All I can say is, considering how angry some people manage to get about Just Stop Oil, it's going to be amazing to see their proportional reactions to climate change. "OMG they delayed my commute by 10 minutes, THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE" my dude entire cities are going to be in the sea, that will make it somewhat harder to get to work. Immensely more damage has been done to monuments and artworks by pollution than could ever be done by protesters and the angriest most people ever seem to get about that is tutting that councils don't clean things enough.
They should protest in a way that's invisible and legal and uncontroversial so that it can be completely ignored, only multibillion dollar companies are allowed to destroy everything.
they are not a terrorist organisation,
Well obviously. My point is they alienate the unthinking majority who think negatively about cause based on their opinion of the protest method. Clearly there's levels and lobbing powder paint on rocks is not the same as killing people.
I drove passed once, they look a bit shit.
[img] 
[/img]
Yeah, right. Get a really good, close-up view, did you, in order to draw that conclusion? With the stones about 100m or so away from the road, and even with the traffic crawling along at its usual snails pace, unless you’re an even bigger idiot than you seem, you’ll have got about a glance of about a second, any longer and you’ll be stuffed in the back of the car in front.
Which is one of the issues that years and millions of pounds have been spent trying to stop, by tunnelling the road. Is everyone happy?
Nope, it’s too short, might destroy hypothetical archaeology that nobody knows about, unless they dig for it. Or the A303 shouldn’t be buried because drivers are absolutely entitled to crawl along at a snail’s pace risking an accident and snarling up the traffic for thousands every day. Or a bunch of other NIMBY whiney excuses.
In that sense, JsO might have a point - the perpetual traffic jam on the 303 absolutely needs to be stopped; I’ve wasted enough time stuck in it, but the reality is that the use of oil will never be stopped, it has far too many uses in such a vast range of essential commodities that it’ll never be stopped completely. As a fuel for cars, yes, eventually, and that’s no bad thing.
Oh, and it’s past, not passed; close, but no banana 🍌.
You’re better off going to Avebury, you can actually walk up to the stones and touch them, and there’s a pub in the centre of the circle. I haven’t been to Stonehenge since I was at junior school, when you could touch the stones, and it was a special, magical place.
Neither special or magical. Just some rocks. There are stone circles all over. Like a Neolithic J D Wetherspoons!
When the aliens pick over the ashes of the Earth's surface in a few centuries time, I wonder what they'll make of a species, with legs, that wouldn't give up driving SUVs 400 yards to drop their offspring (also with legs) off at school. Presumably just a shrug?
When the aliens pick over the ashes of the Earth’s surface in a few centuries time, I wonder what they’ll make of a species, with legs, that wouldn’t give up driving SUVs 400 yards to drop their offspring (also with legs) off at school. Presumably just a shrug?
In a few hundred years we'll have a high chance of still being around, colonising nearby planets and so on, the destruction of humanity is quite a slim chance in the long run.
the destruction of humanity is quite a slim chance in the long run
Ever seen the population growth curve of E.Coli in a petri dish?
I see no reason, given human nature, that the human population will not follow that to within +/- 1% deviation.
The world population is predicted to slow and stop increasing by the end of the century, and that's not including any major event, the only area that looks to be increasing will be Africa, which will be one of the areas most affected by climate change in that timescale, so may cause that prediction to fall away as well.
unless you’re an even bigger idiot than you seem, you’ll have got about a glance of about a second
Ahahahahahahahaha. I knew this thread would deliver.
I saw alot more than a second of the sodding things on that road thank you very much. But whatever gives you a chubby countzero...
Neither special or magical. Just some rocks. There are stone circles all over. Like a Neolithic J D Wetherspoons!
Pretty much this. I'll take Brodgar and Stenness for the atmosphere and a fraction of the honeypot morons thanks.
So no Starmer isn’t capitulating to Eco-Terrorists*. But those Eco-Terrorists have brought the issue and proposed solution to the attention of enough people that it’s a vote winner.
Nope, still don't agree but can't prove it either way so we will just have to believe what we believe.
Ever seen the population growth curve of E.Coli in a petri dish?
Yep. It'll grow right up to the confines of the container, or until the food source is exhausted. We are marginally more intelligent (at times) and can see the limits of both and take action beforehand to slow or reverse.
How do we weigh the disruption of some water soluble food grade dye being thrown on the glass in front of a painting, or on some stones, vs the disruption of a march that takes over a city centre. The material impact is chalk and cheese, yet one is considered noble and the other a disgrace. One has politicians on it, the other has politicians clamouring to condemn it.
[I've deliberately not said what the protests are for, nominate your own version. There's an obvious series of marches currently and if that's the one you contrast, in my mind they are both valid but if JSO took over a city centre for a few hours with a million person march how would that be received?]
>In a few hundred years we’ll have a high
>chance of still being around, colonising >nearby planets and so on, the destruction
>of humanity is quite a slim chance in the
>long run.
I wonder when even stupid people will realise that colonising other planets is quite a lot harder than sorting out the problems here on the planet we’ve been on for a few years.
