London "Climate" Protests

[Lexion1000]

Most industrial jobs exported 1000s of miles away using dirty energy and no pollution controls.
No energy independance.
Rainforests chopped down for Palm Oil & fuel additives.
A complete lack of sustainability as most goods are imported.
What little Green jobs exist are non productive.
Cities are not sustainable and never will be.
"Renewables" made 1000s of miles away using dirty energy.
Wind Turbines built offshore which cost 2x onshore .. plus makes money for MPs .. plus makes money for the "Crown".
Development of millions of new homes to support immigration .. along transport corridors EXACTLY where the worst pollution exists.
HS2 built specifically to bring in more people to Cities .. to create more pollution .. why not stop the commute, save time, save money and bring money to local economies ?

I think you have entirely missed the point of the cartoon, which is.. whether on not humans have caused climate change, a move to reduce pollution and move to a more sustainable human footprint is a good idea. I would regard anyone who argues with that to be a complete idiot.

 

[Widgetone]

Most industrial jobs exported 1000s of miles away using dirty energy and no pollution controls.
No energy independance.
Rainforests chopped down for Palm Oil & fuel additives.
A complete lack of sustainability as most goods are imported.
What little Green jobs exist are non productive.
Cities are not sustainable and never will be.
"Renewables" made 1000s of miles away using dirty energy.
Wind Turbines built offshore which cost 2x onshore .. plus makes money for MPs .. plus makes money for the "Crown".
Development of millions of new homes to support immigration .. along transport corridors EXACTLY where the worst pollution exists.
HS2 built specifically to bring in more people to Cities .. to create more pollution .. why not stop the commute, save time, save money and bring money to local economies ?

Seems to be a link here with those not overly concerned about human activities possibly causing climate change with those also advocating the advantages of Brexit....flat earth society members perhaps too?

 

[wanton dwarf]

Seems to be a link here with those not overly concerned about human activities possibly causing climate change with those also advocating the advantages of Brexit....flat earth society members perhaps too?

Seems to be a connection with those on the Left who are anti democracy and take pride in degrading others based on little more than behaviour last seen in a primary school playground.

 

[wanton dwarf]

I think you have entirely missed the point of the cartoon, which is.. whether on not humans have caused climate change, a move to reduce pollution and move to a more sustainable human footprint is a good idea. I would regard anyone who argues with that to be a complete idiot.

It's a question of "Interpretation" though isn't it.

My idea of sustainability is not going to be the same as some "Environmentalist" who lives in a town or city.

IMHO a lot of Environmentalism is literally a political license for the Labour Party to have a go at Rural Conservative voters.

If you want to remove pollution .. stop putting most of the jobs in Cities and commuting.

 

[bobk]

They're going tomorrow , the school bell must be ringing .

 

[wanton dwarf]

Painfully out of touch IMHO. Food waste can and does get used in Bioenergy and is returned as fertiliser. Farms already use human waste.

Propaganda against Rural communities ..


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/how-to-be-green/cities-feed-world/

Fixing the food system: how cities can truly feed the world
Ellen MacArthur, founder and chair, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and Martin Stuchtey, founder and managing partner, SYSTEMIQ

Over half of the world’s 7.7 billion people live in towns and cities. By 2050, more than two thirds of them will do so. Materials, waste, emissions, knowledge and influence follow this population explosion.

Cities will increasingly hold sway over the way the global economy functions. They thus have the ability and responsibility to address major global challenges. And perhaps none is more pressing than our broken food system.

As in many other industries, the way we grow and process food is linear: take, make, waste. Priority has been given to repeated extraction and consumption, with little thought to the long-term picture.
..

Excessive use of fertilisers, and antibiotics in animal farming, together with poorly managed manure and human waste, could contribute to five million deaths a year by 2050 – twice the current toll from obesity, and four times the number who die on the roads.

 

[Muck Spreader]

Seems to be a connection with those on the Left who are anti democracy and take pride in degrading others based on little more than behaviour last seen in a primary school playground.

Climate change has f all to do with left or right political positions, It has everything to do with the continued survival of the the human race. There is little intelligent argument against the fact it is happening and it is very real. Where there seems to be a problem, is in the many competing theories on effective and realistic ways to tackle it. But in the end, it is a global problem and can only be solved by coordinated global action.

