of-government approach, the United States is scaling up action at home and abroad to put the world on a path to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and to achieve the global goal on adaptation" So the answer to your question is a lot closer to home. And I do commend any country at COP27 taking the initiative. | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"You do realize that whoever is in office can just cancel a accord with the swipe of a pen. So a tiny island like the UK would be insignificant on a global scale. All that climate change goes out the window. It's kind of a insignificant behavior. Personally I do not want to comply as a nation and there are plenty of others that do not either. People there hope and hope expecting a different outcome. Yet it's not happening. " You may not want to comply personally, but I'm fairly certain the majority of your citizens will, across all political leanings and your country is leading the charge, so to speak. You are right, we are a tiny island and we've lost a lot of opportunity. Had we stayed in the EU, we could have helped shape policy as a member, but sadly our politicians at the moment are exceptionalists who only want their way and are not prepared to compromise and work with other nations very well. | |||
"You can all put green energy and other factors into place. It's still not going to matter when other populations much greater disagree. The point is moot. "I don't think it's moot at all when 100 Heads of State and Governments, over 35,000 participants and numerous pavilions showcasing climate action around the world and across different sectors came together to discuss driving forwards plans for a greener future. Ask them if they thought it was moot. The US is one such country driving the plans, which is admirable, is it not ? | |||
"You can all put green energy and other factors into place. It's still not going to matter when other populations much greater disagree. The point is moot.
I don't think it's moot at all when 100 Heads of State and Governments, over 35,000 participants and numerous pavilions showcasing climate action around the world and across different sectors came together to discuss driving forwards plans for a greener future.
Ask them if they thought it was moot.
The US is one such country driving the plans, which is admirable, is it not ?". Yet Paris climate control has been cancelled at the swipe of a pen. It's not set in stone now is it ? People change their minds according to their standard of living. If it's too much to bear today why worry about something that can or will not happen. Name one thing that a government predicted that came into fruition 20 years later. You can't. So who is wrong? 1 side wait and see. .. it's been going on for years... Still waiting...it's a never ending cycle of division. All the data is moot when other nations say wtf we been conned.You can't force them to comply now can you? If the people disagree. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I don't remember the Paris Agreement being cancelled, I remember some Buffoon single handedly removing America from it in protest of many in the same country. The same Buffoon that tried to run a Coup on Government, the sane Buffoon that claims Windmills generate more CO2 in their manufacturing, the same Buffoon that believes Windmills kill Whales, the same Buffoon that denies Climate Change and that oil will revive the economy. And the same corrupt Buffoon that still believes he won the 2020 election and pocketed $millions in the process. Save the Planet - lock the Buffoon up. " Yet when energy prices skyrocket are people looking twords more cheaper prices now or climate control 20 30 years later. Nothing screams fuck climate if you can't put food on the table because of climate controlled agendas. You can scream at the top of your lungs. But the reality is that. People will choose accordingly to their lifestyle in dire needs. FACTS. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I don't remember the Paris Agreement being cancelled, I remember some Buffoon single handedly removing America from it in protest of many in the same country. The same Buffoon that tried to run a Coup on Government, the sane Buffoon that claims Windmills generate more CO2 in their manufacturing, the same Buffoon that believes Windmills kill Whales, the same Buffoon that denies Climate Change and that oil will revive the economy. And the same corrupt Buffoon that still believes he won the 2020 election and pocketed $millions in the process. Save the Planet - lock the Buffoon up. Yet when energy prices skyrocket are people looking twords more cheaper prices now or climate control 20 30 years later. Nothing screams fuck climate if you can't put food on the table because of climate controlled agendas. You can scream at the top of your lungs. But the reality is that. People will choose accordingly to their lifestyle in dire needs. FACTS." And that's exactly why I think "intelligent" life such as us may very well be a short term self destructive phenomenon if it it arises in the universe. We advanced like crazy in a very short amount of time (we've been on this planet for 0.00004% of it's lifespan but only 0.0000022% in complex civilisation) due to our curiousity, but unfortunately advanced far too rapidly for our own good, destabilising various earth systems in doing so which only accelerated after WW2, and now we cling onto extremely new norms and systems we naively built our whole societies around and becoming utterly reliant on without waiting to find out what the consequences would be, bitching and moaning all the way if there's any talk about changing them because it's simply what we grew accustomed to. Our silly political and economic systems are not the real world. They are merely our attempts as a species to organise ourselves at a scale we never were before that seems to be driving us a bit crazy. Unfortunately i have very little optimism in the future and as things further destabilise (especially with how El Nina will likely come into full swing next year), I do wonder how the panic and feeble attempts to maintain an unsustainable status quo will go. It's going to be interesting to say the least. | |||
