Dinosaurs Fight Extinction Rebellion

Written By: - Date published: 12:46 am, July 17th, 2019 - 181 comments
Categories: accountability, activism, climate change, community democracy, Environment, identity, local government, Politics, terrorism, uncategorized - Tags: , , ,

The establishment has always had a problem fighting back at a faceless, nameless, amorphous enemy. This becomes clear when faced with a groundswell of community pushback and civil disobedience practices by grassroots movements.

Throughout human history (am I starting to sound like Mr Trotter?), civil unrest and revolutions were nipped in the butt by neutralising the leader(s). However, when a movement is practically leaderless, the usual tactics of cutting the head(s) off, sometimes literally, are ineffective.

Neutralising usually starts with separating. Branding activists as “radical extremists” or “terrorists” is an age-old tactic to drive a wedge between them and the general public that might be receptive to and supportive of the cause.

Knowing the people behind the action not only reveals their motivation and agenda but also provides you with a target(s) to aim for – it exposes the proverbial underbelly. This could be their ethnical background, their religion, their sexual preferences, their social class, et cetera, in short, their identities. Importantly, it allows you to find ways to cut off their funding source too.

Fighting back at an anonymous enemy is much harder and relies much more on projection and sticky labels. Some fine examples of this can be found here on TS too.

The least preferred option is to meet the enemy on their chosen battleground and fight them with their weapons of choice. That is to say, rarely is the debate fought on the merits of arguments and the veracity of facts and evidence. We have seen this with the tobacco industry, the oil industry, and now with climate change.

Extinction Rebellion has been working hard to get NZ Councils to declare a Climate Emergency. This is no easy task as Robert can attest. They have recently written a letter to the South Waikato Council, which has been met with an interesting yet predictable reaction by the Mayor and Councillors.

One dinosaur said that he supported the aim (only one?) of Extinction Rebellion but he objected to their “extreme ways” of messaging:

The press call them activists but I call them terrorists.

Way to go, Pete! So, you support their aim (singular) but because you call them “terrorists”, you have to withdraw your support? I admit that writing a letter is pretty ‘extreme’ and I’m sure they ‘violently’ pressed the send-button when sending it. Have you notified the Police yet?

Another dinosaur said he was “loathe” to support the group if he didn’t know who was behind it.

We don’t know who these people are,” he said.

“There is no incorporated society behind it and there is no trust behind it. In other words there are no responsible people behind it.

Fair enough. If you don’t leave your name, address, and contact details, they cannot contact you and get back at to you. For all they know, you could be a law-abiding ratepayer or a raving lunatic, which is a big difference when dealing with a reasonable request. Obviously.

Names cannot be withheld when citizens and ratepayers participate in political and democratic processes and submissions only have merit when you have paid all your bills and taxes on time. Obviously.

By their names, we shall know them. The others who cannot be named shall be known as the irresponsibles. How responsible of these dinosaurs.

I think these legalistic leg-overs (AKA fuckwittery) are solely intended to create a Kafkaesque labyrinth of denial and obfuscation with the ultimate goal of completely ignoring the actual message or request.

If this is how the dinosaurs amongst us deal with the existential threat, they will hasten not only their but also our extinction. My advice: do not feed the dinosaur. In other words, do not vote for this dying breed – it doesn’t take a palaeontologist to see that the fossilisation process is already well underway.

181 comments on “Dinosaurs Fight Extinction Rebellion ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. vto 1
    17 July 2019 at 7:15 am

    People like that are conservatives. Conservatives are useless at action and change – they don't do those things. They don't actually understand those things. And they certainly don't know the history around those things. Witness John Key.

    This is an age-old phenomenon. As such, how it will go is already written. The conservatives will resist with pith, but eventually end up where the hippies have been for ages already – impatiently waiting for them. Meantime, while waiting, a whole bunch of opportunity is lost.

    Silly conservatives, so silly. They cost so much to have around.

    Bets taken now on whether these dinosaurs will come on board soon…

  2. Gristle 2
    17 July 2019 at 7:22 am

    Having been at the Hawkes Bay Regional Council's meeting where the climate emergency was discussed, I saw this response in action.

    Cr Alan Dick refused to support the call for climate emergency being recognized because it didn't also include "dangers from nuclear warfare." Whilst climate change is likely to increase or spark wars, and some of those may be nuclear, the ability of the HRBC to do anything about nuclear warfare is less than it doing something about climate change.

    What we have Dick being a dork, but finding a way to say yes I see it, but will not support the motion.

    Another Councillor, Fenton Wilson, wouldn't support on the basis that the motion recognized climate emergency but did not specify actions.

    Both of these dinosaurs withheld support on the basis that the motion didn't go far enough, but in reality it was because the climate emergency motion went too far for their likings.

  3. tc 3
    17 July 2019 at 7:50 am

    New memes to achieve the same goal….do nothing, BAU, there is no depression in NZ etc etc.

    Like central govt these bodies are chock full of this. Follow the money behind these types and it's likely rural farming, property development or national and it's subsidiaries supplying song sheets.

    Local elections soon. Any Muppet with funds and organization can get elected with our voluntary voting and legendary apathy.

    Geez we got a car dealer/financier mayor narrowly over a national backed troughing 'soft' styled woman McIndoe seemed to be advising here.

    He’s been campaigning with self promoting billboards for months already.

  4. Robert Guyton 4
    17 July 2019 at 8:21 am

    For many of the 60 or so members of the Southland public who came to the council chamber to support the proposal to declare a climate emergency (there were more outside, listening to the "live broadcast" – the public gallery inside was filled to capacity, a very rare thing) hearing the conservative councillor's "reasoning" around their refusal to support the motion, was an eye-opener. Statements like, "I'd support the proposal if it was watered down", produced gasps and looks of disbelief on the faces of those who had given the issue some deeper thought. Those "what the??" faces were worn by all bar three farmers in the audience, when the vote was taken and lost, 8-4; those farmers, who included ex-ACT Party candidate and Fed Farmers president, Don Nicholson, cheered lustily, believing they'd witnessed a victory for commonsense and the defeat of the woke lefties. The others in the crowd ignored them.

    • vto 4.1
      17 July 2019 at 8:27 am

      I wondered where that fool Don Nicholson slinked away to… sorry to hear that you must suffer him down Southland ways. He is the classic example of a conservative wasting opportunities.

      He would still be draining the last of Southlands 'swamps' if he could

      Conservatives. So costly to everyone.

      • Robert Guyton 4.1.1
        17 July 2019 at 9:03 am

        Don's a hard-core ideologue; nice guy though and loves to debate private property rights; he's all about them.

        • woodart 4.1.1.1
          17 July 2019 at 2:57 pm

          interesting that the "private property rights" crowd are usually the first in line for any handouts to fix their private property when the climate dumps on them.. there is none so flexible as a free market conservative, when public dosh is available..

          • Poission 4.1.1.1.1
            17 July 2019 at 3:19 pm

            Now now,the great protector of eminent domain, resigned after being accused of ploughing another mans fields.

          • Incognito 4.1.1.1.2
            17 July 2019 at 8:11 pm

            Private property rights are enshrined in the Constitution of the US and of many other nations too I believe. The ‘right’ to use land probably goes back to even before pre-historic man stopped their nomadic hunter-gatherer existence and settled down in what could be considered the seeds of modern society and urban existence.

            Because of increased population density and because of existing inequality, property rights have to be protected in and by law. Over time, the right to use the land and take according to need has changed into the right to abuse the land and ‘plunder’ it for profit that exceeds individual or collective needs for that matter.

            Plunder has a very broad meaning; it can mean extraction of natural resource leaving waste and devastation or it can mean a high-rise office building rented out at astronomical prices. What they all have in common is the profit motive.

            This perspective can be moved or widened from land to the whole environment, including climate. Indeed, the same property protecting laws apply as they have done for eons.

            PostScript: I’ve just read the blog by Christine Rose and hat tip to mosa @ 11.

    • Molly 4.2
      17 July 2019 at 8:40 am

      Hi Robert,

      My (admittedly limited) knowledge of the RMA may be flawed, but if the coalition government issued a National Policy Statement on declaring climate change to be a top priority, wouldn't that mean that all local authorities would have to consider that when producing and implementing planning documents and making decisions?

      This would make it a requirement of local government to take climate change considerations reducing the requirement of getting elected officials to be informed. Do you know if this has been considered at all, or what would be a possible reason why it has not?

      • Robert Guyton 4.2.1
        17 July 2019 at 8:58 am

        It's what the conservatives fear; a Government action requiring councils to treat climate change as an emergency. Jacinda Ardern has signalled that the only thing stopping the Government from doing that, is the National Party. Those conservative councillors too, are National Party supporters (one of ours, Eric Roy, is an ex-Nat MP); antipathy towards declaring a climate emergency is deep and as solid as a frozen swede. Reasoning with them; and I did plenty of that outside of the dedicated meeting, was futile; my arguments simply bounced off their ideological shields. I found their return arguments tenuous, ideological and entirely unconvincing. But they had the numbers; might is right. Winner takes all. Same as it ever was.
        That said, the motion that followed promised an urgent climate action plan completed within 3 months and they’ll be held to that promise and timetable 🙂

        • Molly 4.2.1.1
          17 July 2019 at 9:30 am

          Thanks Robert.