I think you’ve got that a bit backwards. Without the IRA the issue would never have been on the agenda.
And yet Scotland managed to get to the point of a referendum on independence despite no equivalent of the IRA and similar levels of support for change.....
And yet Scotland managed to get to the point of a referendum on independence despite the an equivalent of the IRA…..
Oooft come on man thats a stretchy comparison...
maybe.....but to say that the concept of a united Ireland would not have been on the agenda without violence is farcical imo.
And yet Scotland managed to get to the point of a referendum on independence despite the an equivalent of the IRA…..
Not even close.
You do know that in the 1960's Irish Catholics didn't have full voting rights in NI.
There was basically segregation that ensured the Protestants got the better housing and the better jobs.
I wonder when even stupid people will realise that colonising other planets is quite a lot harder than sorting out the problems here on the planet we’ve been on for a few years.
The planet doesn't have problems, it's going nowhere (or rather it is, but it'll be back in 365 days time).
It won't be in the form that we currently have and may not support life of the form we have or life at all. Who knows what comes after us, might be brilliant, who are we to stand in the way of progress 😉
Not even close.
You do know that in the 1960’s Irish Catholics didn’t have full voting rights in NI.
There was basically segregation that ensured the Protestants got the better housing and the better jobs.
Well , yes I did.
My tangential point to this thread was that winning over the great unwashed in Englandshire (because that's where the bulk of the UK population is so generates the most mps etc) to your cause is best served by not alienating them before they have a chance to listen to your causes' merits. It's fickle and not very passionate, so the people deep in mire or totally wrapped up in the cause don't see it, but getting the turgid bulk of the population over the line and thinking the way you do is served well by making them think but not but pissing them off or upsetting them.
to say that the concept of a united Ireland would not have been on the agenda without violence is farcical imo.
Hard to know where to begin ... Oliver Cromwell maybe ?
I wonder when even stupid people will realise that colonising other planets is quite a lot harder than sorting out the problems here on the planet we’ve been on for a few years.
I was on about how we will advance as a species, not that we will be running away from Earth, in a few hundred years we'll be on Mars, we will have created technology far beyond where we are now, that is the belief of scientists, rather than we will be wiped out because of climate change or another disaster, which is a much smaller chance.
It won’t be in the form that we currently have and may not support life of the form we have or life at all. Who knows what comes after us, might be brilliant, who are we to stand in the way of progress 😉
Wasn't this the basic plot of Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy ?
I was on about how we will advance as a species
I don't much care about if we advance as a species or not. I care about if we survive as individuals, families, social groups. I care about myself, my family, my friends having enough to eat.
that is the belief of scientists, rather than we will be wiped out because of climate change or another disaster, which is a much smaller chance.
How odd. Most scientists I talk to or who’s work I read think we’re royally ****ed as a species unless we sort our shit out relatively quickly.
How odd. Most scientists I talk to or who’s work I read think we’re royally **** as a species unless we sort our shit out relatively quickly.
You need to talk to more optimistic people
You need to talk to more realistic ones. The problems we face as a species aren’t going anywhere. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling I can’t hear you isn’t going to cut it. The Musks and Bezos’s of the world aren’t going to save us with space exploration. They’re a huge part of the problem
"in a few hundred years we’ll be on Mars, we will have created technology far beyond where we are now,"
Who will be on Mars? The richest 0.01% from whichever nations win the war over any planet that is the 2nd earth option, would be my guess. Desperate times and expensive plans from commercial outfits.
Mars looks grim anyway, I'd rather be a poor subsistence farmer living in a shack on earth.
Oh dear, again, i am on about how we will advance as a species, Mars won't be a rich peoples hideaway, i'm on about us advancing across the piece.
A hundred years ago to now, the advancements we've made in technology, farming, medicine, etc, etc is amazing, imagine what will be around in another 100 years, that's what will help us as a species against climate change and so on, rather than a few pensioners and students throwing orange paint on things.
I don’t much care about if we advance as a species or not. I care about if we survive as individuals, families, social groups. I care about myself, my family, my friends having enough to eat.
I'm not disagreeing with you particularly but isn't that selfish? How far will you go? Us advanced western nations can move to underground airconditioned cities with every amenity we need so we can live in comfort and who cares if a few other nations burn up or sink? Can we invade other nations to get the resources we need so that "myself, my family, my friends have enough to eat"
Philosophically, this thought has troubled me recently. I know my kids, and potentially my health is good enough that I'll know my grandkids. With life expectancies but also people having families later (counter to each other) I might even know my great grandkids. And I'll want good things for them, as you have said above.
But that covers maybe another 150 years? Beyond that - am I that bothered? Whatever happens to people I never met won't affect me personally, even if they are genetically related. And as for a few extinct rare and exotic species of plants and animals - well, you should have evolved faster and outcompeted me.
[for avoidance of doubt - a thought piece, not a held belief]
"A hundred years ago to now, the advancements we’ve made in technology, farming, medicine, etc, etc is amazing, imagine what will be around in another 100 years, that’s what will help us as a species against climate change and so on, rather than a few pensioners and students throwing orange paint on things."