| |||
"@HappyPanda - you've put humanity in a nutshell. Self destruction by destruction of the planet that sustains us or Nuclear destruction. One thing is certain - it's inevitable humanity will extinct itself. As for prices rising we vant afford to feed ourselves - is the reason why not yet clear? Demand for a single resource that we've grown to over reliant on which when everyone wanted to guarantee their own supply - it was inevitable that prices would rocket. These are the failures people like Tony Blair was willing to announce yet, like many others - do absolutely nothing to head it off. Would prices have got so high if we weren't so reliant on energy from fossil fuels? No, I doubt if there had been vastly less reliance that we'd even notice a shortfall or price increase. We've stupidly, knowingly and arrogantly allowed the addiction to cheap fossil fuel blind us and continue to do so to better, more reliable, more abundant sources of clean, safe and endless energy from the powerhouse in the sky. Wind, Solar and Hydro is all driven by the Sun, the tides by the Moon and the amount of collosal energy available that harvest so little from at 1.3kw per square meter per hour per day it shines on us. Yet people still believe burning Carbon back to the Pilocine ages is the way to go and only option. Our Children will not thank us. So, why are we jumping to the dirty option with reliance on others that destroys the planet with so many other options available?" Don't forget how money is just a concept we came up with to simplify trade, but the growth of the financial sector has seen the amounts of money in the world skyrocket (especially since the digitisation of it) and now here we are in an era where a minority of the global population possesses unfathomable levels of immaterial wealth based on speculation and born of debt (in modern banking, debt is necessary for money creation, and it's also helpful to keep populations in line and distracted by financial insecurity) while the value of normal people's wealth keeps declining but we're urged to accept it's simply because of short term issues. That money simply doesn't exist. It's a shared delusion and imaginary but with how focused our economic system has become on these amounts, it's become less focused on the amounts that actually matter to normal people in the global north, nevermind the ones with much less in the global south. | |||
"@HappyPanda - you've put humanity in a nutshell. Self destruction by destruction of the planet that sustains us or Nuclear destruction. One thing is certain - it's inevitable humanity will extinct itself. As for prices rising we vant afford to feed ourselves - is the reason why not yet clear? Demand for a single resource that we've grown to over reliant on which when everyone wanted to guarantee their own supply - it was inevitable that prices would rocket. These are the failures people like Tony Blair was willing to announce yet, like many others - do absolutely nothing to head it off. Would prices have got so high if we weren't so reliant on energy from fossil fuels? No, I doubt if there had been vastly less reliance that we'd even notice a shortfall or price increase. We've stupidly, knowingly and arrogantly allowed the addiction to cheap fossil fuel blind us and continue to do so to better, more reliable, more abundant sources of clean, safe and endless energy from the powerhouse in the sky. Wind, Solar and Hydro is all driven by the Sun, the tides by the Moon and the amount of collosal energy available that harvest so little from at 1.3kw per square meter per hour per day it shines on us. Yet people still believe burning Carbon back to the Pilocine ages is the way to go and only option. Our Children will not thank us. So, why are we jumping to the dirty option with reliance on others that destroys the planet with so many other options available?" And yes, we're a remarkable species and capable of greatness with our curiousity or our compassion, but also vulnerable to absolute idiocy too often. That curiousity allowed us to grow, but it also allowed us to grow far too fast to adapt to while we were still tribalistic morons adapted to much smaller communities. I doubt many of the world leaders that currently have control of nuclear weapons have even a quarter of the fascination regarding the nature of atoms and matter that motivated scientists to look ever deeper into this absurd madness we call reality. All they care about is that it goes boom. | |||