          Should we be putting pressure on the coalition government to create this NPS, and utilise this process? If well written and implemented such a statement will have immediate effect on RMA decisions across NZ, and will have longer term impacts on the drafting and implementation of planning documents. Surely a fundamental requirement for effective climate change mitigation for communities.

          The priorities list giving advice on the direction of government focus has not been updated since 2016. On the MoE page regarding climate change, I don't see any references to local planning or local government, or am I looking in the wrong place? The implementation of the RMA is largely left up to local authorities, and tightening up this approach as well could have a significant effect on how planning is undertaken. I have yet to see how this government is addressing climate change effectively, this seems to me to be a possible avenue.

          I had an interesting email exchange with out Deputy Mayor, Bill Cashmore on this issue. But even more disheartening, had met with John Duguid, who was the head planner for the Unitary Plan in Auckland in 2011 at the start of the drafting process. He summarily dismissed including climate change as a consideration in the plan at that time. An opportunity missed for Auckland, that was lost because it required planners being up-to-date on this issue.

          • Robert Guyton 4.2.1.1.1
            17 July 2019 at 9:49 am

            Hi Molly; the details of the process are devilish, that's for sure and you have a good grasp of the approach that could be taken. I'm for a Government-level declaration, such as Ireland's:

            Climate Emergency Declared Republic of Ireland

            https://www.gkdigest.com/2019/05/climate-emergency-declared-republic-of.html

            "

            Details:

            • The climate emergency declaration was passed by both the government and opposition parties of Ireland unanimously.
            • Both agreed to an amendment to 'Oireachtas report on Climate Action' (a parliamentary report on climate action). The ammendement was accepted without a vote.
            • Targets to be undertaken include becoming carbon-neutral by 2030, introduce electric car hubs or build sustainable homes to try to achieve that goal.
            • The Oireachtas Climate Action report that started the Irish declaration came from a Citizens' Assembly report.
            • The Citizens' Assembly will next be considering the issue of a biodiversity emergency.

            About the Citizens' Assembly:

            • Ireland's Citizens' assembly was established in 2016 for considering several political questions like referendums, abortion, population ageing, fixed term parliaments and climate change etc.
            • The report produced by it is to be considered by the Oireachtas (Ireland's Legislature).

            What's next?

            • Ireland will next vote on a Climate Emergency Measures Bill, which seeks to limit oil and gas exploration.

            Question"

  6. jcuknz 6
    17 July 2019 at 9:09 am

    I too do not believe there is a climate EMERGENCY although I believe CHANGE is happening .

    More important n my view is the other Paris resolution that FOOD PRODUCTION SHOULD NOT BE AFFECTED,

    Otherwise we will be cutting off our noses to smit our faces.

    • Pat 6.1
      17 July 2019 at 1:26 pm

      Definition of emergency. 1 : an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action.

      By misdiagnosing climate change for over 3 decades we have reached the state where immediate action is called for….that is an emergency.

      If you agree with the science then by definition you must recognise the emergency

    • Robert Guyton 6.2
      17 July 2019 at 5:25 pm

      Food production, jcuknz? Did they mean amount, as well as type?

      Surely they haven't tried to dictate what can be produced? They haven't, I'm betting, precluded changes to food production, improvements, environment-wise, to food production methods. Do you think?

      • jcuknz 6.2.1
        18 July 2019 at 7:47 am

        I mentioned elsewhere yesterday my concern at the tomfoolerly of greenies blocking farmers attempts to reduce emmisions … I used to support the Green Party but I am wiser these days as I realise their un-intended intentions will ruin NZ's economy.

        Since I am not ashamed of my views I will in future write under my name ….

        John Clover from the UK who has lived in in NZ since 1953 so consider myself a New Zealander I am sure I will have moved on before anything predicted happens though I recognize that things are changing.

        • solkta 6.2.1.1
          18 July 2019 at 7:58 am

          What are "un-intended intentions"? I'm not sure how that works.

          • John Clover 6.2.1.1.1
            20 July 2019 at 10:02 am

            Quite simple Solkta ….. a great idea with has bad side effects not contemplated by the originators….. something which seems to frequently come out of the current Government …. though I guess I wasn't aware of it previous governments … not because they never did it either 🙂

            • solkta 6.2.1.1.1.1
              20 July 2019 at 10:27 am

              An intention is intentional by definition. I think they meant to say "unintended consequences".

        • Robert Guyton 6.2.1.2
          18 July 2019 at 7:59 am

          Hi John Clover. Great surname for a farmer advocate! Clover-based pastured management was a very appropriate way to manage the nitrogen needs for grass. Not used near as much these days where the spreading of synthetic nitrates are peddled as superior practice. So you're old-schoolsmiley

          Have the greenies blocked farmers attempts to reduce emissions? Can you elaborate?

          You possibly mean opposition to genetic engineering, I can only guess.

          It could be said that farmers have blocked the greenies attempts to keep genetically engineered plants and animals out of the country but I'll not try to pre-empt discussions. Good on you for using your real name on this forum.

          • jcuknz 6.2.1.2.1
            19 July 2019 at 8:35 am

            Thanks Robert … my understanding is that in the purity of their belief the Greens are blocking farmers from getting some variety of grass which reduces to some extent rmmisions ….. sorry if I have been mis-informed But…..

            I didn't know about the reverse action you mention.

            I have no connection with the land and my 'family' come from East Anglia and only connect I have heard of is an xestor in the 1700's who worked out the cause of a problem affecting horses at that time. A later family member, [grat grandfather] Joseph developed the anesthetic device which was used from around 1860 till WWII.

            So no conection to the land I am afraid 🙂

            • Robert Guyton 6.2.1.2.1.1
              19 July 2019 at 8:46 am

              We're all connected to the land, John; gravity ensures that, thank goodness!

              I like to spend as much time as I can as close to the land as possible; gardening's my thing and the soil and I know each other pretty intimately. I think a lot of greenies try to keep in touch with the soil one way or another. Many of us promote natural management of the land and mistrust technologies that are far-removed from nature's processes; genetic engineering and monoculture being a couple that are popular with farmers here in New Zealand but criticised by greenies.

  7. Robert Guyton 7
    17 July 2019 at 9:14 am

    ""Profit is the key to farming and you work on what's there and if you can't see a profit you change your angle.""

    Farmers ponder future that contains emissions bill

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/114267768/farmers-ponder-future-that-contains-emissions-bill​​​​​​​

  8. That_guy 8
    17 July 2019 at 9:42 am

    What I've noticed is a trend of former dinosaurs having a road-to-damascus moment and then writing heartfelt opinion pieces, saying that they now think climate change is a serious threat. The kicker is that, after about thirty years of consistently being wrong, and consistently denigrating the people who were right all along, these people now want to be taken seriously when discussing what to do next.

    My opinion is that these dinosaurs need to do two things:

    1) Open their wallets, especially if their generous bank balances have been obtained from industries that trash the planet, and start paying for the cleanup by funding the planting of a trillion trees

    2) STFU and listen to the people who have been right all along.

    • Wayne 8.1
      17 July 2019 at 10:58 am

      So who are these people you want to shut down?

      • Robert Guyton 8.1.1
        17 July 2019 at 11:01 am

        I think That_guy wants the dinosaurs to cease their bellowing in order that they can hear the voices of reason.

        • Shadrach 8.1.1.1
          17 July 2019 at 11:07 am

          …as defined by you? No thanks. This issue needs debate. I understand why those of you on the climate hysteria bandwagon wouldn't be keen on that. The truth is you're an ideological rabble, swimming against an increasing tide of healthy skepticism.

          • Drowsy M. Kram 8.1.1.1.1
            17 July 2019 at 11:25 am

            A 'dense' comment, fair dripping with pejoratives:

            "climate hysteria bandwagon"
            "ideological rabble"

            If you're still skeptical after viewing this graph, then you’re somewhat ideological yourself, and your skepticism is not healthy.

            https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-concentration-long-term

            https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

            • Shadrach 8.1.1.1.1.1
              17 July 2019 at 3:54 pm

              I'm not a denier. I'm a skeptic about the impacts. People like Robert grossly exaggerate them, and I'm calling him out.

              • Robert Guyton …
                17 July 2019 at 5:15 pm

                Do me the courtesy of quoting any one of my supposed "gross exaggerations", Shadrach. Quoting please, not "referring to".

                Thanks.

              • Drowsy M. Kram …
                17 July 2019 at 7:39 pm

                Shadrach, if you do an 'Advanced Google Search' for the exact phrase "impacts of climate change", crossed with any of the following: possible OR potential OR likely OR plausible OR probable, then the first 'item' in the list of results should be:

                Scholarly articles for possible OR potential OR likely OR plausible OR probable "impacts of climate change"

                Clicking on that link will take you to the top of a list of about 370,000 scientific articles/papers on this topic; ~11,300 have been published so far in 2019. [That's a fairly restrictive search term; even allowing for duplicated items, the actual number of relevant papers will be greater.]

                Granted that any individual scientist/researcher or, more usually, team of scientists/researchers may tend to exaggerate the effects/impacts of climate change on the particular system they're investigating, that's still a lot of scientists working in this area. And professional scientists (and supporting infrastructure) aren't cheap, yet funders have decided that this could be worthwhile research.

