By Robert Bradley Jr. — September 27, 2023
“Personally , I’ve now reached a point where I believe breaking the law for the climate is the ethically responsible thing to do.” (- Chris Packham, UK Wildlife TV presenter & conservationist)
Andrew Griffiths and Verel Rodrigues, UK climate activists, refuse to question climate alarm and forced energy transformation. They are frustrated despite major (anti-commoner) government intervention for not doing enough. And this in a country that produces about one percent of global GHG emissions.
Instead of checking their premises, Griffiths and Rodrigues (and others) want to double down. So what is the floor on despair–when you “hit bottom” in the vernacular of addiction? Is it open-ended violence?!
Verel states:
Watching this eco documentary just after watching Rishi Sunak’s roll back on climate policies genuinely restored hope that there is a significant shift coming. I am grateful for Chris Packham showing leadership and pledging full support to those who break the law for climate.
Andrew states:
This documentary is incredibly powerful and well worth a watch.
The Guardian, of course, gives the eco-documentary a favorable review. Jack Seale’s “Chris Packham: Is It Time to Break the Law? review – the bravest, most anguished TV of the year comes with the subtitle: “This extraordinarily honest eco-documentary sees the nature presenter wrestle with an existential crisis – and he’s so desperate he risks his entire future.”
He goes to state:
Documentary presenters don’t usually make a virtue out of bewilderment, but these are confounding, confusing times. Chris Packham: Is It Time to Break the Law? – an extraordinary, anguished think piece – opens with an audio montage of Packham’s desperate thoughts about the climate crisis, arranged so they chaotically overlap. This chattering inner monologue is accompanied by the unforgettable sight of the presenter’s face slowly being smothered in thick, black crude oil.
OK, the “oil” is probably treacle, but Packham’s film does involve the idea of putting his own safety and future on the line. It is beyond merely thought provoking: it follows him as he deals with a profound dilemma about how to live his life, and what that life is for, and it tells us that this is a decision we at home must also now make. The climate apocalypse is here and, despite fires and floods around the world, there is still – maddeningly – little sign of the change needed to avert the deeper catastrophe that is coming. Voting hasn’t worked. Peaceful protest hasn’t worked. Rational debate hasn’t worked. What now?
Bring on the violence, the article and its subject continues:
Packham, however, is deeply sympathetic towards the ordinary people who have become some of Britain’s most hardline climate activists, via actions organized by the guerrilla pressure group Just Stop Oil. … Packham opines that society ought to feel shame at putting principled people behind high walls and razor wire.
But the risks these pioneers are willing to brave are not confined to retaliation by the state. Viral clips of the actions of Just Stop Oil increasingly feature members of the public taking grim pleasure in reacting with violence, from shoving activists out of the road to driving heavy goods vehicles at them. Packham states that those people have been riled up by “the rightwing media”, referring to a Mail Online article in which Just Stop Oil activists are called “zealots” who have formed a “mob”.
Knowing what is at stake, Packham is still inclined towards extreme measures – not just approving of them, but participating in them himself…. Self-confessedly lost and uncertain, he seeks further counsel. He meets the Swedish ecology professor Andreas Malm, whose book How to Blow Up a Pipeline is worth the publishing deal just for the title. Malm stresses that he doesn’t mean literally blowing things up. Well, not necessarily. But he does advocate sabotaging pipelines or other fossil-fuel infrastructure….
In the end, Packham does not make TV history by publicly announcing his intention to commit an imprisonable offence, though he does reiterate his support for climate activists who cross that line. There is one obvious reason to hope he doesn’t get himself sent to jail: it would stop him making programmes as honest, as challenging and as urgently relevant as this.
Reaction on LinkedIn
Verel’s post seconding Packham got a cool reaction. Stated the self-described “Social Entrepreneur, UN Award Recipient, Inventor, Vegan” Theo Cosmora:
Instead of spending hours sitting in the middle of the road stopping others’ important travel, which may well include someone reaching hospital in time for an urgent operation or giving birth, spend the time and resources raising money for and deploying one of these in permitted river locations around the country to deliver clean very low cost 24/7 energy to local communities nationwide.