 

[Henarar]

Climate change has f all to do with left or right political positions, It has everything to do with the continued survival of the the human race. There is little intelligent argument against the fact it is happening and it is very real. Where there seems to be a problem, is in the many competing theories on effective and realistic ways to tackle it. But in the end, it is a global problem and can only be solved by coordinated global action.

So what have you done about it ?

 

[wanton dwarf]

Climate change has f all to do with left or right political positions, It has everything to do with the continued survival of the the human race. There is little intelligent argument against the fact it is happening and it is very real. Where there seems to be a problem, is in the many competing theories on effective and realistic ways to tackle it. But in the end, it is a global problem and can only be solved by coordinated global action.

What a load of rubbish.

50,000 years ago the Earth was at the peak of an Ice Age with 1km of Ice over the UK.

Seas 200 metres lower. Dust storms and very little rainfall. Most life died out onland. Almost all vegetation died.

That's with CO2 at 150ppm.

What we have is global propaganda by billionaires and politicians to ensure more and more power and money is in thier hands.

 

[Muck Spreader]

What a load of rubbish.

50,000 years ago the Earth was at the peak of an Ice Age with 1km of Ice over the UK.

Seas 200 metres lower. Dust storms and very little rainfall. Most life died out onland. Almost all vegetation died.

That's with CO2 at 150ppm.

What we have is global propaganda by billionaires and politicians to ensure more and more power and money is in thier hands.

There you are, it's all actually plot by your Jewish fantasy villain George Soros.

 

[MiJ]

Professor Feldman - Global Warming and other Bol locks

 

[Pond digger]

What a load of rubbish.

50,000 years ago the Earth was at the peak of an Ice Age with 1km of Ice over the UK.

Seas 200 metres lower. Dust storms and very little rainfall. Most life died out onland. Almost all vegetation died.

That's with CO2 at 150ppm.

What we have is global propaganda by billionaires and politicians to ensure more and more power and money is in thier hands.

We all recognise that climate is effected by multiple sources of influence, and some are simply beyond our control. That is no excuse for inaction on the man made element; it’s just a lame excuse for those that have vested interests in the status quo, and those that would rather bury their heads in the sand, than suffer any kind of personal inconvenience resulting from the necessity for change.

As I’ve said before, the move to sustainable energy production has to be a good thing, regardless of anyone’s stance on man-made climate change.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Climate change has f all to do with left or right political positions, It has everything to do with the continued survival of the the human race. There is little intelligent argument against the fact it is happening and it is very real. Where there seems to be a problem, is in the many competing theories on effective and realistic ways to tackle it. But in the end, it is a global problem and can only be solved by coordinated global action.

Really ?

So point out anything natural to do with "Climate Change" that harmed human beings ?

There is no evidence that changes in CO2 are harming anything .. however there IS evidence that CO2 improves and IS improving plant growth .. which will increase the growth rate of all life.

Just look at the flooding of the Somerset levels, destroying sea defenses to see the harm caused by those pushing "Climate Change".

To see the actual harm to everyone in the UK see the MILLIONS of jobs pushed abroad to justify %ages on bits of paper .. whilst actually creating EVEN MORE pollution.

 

[wanton dwarf]

We all recognise that climate is effected by multiple sources of influence, and some are simply beyond our control. That is no excuse for inaction on the man made element; it’s just a lame excuse for those that have vested interests in the status quo, and those that would rather bury their heads in the sand, than suffer any kind of personal inconvenience resulting from the necessity for change.

As I’ve said before, the move to sustainable energy production has to be a good thing, regardless of anyone’s stance on man-made climate change.

All I can see is a small number of billionaires making more and more money out of what is a nihilism cult.

 

[Pond digger]

All I can see is a small number of billionaires making more and more money out of what is a nihilism cult.

Of all the possible vested interests in the debate, I would say that the oil companies have the biggest war chest. The fact that the deniers are in the minority, and are loosing the argument, would suggest that it is science that is the dominant force. Unless of course you’re in Trump Land, where money really does matter more than anything else.