                You play the skeptic card [It's a good card – I myself am skeptical, and often question authority, possibly too often for my own good.], asserting that likely impacts are being exaggerated. Others play the 'extinction of the human species' card, asserting that the impacts are being down-played.

                How this will 'play out' for the planet, and human civilisation, is somewhere in between, but I tend to trust recent predictions that the effects of global warming on climate, and the knock-on effects of climate change on human systems, will be more rapid and more severe that earlier predictions indicated.

                I sincerely hope that the tens of thousands of climate and environmental scientists, and other researchers publishing in this area have indeed been exaggerating. But, in my heart of hearts, I think they are mostly reporting results that reflect reality, in which case I'm so glad to be living in New Zealand, a relatively uncrowded and isolated region near the edge of Petri dish Earth, with the majority of my life well behind me. Too negative?

                Dynamics of cyanobacteria blooms are linked to the hydrology of shallow Florida lakes and provide insight into possible impacts of climate change
                https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10750-017-3425-7

                Potential impacts of climate change and humans on the trophic network organization of estuarine food webs
                https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v616/p13-24/

                Impacts of Climate Change and Anthropogenic Activity on Permafrost Soils at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska
                https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CR.1943-5495.0000181

                Application of an Integrated SWAT–MODFLOW Model to Evaluate Potential Impacts of Climate Change and Water Withdrawals on Groundwater–Surface Water…
                https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/11/1/110

                An integrated assessment of the potential impacts of climate change on Indiana forests
                https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-018-2326-8

                Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Land Degradation and Desertification: Land Degradation and Climate Change
                https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/potential-impacts-of-climate-change-on-land-degradation-and-desertification/223762

                Global and regional impacts of climate change at different levels of global temperature increase
                https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02464-z

                Managing physical impacts of climate change: An attentional perspective on corporate adaptation
                https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0007650316648688

                Projected behavioral impacts of global climate change
                https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103023

                Simulating the impacts of climate change on hydrology and crop production in the Northern High Plains of Texas using an improved SWAT model
                https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377418317980

                Et cetera, et cetera, a few thousand times so far this year alone.

          • Robert Guyton 8.1.1.1.2
            17 July 2019 at 11:57 am

            I didn't define "reason" – it has a meaning that can be learned by consulting a dictionary, something I suggest you do, Shadrach (a very reasonable suggestion, I'm certain you'll agree).

            In any case, I'm very keen to provide you with your sought-for voice of reason, through rational debate, although, as Drowsy M.Kram notes, your comments are "fair dripping with pejoratives" and they're not usual in rational debates, in my experience. Perhaps, during the proposed debate, that "road to Damascus" moment could be yours! Fingers crossed for Shadrach!

            • Poission 8.1.1.1.2.1
              17 July 2019 at 12:37 pm

              You miscontrue reason with passion (especially with scientific interpretation)

              The constraints were framed well by Pope ( an essay on man)

              Could he, whose rules the rapid comet bind,

              Describe or fix one movement of his mind?

              Who saw its fires here rise, and there descend,

              Explain his own beginning, or his end?

              Alas what wonder! Man's superior part

              Uncheck'd may rise, and climb from art to art;

              But when his own great work is but begun,

              What Reason weaves, by Passion is undone.

              Trace science then, with modesty thy guide;

              First strip off all her equipage of pride;

              Deduct what is but vanity, or dress,

              Or learning's luxury, or idleness;

              Or tricks to show the stretch of human brain,

              Mere curious pleasure, or ingenious pain;

              Expunge the whole, or lop th' excrescent parts

              Of all our Vices have created Arts;

              Then see how little the remaining sum,

              Which serv'd the past, and must the times to come!

              • Robert Guyton …
                17 July 2019 at 2:49 pm

                Can you provide me with an example of where I've "misconstrued" passion for reason, Poisson.

            • Shadrach 8.1.1.1.2.2
              17 July 2019 at 4:00 pm

              Oh and calling people 'dinosaurs' is not a perjorative? Lol.

              [lprent: Banned 1 week for trying to tell an author (indirectly) what they should write. Be more careful you could have just said why you thought it was a pejorative (and spelt it correctly). Then I couldn’t have nitpicked it either. ]

              • Incognito …
                17 July 2019 at 4:14 pm

                No, it is not “perjorative” [sic], but a metaphor.

                In my post, I use the term for people who refuse to deal with the issue, avoid it all cost, and justify this by using pejoratives. They are clearly not able and/or willing to adapt to the circumstances that require an adequate response and by that I mean a written letter from the public, not necessarily the existential threat that is CC. It is their duty and responsibility to respond to signals from their community in an appropriate way and to take adequate action when and where necessary. Avoiding the issue is none of that and they are failing in their duty as elected representatives.

                Thus, their rigid single-minded stance and general inflexibility justifies the metaphor.

                I find it interesting that you choose to try to reframe it and give the title and the post as a whole an interpretation that suits your narrative. Pretty much what I said about those dinosaurs.

                • Shadrach …
                  17 July 2019 at 4:21 pm

                  No, it's a perjorative.

                  But I don't take to the term personally. I am all for meaningful measures to preserve and protect our environment. What I am against are people who continue to cry 'wolf', and in the process turn people off actually taking meaningful steps. Declaring climate emergencies in a country whose emissions represent a miniscule fraction of the planets emissions is the height of stupidity.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    17 July 2019 at 4:32 pm

                    It's both.

                    Are you, Shadrach, somehow able to determine whether a cry of "wolf" is genuine or not? Remember, in the story of the boy who cried wolf, one did in fact appear.

                    With regard your last sentence, you miss the point that declaring a climate emergency that threatens life on the planet, from any location at all on that planet, is wise. Or do you somehow feel that Aotearoa is somehow "off planet" and not subject to planetary effects?

                    • Shadrach …
                      17 July 2019 at 4:55 pm

                      Climate change doesn't threaten 'life' on the planet. That's precisely why declaring a climate emergency is stupid. And dishonest.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      17 July 2019 at 5:12 pm

                      “Climate change doesn't threaten 'life' on the planet. That's precisely why declaring a climate emergency is stupid. And dishonest.”

                      Of course it does and it has already caused loss of life to a range of organisms. It may not threaten all life, but then, no one says it does.

                      And now that you've introduced the idea, Extinction Rebellion draw our attention to the equivalent crisis of species extinction; something we should be greatly alarmed about and actively trying to avoid, just as we should be doing with regard global warming.

                  • Incognito …
                    17 July 2019 at 4:38 pm

                    I have made it clear what I mean by the term. You can write your own post, if you like, but you cannot redefine my words, meanings, and intentions because you disagree and/or they don’t suit you.

                    There are plenty of signs that CC is real and getting worse. The future trajectory is uncertain but to sit back and do nothing is the response of dinosaurs.

                    It is a convenient excuse to do nothing because somewhere people have chained themselves to a bridge or blocked the entrance to a building, peacefully.

                    It is a convenient excuse to stop making meaningful changes if others don’t go far enough or a lot further. By definition, meaningful means that those steps have real impact. Each and every one of us can take meaningful steps. So, why not make them? Because your cousin at the other side of the world doesn’t?

                    It is the height of stupidity to stay in a burning house because others do and you don’t want to be first to save your life and limb.

                    Generally, all dinosaurs come up with are pathetic excuses to avoid having to adapt and deviate from BAU.

          • woodart 8.1.1.1.3
            17 July 2019 at 3:10 pm

            the use of the words, "swimming ,"and" healthy" from a climate change septic, sorry sceptic, while accusing others of being ideological rabble is hilarious. do you have a draft stopper for your cave?

            • Shadrach 8.1.1.1.3.1
              17 July 2019 at 4:13 pm

              I'm not a climate change skeptic. I am a skeptic of climate alarmism.

          • That_guy 8.1.1.1.4
            17 July 2019 at 3:31 pm

            When you are in a debate, do take the views of people who've been consistently right for thirty years and the views of people who's been consistently wrong for thirty years and assign to them the same value? Because I don't.

            • Shadrach 8.1.1.1.4.1
              17 July 2019 at 4:13 pm

              That's a really good point. The alarmists have been consistently wrong for 30 years. I take my hat off to you sir.

              • Robert Guyton …
                17 July 2019 at 4:36 pm

                Alarmists have said that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere due to human industry. Were they wrong? If not, your claim;

                "The alarmists have been consistently wrong for 30 years. " is nonsense.

                They have said the planet is subject to the Greenhouse Effect and the warming that comes with it. Were they wrong? If not…

                • Shadrach …
                  17 July 2019 at 5:12 pm

                  "Alarmists have said that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere due to human industry."

                  So have non-alarmists.

                  ""The alarmists have been consistently wrong for 30 years. " is nonsense."

                  No, it isn't. Wild exaggeration is a common occurrence amongst alarmists.

                  “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000,” claimed ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970. “This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”

                  "In 1971, another global-cooling alarmist, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich, who is perhaps best known for his 1968 book The Population Bomb, made similarly wild forecasts for the end of the millennium in a speech at the British Institute for Biology. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.” "

                  https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

              • That_guy …
                17 July 2019 at 5:06 pm

                Thank you for demonstrating that you are willing to use flat-out falsehoods to advance your argument.

                • Shadrach …
                  17 July 2019 at 5:32 pm

                  So you know nothing of the alarmists claims of the past 30 years?