Verel responded:
It’s important to understand that the solutions to all are problems are already here, but they are being delayed by lack of awareness, lack of funding, and delay tactics by the fossil fuel industry. The most important thing is social change. How do we change ourselves if we are not aware of how pressing the issues we face are? Most of the population is just trying to survive, they don’t have the mental capacity to think about how climate change is going to affect them 10 years down the line.
Assuming that technology is going to fix all of our problems without fixing ourselves, is only going to create more problems. It’s a deadly cycle. Worth reflecting on this for a few days
Which garnered this response:
They don’t have the mental capacity. Well, that pretty much says in all about you, does it not? We know, you are special, you are mentally capable. We bow down to your genius.
This critic added:
Given that you are already committed to that reality, you are not open to reason, logic, or fact based-dialog. In other words, your mind is closed and you have moved on to justifying violence in the name of the “greater good.” That makes you no better to the millions who have come before you. They all thought they were right as well.
I had to add my two cents at this point:
Verel: For goodness sakes, check your premises. Don’t assume, study. Human betterment is just the opposite of what you are proposing as the God in the Machine. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Another wise comment:
Yes – there are times when governments pass laws that go against basic morality and those with morals should disobey. However regarding the use of energy to live that some say will bring disaster sometime in the future is hardly a moral imperative. Especially in light of the ongoing debate by good and honest skeptics. It is in fact immoral to silence those who may in fact be right.
But Verel might be beyond saving. He has a religion, the Church of Climate. As he commented to one critic:
I don’t see sitting in the road to raise awareness about how climate change is going to kill so many people across the world as violent. Allowing and being complicit with climate change to killing millions of people is not moral, and I support those who are doing their best to raise awareness about this crisis in whatever way they can, as long as they are not violent.
I really DO understand why these Climate Catastrophists are so concerned. My main worry is that they seem incapable of any wish to try to understand the reasoning of those who are opposed to their views. After all, we who are of opposite opinions have taken care to study the science and to realise that not a single-one of the more-than-one-hundred predictions of climate disaster has come true. I would have thought that Obama’s seaside house and Gore’s seaside house would be sufficient to cause at least a modicum of doubt!
Ah! But you are behind! It turns out, Trump’s resort is worth only 18 mill, while a much smaller house 400m away, but not on the beach, sold for forty.
See? Rising seas!
Good predictions will sometimes be high and sometime be low. If theirs is always high there is something fundamentally wrong with them. Maybe CO2 also acts as a greenhouse gas for the Sun’s rays returning some back into space.
The operative word here is “prediction” we might as well call the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the Crystal Ballers. There is very little science backing this group of mostly bureaucratic “seancer’s” who are hell bent on creating a make believe hobgoblin to justify the Government taking control over our lives on the strength a false narrative that the individual is causing second hand harm to the collective.
The IPCC are Bureaucratic Grifters who were hired and paid with taxpayer dollars and given a primary objective to find an adverse link between man and the Climate on the heels of the Government’s authoritarian success with the Ozone Hobgoblin. There were few real scientists on the IPCC committee and one of them, Chris Landsea, quit his post early in this flim flam because he realized it was driven by a political agenda and not a scientific one.
Their “Prediction” is wishful thinking programmed into a computer. For those who have never programmed a computer, It, a computer, can be made to spit out whatever result one wishfully thinks up. So we could hardly call Man Made Global Warming a Good Prediction based upon unbiased observation of facts. This is what made the East Anglia email scandal so significant – because it proved that those who were looking to make Global Warm…aahhh… we really meant Climate Change all along, a sellable crisis for the media to parrot, had purposefully manipulated the data. There was no predicting involved good or otherwise, just bad programming or in the mind of the UN very good programming backed by successful media cover-up.
Anyone who really understands computer models and statistics knows that the predictions made for non-deterministic systems with numerous variables, such as climate, are no more accurate than tossing a coin. This is just a basic, indisputable fact. If you don’t believe me, why are confidence intervals NEVER shown for the predictions being made? Answer: because the results would be no more accurate than the coin toss just mentioned.
I have to seriously question the morals of supposed ‘scientists’ who fail to reveal this basic requirement of predictions made by any computer model.
