Extinction Rebellion, ongoing disscussion.

[Little John]

Economics, being a branch of politics, starts with individual differences of personality and/or personal circumstances, leading to differing ways of seeing the world, leading to differing cultural outlooks, leading to differing ideological perspectives, leading to the construction of differing economic models based on differing underlying economic assumptions.

"Evidence", insofar as evidence plays any meaningful role in any of the above, comes at the end of that causal chain, is selectively gathered and is used merely to buttress existing ideological prejudices.

[kenneal - lagger]

Economics is science to the same level as much of current climate is. Some observation, plenty of computer models, so it’s not that much drivel, unless they both are.

Economics is nowhere near proper science. Economic models aren't back cast and even economists like Lord Stern and Kate Raworth say that they aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Economics still relies on formulae from the 1600s such as "Output is the sum of capital and labour" when that hasn't been true since the start of the industrial revolution.

If you class economic models the same as scientific models that explains your ignorance over climate change, woodburner. Economists make assertions about human behaviour that no psychologist would recognise and they base government policy on this crap!

I must agree with what LJ says above about economics.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Economics is science to the same level as much of current climate is. Some observation, plenty of computer models, so it’s not that much drivel, unless they both are.

Economics is nowhere near proper science.

I already explained this quite clearly. Next time I'll go down to the 'tard level, just for you.

[woodburner]

And yet concepts within it were one of the prime reasons that advocates of peak oil using PROPER science ended up looking like just another happy band of doomers without a clue about ANY science.

That was because we believed the propoganda. Now the propoganda has shifted to the climate. So lots of people believe it, as we have to fear something. It must be fact as 97% of some group or other believe it.

I’ve noticed that this figure of 97% crops up in various fields, some nothing to do with climate. Could it just because it is the largest prime number lower than 100? Why 97%? Why not 98% or 96% or any number? Seems people like an odd number for authenticity. Even numbers must just be guesses.

Chemotherapy fails 97% of the time.
97% of blacks voted for Obama.
97% of scientists do not believe in creation.

Link for KL to not waste 97% of time by not reading it and wasting said time.

Then we have statements by Al Gore, the Nobel lauriate, and climate expert who has been telling us for years that the north pole will be ice free in xx years. Perhaps that should be 97 years.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

And yet concepts within it were one of the prime reasons that advocates of peak oil using PROPER science ended up looking like just another happy band of doomers without a clue about ANY science.

That was because we believed the propoganda.

It wasn't all propaganda. Some of it was either a quite clever and deliberate misunderstanding of some basic geoscience topics, or outright ignorance.

[woodburner]

Which video was that?

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Which video was that?

Kenneal posted it as the top post here:

https://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vi ... highlight=

[adam2]

Please keep on the topic of the Extinction Rebellion protests and the merits or otherwise of these protests.
Off topic remarks about politics and economics may be deleted. Posts containing personal insults and quotes thereof and replies thereto will be deleted.

[BritDownUnder]

Those Extinction Rebels are now active in Brisbane, Queensland.

[Little John]

An establishment rebellion

Why the elite loves the eco-warriors.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/08/0 ... rebellion/

London’s Victoria and Albert Museum has acquired a number of artefacts associated with Extinction Rebellion (XR), the protest group campaigning to reduce Britain’s carbon emissions to ‘net zero’ by 2025. Apparently, just nine months since Extinction Rebellion’s first public stunt, its paraphernalia deserves to be housed alongside some of the world’s best art and design works of the past 5,000 years.

It is hard to think of any supposedly radical protest movement in history that has been so readily embraced by the establishment as Extinction Rebellion. And the love-bombing isn’t just coming from the usual luvvies like Dame Emma Thompson and activist celebs like Lily Cole and Charlotte Church. Recently, XR attracted the attention of wealthy philanthropists. Last month, three wealthy Americans (one of whose family wealth comes from the oil industry) donated nearly £500,000 to XR and vowed to raise millions more. Other wealthy backers include a hedge-fund manager, who remains anonymous.