                  I could point you to several sources. Try this one: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

                  • That_guy …
                    17 July 2019 at 7:59 pm

                    So, I'm going to condescendingly explain basic logic to you.

                    If I say "Some people like Bananas!" and you say "I can provide you with credible, documented, irrefutable evidence that some people do not like bananas!"… have you proven my original proposition wrong?

                    I said "Some people have been right all along about CC, and these are the people who we should listen to", then you provided some examples of some people who weren't right all along. But, I'm reliably informed that there is actually more than one person, and therefore more than one opinion, on the planet.

                    See where I'm going here? You can do it!

                    • Incognito …
                      17 July 2019 at 8:19 pm

                      Some people can do it, some people can’t, and some don’t want to 😉

                      Well put, BTW.

                    • Shadrach …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:04 pm

                      Comprehension not your strong point?

                      I have consistently referred to 'alarmists'. Not all commentators on climate change. Alarmists. See where I'm going now?

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:13 pm

                      "

                      I have consistently referred to 'alarmists'. Not all commentators on climate change. Alarmists. See where I'm going now?"

                      Why do you keep banging on about "alarmists" here, without giving examples that can be explored? Your campaign carries an implication that this thread harbours such "alarmists". Come out with it, Shadrach. Debate the point, not your vague, nebulous dislike for "alarmists". The example you've provided to date was not up to much at all.

                    • Incognito []
                      17 July 2019 at 10:53 pm

                      I think it is just a convenient label for when you don’t like the message.

                      We need to something – alarmist.
                      We may need to do something – alarmist.
                      We could do something – alarmist.
                      We could wait before we do anything – non-alarmist.
                      We could do nothing – non-alarmist.
                      They need to do something first – non-alarmist.
                      Et cetera.

                • woodart …
                  17 July 2019 at 6:14 pm

                  + 100 that guy. some(most) of shadrachs arguments are based on quickly shifting sand. its always easy to find the most outrageous statement on the net and put it up as proof . real thinkers, engineers, scientists, geologists, physicists etc, thankfully dont . but we are not dealing with real thinkers here..

                  • Shadrach …
                    17 July 2019 at 6:33 pm

                    Who are these 'real thinkers', 'real scientists', etc?

                    Would they be people like ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California, who in 1970 wrote "“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000,”?

                    Or Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich, who in 1971 wrote “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,”?

                    How about the UNEP, who in 2005 claimed that "by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe"?

                    • That_guy …
                      17 July 2019 at 6:43 pm

                      Yes, thanks, I'm familiar with the practice of trotting out the same cherry-picked out of context quotes from non-peer-reviewed sources in a lame attempt to insinuate that there is no scientific consensus or that the basic science of CC is not settled.

                      Doesn't work on actual scientists, sorry. Better luck next time.

                    • In Vino …
                      17 July 2019 at 7:15 pm

                      I am old enough to remember some of those scare stories Shadrach, but nobody paid much attention to them, including me.

                      False equivalence – a huge body of reputable scientific experts agree about Global Warming. The ones you quote from back then were just voices in the wilderness. We are now better at understanding what is happening, and, unlike you ? I am taking this seriously and wondering if mankind really is stupid enough to destroy his own environment even after many of us have worked out how we are doing it , and how to lessen the effects.

                      Shadrach, had you been around when Noah started building his ark, I suspect that you would have been a committed sunhat maker, who would have said to Noah, " Why are you doing this? Alarmist! The science is not yet in! OK, it has been a bit rainy lately, but there have always been rainy periods."

                      You rather amuse me, because you think yourself rational.

                    • solkta …
                      17 July 2019 at 7:35 pm

                      if mankind really is stupid enough to destroy his own environment

                      You don't teach in schools using such antiquated sexist language like that do you? It no the 1970s.

                    • In Vino …
                      17 July 2019 at 8:12 pm

                      Not sexist, just following old grammatical correctness. What personal adjective would you attach to the word 'mankind', assuming you want don't want to do an Orwellian ban on the word?

                      I have always thought that the word 'human' should be changed to 'huperson.' And, of course, long ago the word 'woman' should have been changed to 'woperson', with a possible plural of 'wopeople'.

                      I await your linguistic advice, since, as you say, 'It no the 1970s.'

                      Or are you using one of those silly phones?

                    • solkta …
                      17 July 2019 at 8:30 pm

                      "Mankind" is men, obviously.

                      If you choose to use sexist grammar from a sexist time then you are either being sexist or a dork.

                    • In Vino …
                      17 July 2019 at 9:07 pm

                      No, utterly wrong. Get a dictionary and look up the meaning of 'mankind'. I think you will find that it means 'the human species'. That definition may come from earlier times which were indeed sexist, but that it how it is. Language is changed less easily than you hope.

                      Had I known you were so overly sensitive about such matters, I would have used the awkward and unusual alternative, 'humankind'.

                      Feminists are not always linguistically clever. They demanded that English drop all feminine versions of trade: actress, poetess, waitress, etc.

                      But for your information, German feminists were doing the exact opposite. Most trades in German are made feminine by adding -in onto the end of a word. A teacher is Lehrer. A female teacher is 'Lehrerin.' German feminists insisted that all trades that did not already have these words be forced to adopt them., so that women could be proudly named in all trades/ professions. I think them cleverer than the English ones.

                      I slowly accepted that stupid 'chairperson' word instead of 'chairman', but I utterly refuse to go on to using the monstrosity of a word 'chairpersonship' And do you really want us to change 'workmanship' to 'workpersonship'?

                      I am neither sexist nor a dork to my mind. Those options come from your simplistic attitude.

                      As I said, if I had known you were out there, I would have written 'humankind… its own environment'.

                      Would that have satisfied your sensibilities?

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      17 July 2019 at 9:19 pm

                      This not my argument at all but I couldn't go past inherent humour of,

                      "Mankind" is men" when my immediate thought was,

                      Mankind can only last a single generation then!

                      Sorry, solkta smiley

                    • solkta …
                      17 July 2019 at 9:51 pm

                      @In Vino

                      I think the simplistic attitude is you thinking it is OK to be rude just because you are old.

                    • Shadrach …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:01 pm

                      Solkta, no-ones being rude.. The expression mankind is well recognised as meaning the human race, human beings collectively. It's use as such is as old as the expression itself.

                    • Shadrach …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:08 pm

                      "…from non-peer-reviewed sources in a lame attempt to insinuate that there is no scientific consensus or that the basic science of CC is not settled."

                      "Science is rarely or perhaps never settled."

                      "Doesn't work on actual scientists, sorry."

                      What actual scientists? The scientists who disagree with the consensus? The scientists who share my concern about the alarmism? The greatest threat to science come from those who stop questioning the science, and allow emotion to take over. You have joined that group.

                    • Shadrach …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:17 pm

                      "but nobody paid much attention to them…"

                      Nobody paid much attention to the UNEP? Really?

                      And how about the IPCC? Anyone pay attention to them?

                      In its final 2007 report, widely considered the “gospel” of “settled” climate “science,” the UN IPCC suggested that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 or sooner. It turns out the wild assertion was lifted from World Wildlife Fund propaganda literature. The IPCC recanted the claim after initially defending it.""

                    • solkta …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:23 pm

                      @ Shadrach

                      Actually "mankind" originally meant "men, as distinct from women" (oxford). It then came to be used to mean the human species but obviously this was in a context of a patriarchal society. Western society has changed a lot in the past 50 years. Today to deliberately use language that excludes from serious consideration 51% of our species is fucking rude yes.

                    • Shadrach …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:40 pm

                      "Actually "mankind" originally meant "men, as distinct from women" (oxford). "

                      No, that is merely one possible definition.

                      The etymology of the word strongly implies inclusiveness of both sexes. (https://www.etymonline.com/word/mankind, https://www.etymonline.com/word/Man)

                      Before that the Bible uses the Greek 'anthropos', which means 'a human being' (https://www.biblehub.com/greek/444.htm) and the Hebrew 'adam' which is used throughout the Old Testament for men, women and both (https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/man/).

                    • In Vino …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:48 pm

                      Oh dear – what an obtuse lot we are..

      • AB 8.1.2
        17 July 2019 at 3:24 pm

        @Wayne "So who are these people you want to shut down?"

        I imagine (s)he's thinking of people much like you Wayne, i.e. people with influence way in excess of their relevance or insight. Obviously there's a danger in shutting anyone down, it seems a bit dictatorial. However if there is a particular social class/demographic that has wielded significant and totally undeserved power for a long time, it is very tempting to just tell them to stfu.

        • woodart 8.1.2.1
          17 July 2019 at 6:19 pm

          think you are getting sucked into a "free speech " false argument here AB. its the new "go to ",for the right.I fully expect to see someone try and tie religeous freedom into climate denial soon.

      • That_guy 8.1.3
        17 July 2019 at 3:27 pm

        It's simple: when asking for accurate predictions of the future.. which is what is required when planning for the future… you should listen to the people who have made accurate predictions of the future, and not listen to people who've been making inaccurate predictions for thirty years, even if those people are rich and have nice suits. Savvy?

        Also, I don’t want to ‘shut down’ anyone, and that’s impossible in a social media age anyone. This is not about censorship, it’s about choosing who to listen to based on past performance.