Much less accurate than tossing a coin, that will only be 50% wrong. The climate models ensemble has always been running too hot, so 100% wrong. I think the Russian models have been close enough for the task, so looking at it that way, one could say the predictions are only correct for the fraction of the number of Russian models over the total amount… which I’m to tldr;) to look up. It’s like over hundred by now, isn’t it?
The Russian models are the only ones without the non-existent Tropospheric Hot Spot. They calculate an ECS of about 1.8℃ (consistent with those from energy balance models), whereas the other models’ ECSs range upwards to the stratosphere.
The long-term data are there showing no increase in extreme weather events and are published widely, including in UN IPCC and U.S. Assessment Reports. The fact that they are officially ignored is telling as to the extent of the climate scam. This will not end well.
Mark I assume you are addressing the collective ‘you’ of unbelievers who cooked up this hobgoblin and then sold it to the unsuspecting Millennial/GenZ in order to release the doomsday Kraken of a world without fossil fuel for the great unwashed working classes. I believe you. It is also relevant that in order to get to their low confidence intervals they had to manipulate the input data.
Whether they are right or wrong about global warming isn’t the issue. The issue is that what they want to do, moving to wind and solar for generation, while doubling or tripling electricity demand, will not work.
No, the issue is these thugs wish to commit acts of violence towards others. They want to hurt people physically, materially, and even fatally. And have done so already, on a worldwide scale.
Yes, they have some harebrained justification for their hatred and and violence. Don’t thugs always? But they don’t really need one. Violence is violence and that’s what they desire. The Guardian fans flames for the sake of fire.
No amount of coddling, pandering, or compromise will quell their destructiveness. And given that the thugs are supported by a global thugocracy, the violence is sure to escalate.
Unfortunately, the schools have indoctrinated these people to the point that they will refuse to even look at any data that does not support what they have already been taught to believe.
A situation which applies well beyond the climate debate, the trans debate being an immediate case in point.
in fact the two subjects are not dissimilar in the way that both fly in the face of the known laws of physics in one case and the known laws of biology in the other.
It’s true for a whole host of left wing shibboleths.
Abortion, affirmative action (racism by any other name), welfare, etc.
Yes, the current left-wing dominant governments, even those pretending to be ‘conservative’, have lost touch with the idea of truth – only the narrative, the plausible story/excuse/lie matters. Power at any cost.
The problem as I see it, is most of the alarmists are young. They witness a an extreme weather event and think it it has never happened before. Whereas elder generations have and seen it before.
Add to that, the indoctrination of lies that severe weather events are getting worse when in fact data shows they aren’t, just compounds the problem.
Attenburghee’s heir apparent has been pushing this story for a few weeks, now.
“Chris Packham has been busy of late, whether it’s causing chaos for farmers, joining disruptive Extinction Rebellion protests, writing articles warning about the “catastrophic impact” of climate change, ranting about “extreme capitalism” or generally lecturing everyone else on how to live their lives.
…
Chris’s concerns with climate change and capitalism mysteriously vanish when it comes to his own “Travel with Chris Packham” business. It turns out Chris is quite happy to take punters thousands of miles round the world on luxury wildlife tours, pumping out hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide to fly there. Provided they’re paying several thousand pounds each”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/05/08/eco-loon-chris-packham-cashing-in-on-carbon-belching-luxury-wildlife-tours/
In fact Chris’s story has morphed somewhat since August
“Chris Packham: ‘I would lose my voice immediately if I went to prison for protesting’
…
He is now making a Channel 4 documentary, provisionally titled Is it Time to Break the Law? What does he think? “Well, people are breaking the law because the government has made it almost impossible not to do so.” What about him? “Well, again I have to ask myself what is the most effective use of me?”
…
planning the future is pointless, because he can’t envisage it. “
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/19/chris-packham-autism-death-threats-save-planet-attenborough
Packham the Malthusian is clearly attempting to prompt and prod others into taking the kind of action he approves of – but won’t actually take himself.. He has a very nice cushy lifestyle and I can’t see him giving that up for anything or anyone.
Strat rating: All talk.
Duff link replacement:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/19/chris-packham-autism-death-threats-save-planet-attenborough
He’s not even very good a talking. Last year the BBC Radio 4 flagship Today programme had him do what was intended to be a series of daily hints and tips on how to be more “sustainable”. I think it lasted about two days before it became blindingly obvious he is unhinged so they quietly dropped it.