Because we've done so well in this area over the last 30 or so years? And we have loads of time to figure it out still? Excuse my cynicism but..
And I expect more was spent in the last 80yrs on tech for the cold war and atomic weapons than projects that benefit the environment or people as a whole.
I hope you're right but I'd not be very confident. I'm not surprised people get angry and want to do something, anything.
Just Stop oil are just hissing folk off.
Well, they're determined to play the role of pantomime villain...boo! Hiss!
Someone above said that they've got the newspapers frothing and good on them. The problem with that is that getting the newspapers frothing, or getting a hashtag trending, or putting Carbon Awareness Week on your email signature doesn't actually achieve anything.
A hundred years ago to now, the advancements we’ve made in technology, farming, medicine, etc, etc is amazing, imagine what will be around in another 100 years,
Pretty much all the CO2 emitted in the whole of that period.
that’s what will help us as a species against climate change and so on,
Wrong, all the gains we've made will be eradicated by climate change. Welcome to the Cretaceous, you wouldn't want to live there even if you could.
Wrong, all the gains we’ve made will be eradicated by climate change. Welcome to the Cretaceous, you wouldn’t want to live there even if you could.
We've already emitted enough CO2 to get to Miocene climatic conditions and there's enough fosil fuels to get us to the Cretaceous. By that time life will be a real chore even if humans are still around because you'll feel fatigued and sleepy from the CO2 quite apart from all the other crap in the atmosphere if the oceans start to turn over. The asteroid theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs is all very well but the dinosaurs had already been descimated by climatic change due to volcanic CO2 long before the asteroid impacted.
We're going the way of the the dinosaurs, taking most other species with us and are still unwilling to Stop Oil.
I zero scaled that graph. Not to make any particular point, it's still a worrying trend, I just hate graphs presented like that.
As for the OP,
When I first saw the stunt reported on TV, my immediate thought was "what a set of absolute bellends." I know now that the orange stuff was harmless but only because of this thread. I wonder how many other viewers had the same reaction.
I've been to Stonehenge. It was, ahem, a monumental disappointment, you might as well look at it on TV. Avebury is a far better day trip, you can get somewhere near it and everything. It's still not right to be vandalising anything though, and "someone else did it first" is no excuse. The Tower of London has graffiti etched into it by former prisoners but you'd likely become one yourself if you added to it today.
My first reaction was- What a shower of idiots -
Of course JSO are correct in saying that much greater damage is being done day in day out and the avenues of peaceful protest are becoming more restricted year after year. I think JSO have overestimated the public attention span on this though. Many people will just be thinking JSO sprayed orange stuff all over Stonehenge
I was on about how we will advance as a species, not that we will be running away from Earth, in a few hundred years we’ll be on Mars, we will have created technology far beyond where we are now, that is the belief of scientists, rather than we will be wiped out because of climate change or another disaster, which is a much smaller chance.
Tell me you voted for musk and his $53 billion payout without telling me you voted for musk and his $53 billion payout
Is zero CO2 significant in some way? I could imagine it might be useful to have the y axis start at some historical CO2 minimum, but is that zero, within sensible limits?
I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps not, it's not an area I know much about. But it shows the delta in a clearer (arguably less disingenuous) manner than a 45 degree line, it's easier to visualise what the graph is showing.
Eg, an increase of 100ppm over 60 years would be a considerably different proposition if the normal level was 10ppm, or if it was 100,000. The former I assume would be utterly catastrophic, the latter little more than a rounding error. But presented as above, both would be the same graph.
Tell me you voted for musk and his $53 billion payout without telling me you voted for musk and his $53 billion payout
Of course, with my vast shares portfolios in tesla i tipped the vote in Musk's favour.
Perhaps not, it’s not an area I know much about. But it shows the delta in a clearer (arguably less disingenuous) manner than a 45 degree line, it’s easier to visualise what the graph is showing.
So by this logic the weather forecast should show temperature graphs referred to absolute zero?
Yes - I am being argumentative for the sake of it. Sorry.
Eg, an increase of 100ppm over 60 years would be a considerably different proposition if the normal level was 10ppm, or if it was 100,000. The former I assume would be utterly catastrophic, the latter little more than a rounding error. But presented as above, both would be the same graph.
I get your point but as long as the axes are labelled, there's no issue. The risk of 'your' graph is that the 100,000 -> 100,100 graph is basically a horizontal line and wouldn't show any variations in year to year for example.
Just Stop Orange
So by this logic the weather forecast should show temperature graphs referred to absolute zero?
By that logic, yes. I'd prefer clearly labelled ranges with ranges that cover the valid set of values
A bugbear of mine....cricket bowling speeds. An average fast bowler is 85mph. Bowl at 90mph and that's express pace. But it's only 5mph, barely a 5% difference?
No - because the slowest bowlers are about 50-55mph. And absolute absolute express is maybe 95. So the acual range from slowest to fastest is 40mph and so that 5mph difference between an average pace bowler and a proper quick is more like 10-15%