    • New view 8.2
      17 July 2019 at 12:06 pm

      It’s always someone else trashing the planet. We are trashing the planet. Consumers. We buy the products and discard them and their wrapping at will. The farmers are greedy. Big business is greedy. No you are greedy pathetic human consumers that perpetuate any bad behaviour that any farmer or business might be accused of. People that live in glass houses and use rubbish bins should completely modify their behaviour before criticising anyone else. The climate emergency is a convenient stick to use to make everyone else change their behaviour except you and me.

      • Robert Guyton 8.2.1
        17 July 2019 at 12:24 pm

        New view – a question for you: are farmers not also consumers? Should we not blame them, but also blame them? Your argument is unclear.

        • New view 8.2.1.1
          17 July 2019 at 1:38 pm

          Of course they are at fault as well, but sometimes those in this forum are quick to pull others into line but not often themselves. Farmers are modifying their behaviour more than most but it’s never enough for some. Those that do the accusing are no doubt some of those that don’t recycle well, don’t take public transport when they could or make sure that they buy consumer items that minimise plastic. The same people that flush the unused pills down the toilet and then block the systems by following those up with wipes. The same people that travel by air regularly and go on holidays and then take their bad tourist habits to some other country. I’m no better than anybody else but as a retired sheep and beef farmer I know that while our farm emissions are high when held against our population they are a very low percentage globally. I don’t happen to agree that declaring a environmental emergency every where will achieve much so no doubt I am now a Denyer. I believe local councils need central government encouragement to plan for the future but declaring a state of emergency all round the place without justifying it with a Sensible plan is pointless.

          • Robert Guyton 8.2.1.1.1
            17 July 2019 at 2:39 pm

            Again, New view, these people:

            "those that don’t recycle well, don’t take public transport when they could or make sure that they buy consumer items that minimise plastic. The same people that flush the unused pills down the toilet and then block the systems by following those up with wipes. The same people that travel by air regularly and go on holidays and then take their bad tourist habits to some other country. "

            include farmers as well, agreed?

            I've read many, many times, commenters here "self-decrying", owning the hypocrisy of not ridding themselves entirely of those habits, while at the same time pointing out the foolishness of doing them. We are all in the same boat; we are all hypocrites but those who are trying to reduce the hypocritical behaviours should be encouraged, rather than dismissed outright, don't you think? You say so in the case of farmers: "Farmers are modifying their behaviour" you say, and add, "but it's not enough for some". No, it isn't, quite frankly, just as taking fewer flights, flushing fewer pills down the toilet, etc, is not enough for the "townies". None of us can do enough, but we can all focus on doing less and less harm each and every day; that we, we have something of a chance. Wayne Mapp says, quite correctly, that dairy farmers won't reduce their herd size, full-stop. That sort of response from a farmer "representative" (National Party man) doesn't help the farmer public perception one little bit, as I'm sure you can see; imagine if a Green MP said, environmentalists will NOT reduce their air travel under any circumstances; you'd be livid! So you can perhaps see how non-farmers react when statements like that are made.

            As for, "declaring a state of climate emergency all around the place without justifying it", well, I can only assume you haven't read a single report from those councils who did declare a climate emergency, as ALL of the went to great lengths to explain and justify why they took that step. Take a look and you'll see that I am telling the truth. The plans they came up with range from simple to complex and while you might not agree with what they developed, you’ll find they backed their actions with lists of actions to take, or commitments to develop point by point strategies as soon as possible.

            • New view 8.2.1.1.1.1
              17 July 2019 at 3:43 pm

              Exactly my point. Councils could have environmental strategy meetings without having a state of emergency declared. Everyone is entitled to their view. Some over state it and some don’t say enough and just because someone doesn’t agree with your point of view with dopey abuse like That Guy calling them dinosaurs, is a pretty weak response. I’ll be branded as a right wing farmer who is an apologist for the environmental vandals but I’m comfortable with that.

              • Robert Guyton …
                17 July 2019 at 4:38 pm

                " Councils could have environmental strategy meetings without having a state of emergency declared."

                They could, but why should they? If they choose to declare a climate emergency for reasons that enhance their other efforts around climate change, why shouldn't they do that?

                Genuine question, New view?

          • Robert Guyton 8.2.1.1.2
            17 July 2019 at 2:46 pm

            As well, (sorry to bang on but I'm for beating out a true picture of the situation),

            you say: " Farmers are modifying their behaviour more than most but it’s never enough for some." to which I reply that farmers have more "behaviour to modify than the ordinary man in the street, given that, as you agreed, they do the "man in the street" stuff, fly overseas, but food wrapped in plastic, etc. on top of their other activities, involving large numbers of animals and large expanses of land; their environmental footprint is much, much bigger, therefore they have much more to do than someone who rents a tiny place somewhere in a city, for example. A dairy farmer, for example, has to take responsibility for hundreds of cows; imagine if a city person somehow created that much manure, urine and greenhouse gas on their little space; you'd be calling for them to take responsibility for that, surely!

            • New view 8.2.1.1.2.1
              17 July 2019 at 4:30 pm

              Your argument might be more convincing if the majority of town dwellers were productive but that’s not clear. Your average town person either works in an office. I’m not sure about productivity but the rubbish bins get used. The businesses that a lot work for, produce consumer products. Some are useful most aren’t necessary. At least farmers, including dairy farmers produce food. all that manure that you over state, is produced in the process of feeding vast numbers of humans. Most of it is reused and goes back on the land. Where does yours go. Apart from what ends up in the sea.

              • Robert Guyton …
                17 July 2019 at 4:46 pm

                Town dwellers, New view?

                Aren't towns where farmers go when they retire? You're pretty hard on them, given all the work they have done over their lives, criticising them for their lack of productivity, their wasteful ways, their driving and holidaying habits, their use of rubbish bins, and on and on.

                Farmers on farm do produce food, New view, but it's transpiring that the sort of food they produce and the way they go about it needs to be changed, as there has been a largely unforeseen consequence to that style of food production and a dangerous point has been reached that demands significant change to farming, as well as city and town life, there's no question about it. Both camps (though you can see there's enormous overlap) are reluctant to change but change has to happen unless we are to suffer great loss on many levels. Those who are thinking about this, yourself included, can be influential in accelerating that change, especially in our own fields. If you could focus on the farming community, get them activated to the point where the changes on farm are fast enough to stop or lessen the harm from the changing climate, you'd be a hero! I'll try to look after everything else, with a little help from my friends smiley

                • New view …
                  17 July 2019 at 5:47 pm

                  Fair enough RG. I Just like a balanced point of view. I’m not picking on town dwellers out of malice but rarely hear any criticism of them. You are right we all need to pull our collective fingers out so let’s cover everyone a little more often in these discussions.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    17 July 2019 at 6:45 pm

                    I agree, New view, that from a farmer's point of view, it will seem as though excessive criticism is levelled at the farming community. I guess we'll all have to give and take a bit around that phenomenon. Pointing fingers can be destructive, but I always think that when one is pointed at me, it's a good idea to give some serious thinking to the claim made before complaining that I'm being pointed at. Farmers could benefit from a similar strategy, I reckon. So could townsfolk, so could every single one of us; no one that I know is free of complicity in compromising the health of the planet, in my view; newly-borns excluded smiley All of us have historical behaviours that can be criticised. Asking that anyone pointing at bad behaviours, such as polluting waterways with sewerage or effluent, should be required to be entirely free from harmful behaviours before they are permitted to call out other harmful behaviours, is foolish; no one would qualify and all polluters would be able to operate unchallenged. Do you see what I mean?

                    • New view …
                      17 July 2019 at 7:42 pm

                      Very true what you say so lm sure from now on all those who have been following this joust and want to advise us all on how to modify the behaviour of our poor lambs that have strayed from the flock will also remind the flock that they should pay attention to the flocks issues (emissions) as well. RG we will most likely respectfully hold different perspectives on some issues but I for one won’t question your right to your point of view. 👋

      • That_guy 8.2.2
        17 July 2019 at 3:25 pm

        I did not deny that everyone is trashing the planet. I said that those who have large bank balances primarily obtained from trashing the planet should pay for the un-trashing of the planet. I mean, to point out the obvious:

        1) It's an emergency

        2) We need to spend money to fix the emergency, now

        3) The money is currently with rich people, by definition, and we don't have time to wait for "social mobility" or the "trickle down effect" to redistribute the money,

        ergo:

        Tax the ultra-rich, close down tax havens, spend the money to employ millions to plant trillions of trees in a planet-sized carbon sink.

        Problem solved. It's the only option.

  9. Robert Guyton 9
    17 July 2019 at 10:42 am

    Two new studies warn that a hotter world will be a more violent one

    "Taken together, the two new studies are a reminder that all else being equal, a hotter world is destined to become a more violent one."

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/114290304/two-new-studies-warn-that-a-hotter-world-will-be-a-more-violent-one

    • Shadrach 9.1
      17 July 2019 at 11:13 am

      Many, many years ago, we started hearing about how sea level rises resulting from climate change would swamp nations such as Tuvalu. A new phrase was coined 'climate refugees' and 'environmental migrants'. Some people, however, spoke of how the planet has a remarkable adaptive capacity. Who was right, Robert?

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5371535/Sinking-Pacific-nation-getting-bigger-study.html

      • greywarshark 9.1.1
        17 July 2019 at 11:29 am

        The planet might have remarkable adaptive capacity but you Shadrach keep doing the same questioning, never learning, and never adapting to the new whatever….