His very first tip—to launch the feature: buy a wind-up alarm clock and get up earlier.
Not only bizarre, but counter-productive!
Unhinged is the word.
Positively flapping in the breeze!
I nominate Peter Kalmus for the most deranged disaster-monger. As usual, the U.S. beats the UK on the weirdness index.
“I have to ask myself what is the most effective use of me?”
Lavatory attendant in a hospital for the incontinent.
Dontcha jus’ lurv that narcissism!
…spare a thought on the kind of people who originally selected him, called him aside, and promised him social relevance.
I do, because the sod acknowledges his servitude:
Now, who are his handlers?
Population Matters
I’m pretty sure that there are laws against actively encouraging others to break the law.
Just a climate baiter.
When the UK Government announced the licencing of the new Shetland oil field Pacham said interview that the UK had committed an ‘act of war’ against the climate. His underlying comments seemed to suggest that war would give licence to greenies to do whatever they liked in protest.
I personally think he has (cough) issues.
They all are certifiable – anyone who can claim with a straight face that there is a “climate emergency” is an eco-nazi and needs their head examined. It’s totalitarians who make up emergencies to steal political power. Nazi or communist, same thing, political cousins – different ends of the same snake.
Pacman and Vella and those of similar pathetic self-opinionated ideology, should remember the old adage….
… those that live by the sword, die by the sword. !!
That was certainly true of Prigozhin!
…but not for Obama, Clinton, Kissinger, Nauert, Haley, Blinken, Rumsfeld, Chenney, Bush….
One day these clowns will get in the way of a biker gang or similar….. and get their just rewards !
Let’em break the law. Then arrest them and prosecute them to the full extent of the law. They won’t do this for long – they’ll get tired very quickly of spending their nights in a drunk tank with the other law violators and defending their backsides from a different kind of law breaking.
Ouch!
“[Packham] went to prison this week to visit Marcus Decker, the environmental activist who scaled the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge in Dartford, Kent, with fellow campaigner Morgan Trowland to release a Just Stop Oil banner last year. The two men sat in hammocks for almost 40 hours before being removed by police, convicted of causing a public nuisance, and being handed two of the longest sentences ever passed for a nonviolent protest in British history. “Marcus got two years and seven months, and Morgan got three years.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/19/chris-packham-autism-death-threats-save-planet-attenborough
Nobody has tried a repeat performance, to date.
Gee, maybe the possibility of prison is a deterrent.
You mean Big-eye Disease?
That only works if they are on the opposite side of the government’s narrative.
“Packham opines that society ought to feel shame at putting principled people behind high walls and razor wire.” Absurd statement – at best they get a slap on the wrist from a judge who opines that they did it for a “just cause”.
But protest what you honestly feel was a rigged election? Years in jail awaiting trial and up to 22 years in prison.
A few years ago, a group of these nuts was arrested for blocking a port.
The judge released them saying that the dangers of “global warming” justified their law breaking.
😱
The JSO, ER, etc perps won’t be prosecuted. Being arrested is a resume enhancer for ilk such as them.
If the climate is changing in ways these people present, there should be a body of irrefutable, credible, empirical, scientific evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to war.
Not only is this ‘body’ of evidence not in evidence, there’s not a single study I have ever found (in nearly 20 years of searching) that conforms to that criteria despite many attempts to do it.
I’m sure we all want clean air and water, and to a great extent in the west we have achieved that, although we can still do better.
What these ignorant fools don’t understand is that millions of people today are dying unnecessarily in developing nations from energy deprivation.
They are foraging for timber and in many cases chopping down trees to cook and keep warm. Smoke inhalation from burning timber and dung is killing millions every year, predominantly women and children.
Whilst the Amazon rain forest has been slashed and burned, trees have been harvested by ‘illegal loggers’ to provide fuel for towns and cities in the region because there is scant access to fossil fuels and little in the way of reliable electricity or gas.
How about we ‘peacefully’ dump Chris Packham in one of these regions, with little to no money, and no publicity, for the next ten years and see how he gets on.
……that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.
no doubt some climate nut jobs also blame war on CO2! After all, it’s the new Satan.