Then, there is the literary establishment – from heavyweight authors like Margaret Atwood and Phillip Pullman to big-name publishers like Penguin, it has thrown its weight behind Extinction Rebellion, too. This Is Not A Drill, XR’s protest handbook, was recently rushed out for release by Penguin. Penguin’s editor breathlessly declared that climate change was so pressing that XR’s book needed to be published several months before its initial release date: ‘This is an emergency, and we have to react like it’s an emergency.’ The book even features a contribution from Rowan Williams, former archbishop of Canterbury – the former head of the established church.

The reason for this establishment love-in is that Extinction Rebellion represents no rebellion at all. It has the appearance of a rebellion, certainly – protesters glue their hands to buildings, block roads and get themselves arrested. But the message is one that affirms and flatters establishment opinion rather than challenging it.

Parliament, for instance, was quick to heed XR’s demand to declare a ‘climate emergency’. More significantly, the group’s main aim of reducing UK emissions to ‘net zero’ is one that is shared not only by the Conservative government, but also by MPs of all stripes. The ‘net zero’ target for 2050 was nodded through parliament with just an hour and a half of debate and without a single vote needing to be cast. XR is only more impatient in its demand, calling for a 2025 deadline.

Many have tried to compare Extinction Rebellion’s climate crusade with past movements for progressive change. Justifying the V&A’s decision to acquire Extinction Rebellion artefacts, senior curator Corinna Gardner compared their punchy colour palette to that of the Suffragettes. Similarly, XR leader Roger Hallam claims his protesting is in the ‘tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King’.

These comparisons are delusional, pretentious and insulting. But they unwittingly highlight something important. Whether it was the Chartists, the Suffragettes, the civil-rights movement, or the gay-rights movement, these genuinely progressive campaigns were all despised by the elite at the time. These were campaigns that sought to expand human freedom, to wrest rights and resources from the establishment. By contrast, environmentalist campaigns like Extinction Rebellion are, by their very nature, against freedom. They seek to place new limits on human activity: on industry, on economic growth, on our travel, on our diets, and on childbirth.

For many years, the great and the good have been in broad agreement that something must be done about climate change. But they also seem to agree that the bulk of the costs should not be shouldered by them. Only last week, celebrities, business leaders and politicians descended on Sicily for the 7th annual Google Camp, which this year was dedicated to tackling climate change. After arriving in their private jets, mega yachts and sports cars, delegates were treated to a lecture on climate change by Prince Harry, who delivered it in his bare feet. Earlier this year, 1,500 individual private jets flew to Davos. The highlight of the summit was a conversation between Prince William and Sir David Attenborough… on climate change.

The establishment only seems to care about ‘pollution’ when it is ordinary people doing the polluting. It is always cheap flights, cheap food and cheap fashion which cause the most consternation among environmentalists. In turn, climate change presents the establishment with an opportunity to manage the little people’s habits, tastes and aspirations.

[adam2]

Several members of Extinction rebellion have been arrested for planning to fly drones near Heathrow.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49678770

Edit to clarify/correct, those arrested are reported to be members of "Heathrow pause" see following post.

[clv101]

Heathrow Pause, not Extinction Rebellion, although some of the same individuals are involved in both groups. I think XR could not come to agreement on doing this, so a new group was established.

The official line is that XR neither condone nor condemn the Heathrow Pause action.

[adam2]

Extinction Rebellion have blocked road access to the Valero refinery, Pembroke dock, UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-497 ... ting-story

[adam2]

The blockade of the Valero refinery has now ended.
It did not appear to be successful as the fuel tankers still entered and left the refinery via nearby fields thereby bypassing the blocked roads.

This alternative access was put into operation so quickly and worked so well that it was presumably planned in advance rather than being a last minute improvisation.

Many other XR protests continue.

[clv101]

The blockade of the Valero refinery has now ended.
It did not appear to be successful ...

Depends how you guage success, such actions are never about the actual, on the day emissions, production etc. It's more about profile, awareness, media coverage etc. Success or failure does not depend on how many tankers are stopped, but the wider response. On this I'd still say it wasn't a success, local media coverage was pretty poor and XR communication around the action wasn't great.

One interesting thing to come out of it though was realising that around 70% of the workers are contractors, not permanent employees and their inability to get to work might have impacted them. The question this raises is why so many people have such low worker rights?