        • Shadrach 9.1.1.1
          17 July 2019 at 3:57 pm

          We'll all adapt. The arrogance of the alarmists is alarming.

          • Robert Guyton 9.1.1.1.1
            17 July 2019 at 4:09 pm

            There are already people dying as the result of drought-induced crop failure; are they "adapting" by dying, Shadrach?

            Your glib claim, "We'll all adapt", is reckless and wrong. Oh, arrogant and alarming too.

            • Shadrach 9.1.1.1.1.1
              17 July 2019 at 4:16 pm

              Yes a typical response. You draw from a commonly occurring natural event and pretend we're all going to die. Remember the hysteria around the California droughts?

              "In the Middle Ages, large parts of California had droughts far worse than this one, some lasting more than a century (Stine 1994)."

              https://californiawaterblog.com/2015/09/23/the-banality-of-californias-1200-year-drought/

              • Pat …
                17 July 2019 at 4:36 pm

                "Groundwater in the Tulare basin is probably lower than at any time in human history. This drought also has been unusually warm, leading to it having the lowest snowpack in 500 years and driest soil in 1,200 years"

                https://californiawaterblog.com/2015/09/23/the-banality-of-californias-1200-year-drought/

                cherry picking is fun eh?

                • Shadrach …
                  17 July 2019 at 4:57 pm

                  "California is managing pretty well under the current drought in most areas (Howitt et al. 2015; Hanak et al, 2015) and can survive much more severe and prolonged droughts, if managed well (Harou et al, 2010)."

                  Isn't it.

              • Robert Guyton …
                17 July 2019 at 5:08 pm

                I didn't pretend we're all going to die, Shadrach, though of course, we are: aging is pretty much unstoppable. Are you arguing that severe drought and wide-spread crop failure aren't serious threats, disasters even, for significant populations of the world? You seem to be minimising the reality of droughts present and historical. Your arguments sound and feel insincere, as if you are arguing for the sake of the opportunity to demean those with different views.

                Just sayin'

                • Shadrach …
                  17 July 2019 at 5:40 pm

                  I'm arguing that "severe drought and wide-spread crop failure" have been a part of the global landscape for eons. Life on the planet has adapted. It will continue to.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    17 July 2019 at 5:48 pm

                    No one is arguing that drought and wide-spread crop failure is a new phenomenon, but your claim apparent argument that it's of little consequence because we "adapt" is a nonsense; wherever catastrophic drought-induced crop failure occurs, the people affected don't "adapt", they suffer. Some survive, but I wonder if you've ever seem the long-term effects on a human, especially a young one, of experiencing near-death starvation? They don't adapt; they're injured for life, particularly their brains, robbed as they were of sustenance. Humans suffer, Shadrach. Your flippant, "Life on the planet has adapted" is purple in the context of this argument.

                    • Shadrach …
                      17 July 2019 at 5:51 pm

                      "…but your claim apparent argument that it's of little consequence because we "adapt" is a nonsense"

                      I didn't argue it is of little consequence. My argument is that alarmists are harming the cause by exaggerating the impacts of climate change, and what we can do about it.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      17 July 2019 at 5:53 pm

                      Then why mention drought and starvation? Anyone who warns of the effects of those and the likelihood of their increase due to climate change is correct; do you dispute that?

                    • Shadrach …
                      17 July 2019 at 6:00 pm

                      Actually YOU mentioned drought and starvation.
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/dinosaurs-fight-extinction-rebellion/#comment-1637856

                      "Anyone who warns of the effects of those and the likelihood of their increase due to climate change is correct; do you dispute that? "

                      No. But there are many who exaggerate, even falsify, the incidence, impact, cause and cure. Declaring climate emergencies, and spending large sums of money addressing an issue that is to at least some significant degree natural and cyclical is silly. So is doing that in a country that contributes so little to the cause.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      17 July 2019 at 6:22 pm

                      Yes, I did, because they are a reality and an expected consequence of a warming planet. I don't believe it's an exaggeration nor is it a false claim. You say there are "many" who exaggerate claims of expected harm from climate change, but talk to them about that; here we are making our own arguments; address those if you want to engage meaningfully. You claim, repeatedly, that declaring a climate emergency is "silly". How about you explain why that is and engage in discussion about that point, if you have anything of substance to say about it. I'm up for such a pointed discussion as as I believe there is real value in such a declaration, and have explained my reasons in public already, I'm ready for you smiley

      • mauī 9.1.2
        17 July 2019 at 11:39 am

        I hear land is cheap in Tuvalu and Chennai… Thought about investing? Put your money where your horse's mouth is so to speak.

      • Robert Guyton 9.1.3
        17 July 2019 at 12:04 pm

        Tuvalu is a nation?

        The prediction that sea level rise will swamp "nations" (shall we say, "islands", or even low-lying land on continents?) has not been proven incorrect, Shadrach, so those who predicted it certainly aren't wrong.

        Those who spoke of "how the planet has a remarkable adaptive quality" aren't wrong either, but what aspect of that do you mean, specifically? Her ability to survive glaciation, volcanic cataclysm, meteor strike? What do you actually mean?

        • greywarshark 9.1.3.1
          17 July 2019 at 3:55 pm

          If countries could start planning to change their activities so that people could rest between say 11 and 3 pm and start earlier in the morning it would be sensible. Hot countries used to take a siesta, if abolished under the implacable demands of economics and uniform work times, then let us change back now and show how adaptive humans are. Light lunch restaurants could have a cool-rest room where people where people could pay to relax on recliners in peace as a group in safety, with a watchperson to prevent robbery and assaults.

          Clubs could be formed offering in-city rest and coolness during siesta time, with varying costs, and reliability and safety could be assured there.

        • Shadrach 9.1.3.2
          17 July 2019 at 4:08 pm

          Yes, Tuvalu is a nation. Or perhaps it is better described as an Island Country, but I'm splitting hairs.

          "The prediction that sea level rise will swamp "nations" (shall we say, "islands", or even low-lying land on continents?) has not been proven incorrect…"

          Ahhh…

          "Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose. We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing,” he said. “The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.”

          https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/02/09/sinking-pacific-island-touted-prime-climate-change-victim-actually-rising-study/

          The answer is adaptation. The planet will adapt, and so will we.

          • Robert Guyton 9.1.3.2.1
            17 July 2019 at 4:11 pm

            "We"?

            Those who can buy a second property in Pauanui?

            That "we"?

            • Shadrach 9.1.3.2.1.1
              17 July 2019 at 4:18 pm

              The we who live inn Tuvalu who currently have more land than they did when you and your band of merry men started telling the rest of us they were sinking into the ocean.

              • Robert Guyton …
                17 July 2019 at 4:24 pm

                "We" are those who live inn (sic) Tuvalu?

                You live there, Shadrach?

                • Shadrach …
                  17 July 2019 at 4:36 pm

                  The approximately 12,000 people who live there. Each of them has gained an extra area of land. Yehaa climate change.

          • Incognito 9.1.3.2.2
            17 July 2019 at 4:59 pm

            Ahhh…

            Selective quoting and interpretation.

            Using aerial photos and satellite images, they found 40 percent had grown, 40 percent had stayed stable and 20 percent had shrunk.

            Kench says he’s not suggesting some islands aren’t shrinking – “indeed, one island has been lost” – but the broader challenge is that climate change is causing land in the Pacific to move around.

            https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2018640643/climate-change-in-the-pacific-what-s-really-going-on

            For the more scientifically inclined, here’s the open article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

            • Shadrach 9.1.3.2.2.1
              17 July 2019 at 5:25 pm

              "It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average."

              Nothing selective about it.

              • Incognito …
                17 July 2019 at 5:30 pm

                Using aerial photos and satellite images, they found 40 percent had grown, 40 percent had stayed stable and 20 percent had shrunk.

                Kench says he’s not suggesting some islands aren’t shrinking – “indeed, one island has been lost” – but the broader challenge is that climate change is causing land in the Pacific to move around. [emphasis added for your benefit]

                • Shadrach …
                  17 July 2019 at 5:39 pm

                  Tuvalu's total land area grew by 2.9%

                  • Incognito …
                    17 July 2019 at 5:57 pm

                    Oh, ok, it is all good then devil

                    • That_guy …
                      17 July 2019 at 11:19 pm

                      I agree with Shadrach. No problem here. The families that inhabited the islands that no longer exist should just suck it up and move to new saltwater atolls that can't grow anything and then use the magical power of the free market to innovate and disrupt their way to prosperity. It's important to understand that the laws of physics (in relation to heat retention) can actually be modified by suitably passionate posts on blogs and social media, or the whole plan kind of falls over. And nobody wants that!

              • Pat …
                17 July 2019 at 6:00 pm

                the 'new land' is neither habitable nor productive nor stable…no replacement for that lost.