I think you were right the first time!
Nations who used fossil fuels to raise their economy have a negative population growth. Teach 3rd world countries how to use petroleum to develop their own economies. That would take care of the “over population” argument.
The IPCC admits the scare of an existential “tipping point” is false. Even Arrhenius believed the little bit of warming would be beneficial.
CO2 might also act as a greenhouse gas for the Sun’s heat returning some of it back into space.
A point I have made in the past. Where is it writ that the effects of a molecule only acts in one direction?
Very little of the sun’s energy comes in wavelengths absorbed by CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_window#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.svg
The regenerative abilities of the Amazon rainforest have made keeping the roads going through open very difficult.
As it is, HotScot, as we know all too well, not a single one of the predictions from any of the climate alarmists due to happen before 2020 has actually come to pass.Which hasn’t stopped them.
To paraphrase Peter Cook in his ‘end of the world’ sketch, “Same time next week, guys. We’ll get it right one day.”
Up to about 2000 or so it seemed that people of every political stripe generally believed what the scientists were saying but as the evidence refused to show up, as the models kept disagreeing with reality, and the hyperbole turned up to 11, the lies were so blatant such that any sensible person would realize they are being conned
The main problem here is a fear to use the right words to describe what is happening here:
The rise of eco-terrorism. When one justifies the use of violence even if innocent victims are the possible result, that is terrorism. There’s no other qualification for that, and the authorities should
react and apply the rule of law accordingly.
but the authorities won’t- if they are of the same ilk
Terrorism: Using coercion or intimidation to change a population’s behaviour.
If you approach that definition softly, careful not to frighten it, you may agree, terrorism is exclusively a government function, and whomever is terrorising you, is, by definition, your government.
If they wassint, the cops would long have arrived to bung them up, not so?
Climate change vandalism has already defaced portions of Wikipedia.
If ever you were going to stomp on people’s liberties, it would be to lock up someone like this for being a danger to others. Alas, it would quickly spin into sociopaths persecuting the too honest for their own good.
These people would not hesitate to put non-believers into death camps for the good of mankind. In fact I am willing to bet that conversation is already taking place among these lunatics. How incredibly effective the Man Made Climate Change propaganda has been and the natural outcome of that is appearing in so many places. It would be nice to think that some accountability for this obscene crime against humanity will be served up but alas I doubt it will be.
Dan Andrews in Australia almost got there with his war on Covid-19. Packham could join forces with Miliband and get Brits into reeducation stroke death camps funded by Uncle Joe. Stranger things have happened.
Indeed.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”. – Voltaire (approximately)
Story tip
When Uxbridge makes pollution ‘different’.
[Mayor of Manchester] Andy Burnham fights back against Ulez vowing to NEVER introduce a charging zone to Manchester
…
Greater Manchester will refuse to introduce a Ulez-type zone to fine drivers of older vehicles, the city’s mayor Andy Burnham has said. The announcement – made in an exclusive interview with GB News – came despite hundreds of CCTV cameras and signs being erected around Manchester, ready to enforce a low emissions zone.
…
There are currently over 1,300 clean air signs in place – carrying ‘under review’ stickers – and over 460 cameras installed in the Greater Manchester area, ready to enforce a clean air zone in the city’s 10 boroughs.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/ulez-andy-burnham-manchester
That’s a lot of money wasted – again. To claim a scheme will never be introduced is belied by the installed infrastructure, no?
In the Church of Climate link:
That’s one of the smartest comments I’ve seen in my 74 years! Having worked outdoors for 50 years I agree 100%.
You’re on Their side, aren’t you?
I’m with Joseph on this one. The question is, who is this “we” that “need” to make the climate “safe?” I see it as “they” – the alarmists – that want to make the climate, not safe for us human beings, but safe from us.
I object to anything implying there is a “climate that needs (insert your favourite geosocial engineering theory here). This leads one into territory populated by religious freaks endeavouring to bring about Armageddon and/or Apocalypse, and once we go there, all “conspiracy theories” have to be extensively discussed. We can start by how the Enemy inserts innocuous-looking ‘viewpoints’ into public discourse.
Like how everybody watches the control freaks ‘debate’ the porn freaks on information freedom, while nobody asks why we don’t use that same data collection capability to see how our government spends our money. In real time.