"@HappyPanda - you've put humanity in a nutshell. Self destruction by destruction of the planet that sustains us or Nuclear destruction. One thing is certain - it's inevitable humanity will extinct itself. As for prices rising we vant afford to feed ourselves - is the reason why not yet clear? Demand for a single resource that we've grown to over reliant on which when everyone wanted to guarantee their own supply - it was inevitable that prices would rocket. These are the failures people like Tony Blair was willing to announce yet, like many others - do absolutely nothing to head it off. Would prices have got so high if we weren't so reliant on energy from fossil fuels? No, I doubt if there had been vastly less reliance that we'd even notice a shortfall or price increase. We've stupidly, knowingly and arrogantly allowed the addiction to cheap fossil fuel blind us and continue to do so to better, more reliable, more abundant sources of clean, safe and endless energy from the powerhouse in the sky. Wind, Solar and Hydro is all driven by the Sun, the tides by the Moon and the amount of collosal energy available that harvest so little from at 1.3kw per square meter per hour per day it shines on us. Yet people still believe burning Carbon back to the Pilocine ages is the way to go and only option. Our Children will not thank us. So, why are we jumping to the dirty option with reliance on others that destroys the planet with so many other options available? Don't forget how money is just a concept we came up with to simplify trade, but the growth of the financial sector has seen the amounts of money in the world skyrocket (especially since the digitisation of it) and now here we are in an era where a minority of the global population possesses unfathomable levels of immaterial wealth based on speculation and born of debt (in modern banking, debt is necessary for money creation, and it's also helpful to keep populations in line and distracted by financial insecurity) while the value of normal people's wealth keeps declining but we're urged to accept it's simply because of short term issues. That money simply doesn't exist. It's a shared delusion and imaginary but with how focused our economic system has become on these amounts, it's become less focused on the amounts that actually matter to normal people in the global north, nevermind the ones with much less in the global south." Money is a great tool, you might think of it as imaginary, but it really isn't. The need or drive for money shapes the world we live in, put money behind any of the problems we have and those problems will be solved. The tipping point for change is when it is monetarily beneficial. Oil is a great example of this, oil brings in huge amounts of money but it is no longer a longterm money machine, it is running out and fast. If it pays to be green or greener that's where the money will be and that's where innovation kicks in, when you're holding the keys to the next big thing the money is printing itself. The problem isn't money, the problem is consumption, consumption costs money. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Good God what a morose, macabre bunch of Malthusians we have moping about in here... cheer up, buttercups! Things aren't nearly as bad as you've been led to believe they are (or going to be). Want an alternative take to the apocalyptic narrative around climate that seems to have infected the mass media? Try these; - Dr. Judith Curry (American climatologist with a Ph.D. in geophysical science, worked for NASA) - Dr. Steven Koonin (NYU professor, Ph. D. in physics from MIT, links to Stanford, Caltech, worked in Department of Energy... the list goes on) - Dr. Bjorn Lomborg (Danish climate change author, think tank president and former director of Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute) - Dr. Richard Lindzen (former professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, multiple degrees from Harvard, award-winning researcher and current climate sensitivity and temperature variance researcher) - Alex Epstein (author, philosopher, energy expert and founder of Energy Talking Points) - Marian Tupey and Gale Pooley (authors of Super Abundance: The Age of Plenty) - Michael Shellenberger (author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All) My main question is why oh why our First World leaders, our Governments and our policies are not being influenced by the likes of the above instead of pandering to activists like Greta Thunberg... "They are not influenced by Greta Thunberg but by the population's response to what she warns about. I have no doubt at all that if we do nothing and put our fingers in our ears and go "la la la la - it's not happening" when people speak of climate change in a negative way, it will absolutely prevent it, without any other action from us. One thing is however certain, for one reason or another, but usually money, nothing significant will be done. Then, if, or when, the effects of climate change can no longer be denied the list of good folk above will be trotted out to explain why the government bought a new aircraft carrier rather than invest in green policies. | |||
"... Blackpool, Wales and many other coastal areas being walled that you can no longer see the seashore without climbing over a wall. What lies have I been fed ..." One of the lies that you've been fed is that Blackpool is being walled. The central part of the Fylde coast, from Lytham up past Rossal, has been walled since Victorian times. The promenade at cleveleys was refurbished about 17 years ago, but no new sea wall has been built in that area for decades. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I get stop burning oil But to me NO MORE OIL is just that no soap, pvc, plastic etc etc " Without pvc & plastic, the fetish scene would end up looking a whole lot more vanilla. | |||
| |||