                The atolls have shown resilience to gradual sea-level rise, with atolls and reef islands being able to grow under current climate conditions by generating sufficient sand and broken coral that accumulates and gets dumped on the islands during cyclones.[28][29][30] There remains the risk that the dynamic response of atolls and reef islands does not result in stable islands as tropical cyclones can strip the low-lying islands of their vegetation and soil. Tepuka Vili Vili islet of Funafuti atoll was devastated by Cyclone Meli in 1979, with all its vegetation and most of its sand swept away during the cyclone.[31] Vasafua islet, part of the Funafuti Conservation Area, was severely damaged by Cyclone Pam in 2015. The coconut palms were washed away, leaving the islet as a sand bar.[32][33] The effect of Cyclone Pam, which did not pass directly over the islands, shows that Tuvaluans are exposed to storm surges causing damage to their houses and crops, and also the risk of water born disease as a consequence of contamination of the water supplies.[19][34][35]

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Tuvalu

                • Shadrach …
                  17 July 2019 at 6:11 pm

                  Mmm, Wiki is not the greatest reference point. But even then, the Wiki piece doesn't match your claim. "There remains the risk…" is not the same as "the 'new land' is neither habitable nor productive nor stable".

                  Now there's an example of exaggeration right there!

                  • Incognito …
                    17 July 2019 at 7:51 pm

                    Breitbart is not the greatest reference point either but at least Wikipedia cites other sources that can be checked for veracity. I think your argument against Wikipedia borders on shooting the messenger without paying too much attention to the message.

                    • Shadrach …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:19 pm

                      I countered Pat's claim directly by pointing out that the source didn't match the claim.

                    • Incognito []
                      17 July 2019 at 10:39 pm

                      So, you have not countered the actual claim then. It was weak to take aim at the source. The claim has not been dispelled and therefore stands unchallenged.

                    • Shadrach …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:43 pm

                      "So, you have not countered the actual claim then."

                      Pat's claim was "the 'new land' is neither habitable nor productive nor stable" It is up to Pat to support his claim. To do so, he posted a dialogue that included "There remains the risk that…". I'm still waiting.

                    • Incognito []
                      17 July 2019 at 11:33 pm

                      Good, we’re in agreement then and I see you confirming this @ 10:44 PM by stating that you believe the claim to be unsubstantiated.

                      Given that the land increase is at the edges (AKA shorelines), I think the claim is entirely possible.

                      Coral reef islands are dynamic systems, and the action of waves and storms can either erode them or, by dumping sand and gravel on their surfaces, expand them, Kench says.

                      While most land is stable and many islands have expanded, some land is “changing the position on its reef platforms”.

                      https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2018640643/climate-change-in-the-pacific-what-s-really-going-on

                      Such changes suggest that the existing footprint of islands on reef surfaces will continue to change, although the physical foundation of islands will persist as potential pedestals for habitation over the coming century. Consequently, while we recognise habitability rests on an additional set of factors4,11,12,13 loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of islands or the entire nation. However, changes in land resources may still stress population sustainability in the absence of appropriate adaptive initiatives.

                      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    17 July 2019 at 7:57 pm

                    Pat's point:

                    "The 'new land' is neither habitable nor productive nor stable…no replacement for that lost."

                    is the salient one and neuters your attempt to minimise the problem, Shadrach. In my opinion.

                    • Pat …
                      17 July 2019 at 9:26 pm

                      lol… exactly gentlemen (?)…but sadly although I suspect Shadrach is well aware of that he(she) chooses to devote his(her)energies to do all he (she) can to sow doubts…he (she) is not alone in such an attitude and is fundamental as to why the last 30 years have been wasted.

                      Why?…who would know

                    • Shadrach …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:22 pm

                      "Pat's point…"

                      …was not supported by the piece he referenced. So it is simply an assertion. Some of you are doing a great job at making my point for me.

                    • Shadrach …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:24 pm

                      "why the last 30 years have been wasted"

                      The last 30 years have been spoilt by alarmist claims that have discredited attempts to manage the impacts of climate change. Some of the alarmism is genuine, but misguided concern. Some is dodgy science. Some is political, some financial. All of it is dangerous.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:30 pm

                      "The 'new land' is neither habitable nor productive nor stable…no replacement for that lost."

                      Shadrach – do you believe this claim is untrue?

                    • Shadrach …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:44 pm

                      "Shadrach – do you believe this claim is untrue?"

                      I believe it is unsubstantiated. I believe it a misrepresentation of the article Pat referenced.

                      And I’ll call Pat out by quoting from the same Wiki source:
                      “Existing scientific narratives suggest that Tuvalu may become uninhabitable as a consequence of rising sea levels, however results of research from the University of Auckland challenge the existing narratives by showing that island expansion has been the most common physical alteration throughout Tuvalu over the past four decades. The results challenge the existing perceptions of island loss due to rising sea levels by showing that the islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century and allows for alternate opportunities for adaptation rather than a forced exodus.”

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      17 July 2019 at 10:51 pm

                      You believe it's "unsubstantiated" – so, you don't have an opinion as to it's accuracy?

                      In my opinion, it's true. I think Pat is correct.

    • Formerly Roas 10.1
      17 July 2019 at 1:14 pm

      And more people surviving winter than is the case now. What other benefits might emanate from climate change, Robert?

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/11/13/fewer-britons-will-die-cold-climate-change-study-suggests/

      • Robert Guyton 10.1.1
        17 July 2019 at 3:24 pm

        Formerly Ross – naturally, as the climate changes, there will be areas that experience improvements, from the human perspective. It's a bit like a river flowing with beer though, isn't it; great for the beer-drinking humans, lousy for the fish. I think, Formerly, that if you look at the overall effect, including that on non-human life forms (trees, seaweeds, butterflies, rhinoceros, etc.) you'll find there's a crisis looming. You wouldn't want to be an alpine plant, for example. The range of humans too, who might benefit from changes could be far fewer than those who will suffer from a warming atmosphere. If, as predicted, arid land increases greatly, the numbers of people starving might outweigh your "people surviving winter" quite considerably, doncha think?

  11. mosa 11
    17 July 2019 at 11:06 am

    Extinction a harder case than climate change?

    This blog by Christine Rose.

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/07/14/extinction-a-harder-case-than-climate-change/

  12. greywarshark 12
    17 July 2019 at 11:27 am

    Very right on the nail incognito. Don't ruffle our feathers say the peacock councillors squawking in their discordant tones, and showing their superiority and worthiness by voting for more roads and big buildings. They improve things for the ratepayers by shifting untidy beggars away from where nice, hardworking people go to spend the money that beggars aren't able to earn because they have had deteriorated by no or intermittent low-aid job offers which has destroyed their optimism of having opportunities for better – meanwhile the successful businessmen and women and the Mayor and some selected councillors are taking trips to China etc etc.

  13. mauī 13
    17 July 2019 at 11:32 am

    When dealing with Council I think it's best to use their language. Perhaps the effects of issuing a climate emergency could have been described as.. "nothing more than minor".

    All of a sudden Councillors would be able to compare it to signing off the town's water supply to overseas interests or outsourcing superfluous Council services like the town's library or rubbish collection.

  14. mosa 14
    17 July 2019 at 11:39 am

    This from the Daily Blog

    " Dear folks, we don’t have the fucking luxury to be depressed, the enormity of what we face collectively must forge a new reality. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of a moon landing that showed how far we can technologically leap, as we commemorate the 80th year of the start of World War 2 and the defeat of fascism, as we plot how far we have come as a species we can not allow depression to rob us of the energy to generate survival from a crisis created by our own greed and pollution. "

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/07/17/spinoff-stuffs-vacant-optimism-plastic-bag-ban-carbon-neutral-2050-ets-greenwash-julie-anne-genters-righteous-war-analo

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/113973585/kiwis-suffering-depression-anxiety-and-hopelessness-because-of-climate-change

  15. Ieuan 15
    17 July 2019 at 2:37 pm

    Call me a dinosaur if you want but the demands of the 'Extinction Rebellion' are just ridiculous, basically they are:

    (i) Governments declare a climate emergency

    (ii) Net zero by 2025

    (iii) Create a 'citizens assembly' of 'randomly' chosen individuals.

    Net zero by 2025 would result in massive power outages in most countries and severe restrictions on activities like flying, whole industries would be decimated. Which of course would be very, very unpopular with massive unemployment which is why they are also basically wanting to take over the political system with their 'citizens assembly'.

    Basically the whole thing reads like a George Orwell novel.

    • Robert Guyton 15.1
      17 July 2019 at 3:34 pm

      I don't want to call you a dinosaur, leuan, but others will.

      You claim that (i), (ii). & (iii) are "just ridiculous" but it looks to me as though genuinely effective action at this late stage of the game, whatever form it takes, will probably seem ridiculous, given how dire the state of affairs has become. Earlier in the development of the climate crisis, effective actions would have looked far less ridiculous but because people like you labeled them "ridiculous", they didn't happen and forced us into the "ridiculous" position we find ourselves in now. Thanks, mate.

      • Ieuan 15.1.1
        17 July 2019 at 3:44 pm

        So Robert, you're a supporter of 'net zero 2025' then? Which would mean shutting down all the Fonterra plants, completely killing off our dairy industry, also banning the use of petrol driven vehicles and aircraft killing our tourist industry, so that's about 50% of the economy gone. Rolling power outages in winter as we can't use the Huntly thermal plant, again you're happy with all that?