Before you abble about state secrets, concider that every foreign government buys the same data on the open market. Or pay teenagers to hack* whomever they want.
-* It is not actually hacking, if you exploit the back doors Microshit et al leave for the CIA et al…
Certainly “the climate” is not our friend. It gives us winters like 1947 and 1963 (I’m talking from a UK angle there) and summers like 1976. It provides the US with more or less deadly hurricanes every year.
We need to tame this by central heating, air conditioning, better buildings, better warning systems, better management to avoid wildfires, more wealth, better healthcare ….
“The climate” is not doing anything it hasn’t done before which can only go to prove that the alarmists have some other motive than their declared one. Since no-one in their right mind would want to go back to the days when life consisted of scratching around for firewood and berries for food and dying at 35 the rest of us are missing something.
Hopefully we will all cotton on to what it is before it’s too late!
‘Their side’ being humanity, as opposed to the misanthropic, anarchic activists then, “Hell yeah!”
“We need to make safe” should be read as “protect us from.” Nature is a bitch.
The climate IS dangerous, getting colder and colder – each warm period peak is a bit less than the one 1000-odd years before it, going back about 8000 years.
The best thing we could do for the environment is to burn as much fossil fuel as possible, cleanly of course, free of say soot and sulphur for example. Build that CO2 back up to over 1500ppm where it belongs.
We make it safe, outside of the tropics, by having, warm clothing and shoes, warmed houses, warmed transportation and warmed workplaces, mostly warmed by the use of fossil fuels.
…without changing the climate, which is what Zorzin’s comment implies.
The law is a necessary part of the maitainence of social order, primarily so that people can live their lives in safety, and also to allow democratic discourse regarding how society and the law should be structured. Obviously not everyone gets what they want, but the acceptance of the prevailing view.is accepted as the cost of living within the protection of civilised society. The only justification for breaking the law in furtherance of a political objective is if the system suppresses the legitimate expression of that view. That is hardly the case for the climate catastrophists; their position seems to have been widely accepted by governments, big business and the mainstream media. Their complaint seems to be that any opposing views or restraint on their objectives is tolerated at all.
I can’t think of a single time when the left has ever been tolerant of opposing views.
news tip
One-on-one with Trump? DeSantis Says, ‘Let’s do it’
Anything beats that circus on Fox Business last night. Who invited whatsherrname from Univision? I’m thinking Republican debates should be moderated by Republicans.
The Democrat debates are moderated by “journalists”. In other words they are moderated by Democrats.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. (Asimov)
Of particular application to the DFs employed by the BBC.
I had the misfortune to catch part of last week’s effort on Channel 4,
I got yhe message that it is OK to join any of organisations like JSO, XR and Insulate Britain and then break the law.
The troubling thing about it is that Channel 4 is owned and operated by the state-owned Channel Four Television Corporation. State Owned = ME
DCMS…. to point the finger…
“Dame Caroline Dinenage, Tory MP and chair of the UK parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee, sent a letter to the CEO of Rumble, a video-sharing platform based in Canada, which prides itself on its refusal to censor creators. Dinenage wanted to know why it hasn’t demonetised Brand’s content like YouTube has. She also sent similar letters to TikTok and other social-media platforms demanding they take action against Brand.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/21/the-casual-authoritarianism-of-caroline-dinenage/
Do you need more?
Only a government can terrorise you at this level…
Another entitled toff pretending the “working man” is his best friend, conveniently ignoring the climastrologist dogma of NEVER debating anything, so
heit can blame it all on the stupid plebes.The only people I see gluing themselves to roads, are entitled little superstars whose daddies paid for their Humanities degrees, only to find out the only job availabkle to underwater hairdryers, is rent-a-crowd astroturf activist gigs paid by NGO’s hell bent on destroying European culture.
“Rational debate hasn’t worked.”
They couldn’t win the argument.
Imagine if someone with a right of center cause (say “right to life”, or skepticism of the efficacy of COVID vaccines) expressed the same frustration with something they felt was morally wrong.
Not only would they not get a documentary, but mainstream and social media outlets would severely restrict any reporting of their concerns.
Moral: You have to choose the “correct” narrative.