I’m repeating myself again, but anyone that thinks that burning millions of years worth of fossilised carbon in less than 200yrs isn’t going to effect the climate is being naive, to put it mildly.

 

[Muck Spreader]

Really ?

So point out anything natural to do with "Climate Change" that harmed human beings ?

There is no evidence that changes in CO2 are harming anything .. however there IS evidence that CO2 improves and IS improving plant growth .. which will increase the growth rate of all life.

Just look at the flooding of the Somerset levels, destroying sea defenses to see the harm caused by those pushing "Climate Change".

To see the actual harm to everyone in the UK see the MILLIONS of jobs pushed abroad to justify %ages on bits of paper .. whilst actually creating EVEN MORE pollution.

You are being a bit simplistic in your assumptions. Increasing CO2 can increase plant growth in some crops plants like wheat and rice, dependent on global location, but in others like maize it can depress it's yield by up to 25%. It also has the effect of depressing the protein content by up to 14% in various crops. However, increasing CO2 can protect against leaf damage from the corresponding rising levels of atmospheric ozone.

 

[arcobob]

You are being a bit simplistic in your assumptions. Increasing CO2 can increase plant growth in some crops plants like wheat and rice, dependent on global location, but in others like maize it can depress it's yield by up to 25%. It also has the effect of depressing the protein content by up to 14% in various crops. However, increasing CO2 can protect against leaf damage from the corresponding rising levels of atmospheric ozone.

The primary source of all green plant nutrients begin with photosynthesis whereby water and carbon dioxide combine under the influence of chlorophyll to produce glucose. Glucose forms the basic building block for amino acid(protein) production in conjunction with nitrogen. Nitrogen is obtained from soluble forms in the soil and from fixation of atmospheric nitrogen with the aid of symbiotic bacteria. The percentage of protein in a crop depends on a number of factors but with reference to common agricultural crops almost all of the high protein crops obtain a high percentage of their nitrogen from atmospheric fixation. Very rapid vegetative growth can cause carbohydrate production to outrun protein production in the short term. How protein production in a given healthy plant species is suppressed by carbon dioxide in the presence of adequate nitrogen is a mystery to me. Can anybody please explain explain?

 

[Muck Spreader]

The primary source of all green plant nutrients begin with photosynthesis whereby water and carbon dioxide combine under the influence of chlorophyll to produce glucose. Glucose forms the basic building block for amino acid(protein) production in conjunction with nitrogen. Nitrogen is obtained from soluble forms in the soil and from fixation of atmospheric nitrogen with the aid of symbiotic bacteria. The percentage of protein in a crop depends on a number of factors but with reference to common agricultural crops almost all of the high protein crops obtain a high percentage of their nitrogen from atmospheric fixation. Very rapid vegetative growth can cause carbohydrate production to outrun protein production in the short term. How protein production in a given healthy plant species is suppressed by carbon dioxide in the presence of adequate nitrogen is a mystery to me. Can anybody please explain explain?

I don't think they know exactly why yet, but experiments appear to show an inhibition of N translocation from roots to shoots, possibly due to decreased stomatal conductance at elevated CO2 levels.

 

[arcobob]

I don't think they know exactly why yet, but experiments appear to show an inhibition of N translocation from roots to shoots, possibly due to decreased stomatal conductance at elevated CO2 levels.

Interesting, thanks.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Of all the possible vested interests in the debate, I would say that the oil companies have the biggest war chest. The fact that the deniers are in the minority, and are loosing the argument, would suggest that it is science that is the dominant force. Unless of course you’re in Trump Land, where money really does matter more than anything else.

I’m repeating myself again, but anyone that thinks that burning millions of years worth of fossilised carbon in less than 200yrs isn’t going to effect the climate is being naive, to put it mildly.

Really .. so I spent all my time educating myself it was actually Oil Companies controlling my mind all along.

Why has HMG spent the past few decades creating more pollution by importing the same products we used to make in the UK but are now made 1,000s of miles away in China using dirty energy ?

Why has HMG allowed Billionaires to not only pay no tax .. but build mega yachts the size of the QE2 ? Why have billionaires been allowed to burn as much fuel as they like with super cars, jumbo jets, massive mansions, olympic swimming pools and now flights into space .. for fun.

Not credible and quite frankly horrific.