        • Robert Guyton 15.1.1.1
          17 July 2019 at 4:02 pm

          So, leuan, I didn't say I was but I'm more than suspicious of your claims and the emotive language you employ in making them; "killing off the dairy industry" (though you said, "our", which is odd), "killing our (again) tourist industry. If those activities had to be modified (I believe they do, most certainly) it doesn't mean they will be killed, as you heatedly claim. Significant changes will happen, whether willingly or by force of circumstance; wise heads would choose to make decisions about how to make the necessary changes, act early on them, make adjustments to lessen the impact of them; less considerate decision makers will try to delay as long as possible and shield their favoured industries from reality for as long as they can profitably get away with it. You seem to support the latter group.

          • Ieuan 15.1.1.1.1
            17 July 2019 at 6:46 pm

            Net zero by 2025 'kills dairy' because the Fonterra factories dry their milk powder by burning coal. Fonterra say they are working toward a 30% reduction in emissions by 2030, but clearly if they had to reach a zero target by 2025 it would have a massive negative effect on the industry.

            And that's the problem with the rhetoric from Extinction Rebellion and Greenpeace, apply it to the real world and the results would be disastrous.

            • Robert Guyton 15.1.1.1.1.1
              17 July 2019 at 6:53 pm

              leuan – can you accept that it may be necessary to lose some dearly-held, seemingly vital, industries in order to make the world liveable, threatened as it is by such a powerful incoming force; a heating atmosphere and the potentially dangerous over-energised weather systems? Imagine if the Chinese coal industry was closed for that very reason and it worked; would you applaud them for their action, even though some pain could be experienced as a result. A clever government would, of course, make provisions for people involved in industries that might have to be curtailed for the greater good. It may be that, rather than closing one singular industry, such as Chinese coal mining, it will be more effective to modify and stop, if necessary, a raft of smaller industries across the countries of the world, the combined effect of which cause an increase in heat in the atmosphere? We don't contribute much, volume-wise, but in combination with every one else, our effort could get us all over the line.

              • Ieuan …
                17 July 2019 at 7:02 pm

                Would you be happy if the Chinese (or for that matter) other coal fired power stations were replaced by nuclear powered stations?

                Or if the fix for dairy methane emissions was GM modified cows or GM grass or feed?

                • That_guy …
                  17 July 2019 at 7:21 pm

                  Yes.

                  [Can you please pay attention to the e-mail you’re using to comment here as even a minor typo is enough to make it look (to the system) as if you’re a new user to the site. I have corrected a few of yours now but I’ve got better things to do with my time. Thanks – Incognito]

                • Robert Guyton …
                  17 July 2019 at 7:54 pm

                  Too sweeping and non-specific a question for a useful response, lean. Do you mean a nuclear power station of the sort at Chernobyl and Fukushima: that sort?

                  What GM cows are you talking about? I've no knowledge of any.

                  GM grass or feed? Can you be more specific? Those seem like very loose "proposals".

                  That said, I know what you're angling for, and I have serious reservations about those "solutions". There are a multitude of options that don't require those technologies that I would prefer to explore; I once worked in a museum where I learned the golden rule of artefact restoration: don't do anything that can't be easily undone. I believe that applies beyond the confines of museums smiley

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      17 July 2019 at 9:14 pm

                      So, nuclear generation of electricity would likely result in continued population growth, expansion of industry, more widespread transport networks, more land given over to industrial-style food production; all the trappings of civilisation and more, that have resulted in the destruction of a raft of non-human "beings" dodo to hula; no thanks. There are more changes needed than just reining-in climate change and they are interrelated. Continuing or increasing high levels of industry by whatever source of power you might suggest doesn't win favour with me. We humans have to learn to say, enough, or stop, or it's big enough. If we don't we'll grind the place to dust.

                      Cows have done very, very well for themselves by partnering with humans, but they have moved beyond their "ideal scale", and now threaten the well being of everything else, especially if their numbers are allowed to grow and their range increase, as has been the trend for some time now. So even if they can be "doctored" to burn less greenhouse gas and their urine produce less nitrous oxide, their other effects, present and potential are still seriously problematic. That makes GE grasses redundant also, as a proposal, as their introduction will only further the spread of the cow. Have you noticed how rapidly the plummeting rates of biodiversity of animals on the planet has coincided with the proliferation of cows? I'm not going to claim causation, but, have you noticed?

                      Your suggestions only serve to cement-in the inevitable ruination of the planet, in my opinion. I accept that you offer them as genuine solutions, it's just that our world-views differ significantly. I'd be interested to read your vision for a healthy planet, if you hold such a view.

                    • Jjphn Clover …
                      19 July 2019 at 8:59 am

                      Thank looks like what I must have heard about which I was talking about earlier Robert. 🙂

                      PS My finger is almost worn out using the scroll wheel 🙂

                  • That_guy …
                    17 July 2019 at 9:36 pm

                    Leuan is presumably talking about the relevant and extremely interesting fact that kangaroos don't fart or burp much methane. Seriously. So it's possible for a large herbivore which eats grass to be a low methane producer and it's probably down to the genetics of the animal and the microbiome in the gut, and this may be transferable to cows. Possibly by GM cows, possibly by modifying gut bacteria, research is at an early stage.

                    As for nuclear power, if it's safe-fail, preferably thorium pebble-bed reactors I say go for it because it's carbon neutral and the situation is really that bad.

                    https://pure.tudelft.nl/portal/files/51995465/1_s2.0_S0306454914004848_main.pdf

            • Robert Guyton 15.1.1.1.1.2
              17 July 2019 at 6:57 pm

              Leuan – with regard Fonterra saying they are working toward a 30% reduction in emissions by 2030, do you have any knowledge of the Edendale plant in Southland? I do and am not encouraged at all by their claims; no concrete changes have been made to the coal-burning that occurs there, day and night, with "dirty" lignite coal being burned at a rate that makes their promises sound weak.

              • Ieuan …
                17 July 2019 at 7:12 pm

                Here is what Fonterra say:

                https://www.fonterra.com/nz/en/our-stories/articles/meeting-our-carbon-emissions-targets.html

                They have already converted Sterling as a trial:

                https://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/106159364/fonterra-stirling-plant-first-in-new-zealand-to-convert-from-coal-to-electricity

                One factor in favour of Fonterra using electricity is they don't need it during the winter shut. However I'm not sure NZ has the electricity generation capacity to meet the Fonterra load if they fully converted all plants so they may aim for electricity in the South Island and gas in the North.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  17 July 2019 at 7:47 pm

                  Yeah, I know what they say; a cynic might say that Sterling is small beer compared to their "main" plants. And it is. The coal-gobbling Edendale plant, hasn't been converted and won't be for as long as they can possibly delay the change, to wood chip/pellet/waste or any of the alternatives that have been pitched to them. "Working toward" is a fairly weak "action", given their contribution to climate change; coal-burning is regarded as the worst contributor to AGW. Fonterra are donkey-deep in that.

              • That_guy …
                17 July 2019 at 9:38 pm

                I worked for them briefly and I have to say that I have zero confidence that they get the scale of the problem at the upper management level. Individual people within Fonterra are doing their best but they are still in the mindset that any criticism is dirty hippies.

    • That_guy 15.2
      17 July 2019 at 3:35 pm

      Extinction Rebellion is simply asking for what is required according to the laws of physics, because they have realised a basic fact: the laws of physics do not care about you, are not negotiable, and owe us nothing, not even our continued existence.

      • Rubbish 15.2.1
        19 July 2019 at 11:43 am

        Sorry, but who is asking this?

        Extinction Rebellion. Who is Extinction Rebellion… do you know?

  16. Rubbish 16
    17 July 2019 at 3:49 pm

    Extinction Rebellion is not leaderless. It is run by former democratic party campaigners and the likes of Ben Branzel with money from the Open Institutes etc

    • Rubbish 17.1
      18 July 2019 at 2:24 pm

      Doesn’t justify the lies and obscurification about where Extinction Rebellion’s money comes from, and who is running it (Citizens Online, a 5G lobby group).

      • Incognito 17.1.1
        18 July 2019 at 4:24 pm

        Thank you for the little bits of information you have provided so far.

        Personally, I don’t think it matters too much where the funding comes from or who the leaders are. Leaders come and go; it is fluid, as it should be. The important part, for me, is the message and the fact that it can stand on its own merits. That is the key of a strong message; it carries itself, almost …

        Feel free to chime in any time you like.

  18. Robert Guyton 18
    19 July 2019 at 9:12 am

    Rubbish in, rubbish out.

  19. Rubbish 19
    19 July 2019 at 9:23 am

    The left today is far too comfortable with lies and propaganda, and refuses to undergo any self-examination.

    • Robert Guyton 19.1
      19 July 2019 at 9:28 am

      Rubbish.

      • Rubbish 19.1.1
        19 July 2019 at 11:18 am

        Are you not in the slightest bit interested in who is paying for these protests and organizing this movement? Do you honestly believe that Extinction Rebellion was a spontaneous movement created by school children?

        Ignoring these questions because overall the movement and associated propaganda may push voting blocks to the left is dishonest and disingenuous and will probably backfire.

        It’s very fucking dangerous to embolden fantasy to the extent you and others have. Calling for a national climate emergency without even superficially examining who is behind the call for it is crazy, dangerous and shows that none of this is about the environment or really even the poor, just liberal elites wanting to stay in the driver’s seat, supported by utopian morons enslaved so some weird new-age form of Catholicism.

        Meanwhile, plenty of real environmental measures that will have an effect on the local environment are sidelined, cut back, or not carried through on.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.