When leftist or their useful pawns use actual violence and actually try to overthrown government, they get no penalties and often get praise from the media and government.
When anyone who doesn’t toe the line of these leftists, they get punished, defamed, get called both Nazis and Russians, censored, and arrested for even thinking about something that offends leftists.
It is two-tiered justice. The goal, of course, is to get you to be afraid and thus censor yourself while at the same time embolden the brainwashed minions who carry out their will.
These people believe the lies. They believe climate change is a man-made, existential crisis. They believe the earth is boiling. They believe millions have already died because of climate change and many, many millions more will die from it in the future unless something is done now.
Of course they believe violence is justified.
The definition of a state is a geographical area where a government has a monopoly on violence. The states themselves wholeheartedly believe this. See the “Move” incident in Philadelphia (May 13, 1985) and the Branch Davidians of 1993 near Waco, Texas. They defend other states in similar activities because of the idea that other options are illegitimate. The men that western media describe as “war lords” aren’t elected. They occupy their place by popular acclimation. They can’t survive unless they produce and distribute what their followers want. If they fail, another “war lord” takes their place. They are the sole source of legal violence in their own geographic area, they’re the government. The war lord makes decisions based on his own knowledge and experience and that of his friends and retainers. He’s willing to follow the important cultural demands of the society he rules rather than ignore them for any trendy movement by intellectuals that despise him.
They’re successful because they’re in touch with their society. They aren’t elected cyphers or faceless bureaucrats, although they need those to pull the levers of power while they attend to what’s important.
This recent study shows that cold weather we have every year causes about 4.6 million deaths a year mainly through increased strokes and heart attacks, compared with about 500,000 deaths a year from hot weather. We can’t easily protect our lungs from the cold air in the winter and that causes our blood vessels to constrict causing blood pressure to rise leading to heart attacks and strokes.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
This article from 2015 says that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather and that moderately warm or cool weather kills far more people than extreme weather. Increased strokes and heart attacks from cool weather are the main cause of the deaths.
‘Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multi-country observational study’ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
And people thought that religious extremism was done in the west, and such violent behavior was only for others. But terrorism is terrorism (a tactic, not an ideology), and it’s a mistake to tolerate terrorism.
From all the jackets, coats and hats they are wearing in the photograph, they all look like they are in pretty cool or cold weather. They certainly don’t look like they are in hot CO2 “caused” weather.
To be clear, the Left has always believed in using violence to get their way.
“Without violence nothing is ever accomplished in history.” – Karl Marx
Remember, Karl Marx wrote under the assumption that the Right Wing had the power and was commenting on how that had happened.
Peterloo is an example.
F for Flannery and a bunch of old global boilers-
‘Climate catastrophism’: The Climate Council criticised for latest video (msn.com)
They might want to start the Wagner Climate division headquartered in the UK.
CS Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity:
And he was right.
The problem with the witch burnings is that they were not witches. It was not that burning was too cruel. It was necessary if they were witches.
But they were not.
The problem of modern eco-terrorists is that the have broken the 1st Commandment and found a new false God to believe in. And with that false God there are new heretics, new witches, to believe in too. As they do believe in these new witches (it is a core tenet of their new faith) they are convinced that the burnings must begin. And that that is right.
Climate Sceptics are the new witches to them. And so long as they keep their false faith they will continue to do terrible things.
For further examples look at the Protocols of Zion and the false representation of the Jews described there. When 1930s Germany believed that Jews were all-powerful new witches they also did terrible things.
Packham is not a hero. But he thinks he is.
Packham isn’t even a contender, nor even an also-ran. He’s just an irrelevant faceless no-hoper who has delusions that the world revolves around him – a complete nobody who has been given a platform well beyond his ability.
Paul Homewood links to an excellent piece in the Telegraph on the coming disaster in UK energy policy.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/09/27/how-a-growing-energy-gap-threatens-britains-future/
Its obvious to anyone who examines the specifics and looks at the performance of wind over recent years that Net Zero as currently supported by all UK political parties except Reform will, if fully implemented, just lead to an economic and social disaster.
Without lowering global emissions. After all, if you only do one percent of total global emissions, how much can you manage to lower them by?
These people are mad.
I’m just wondering whether this Verel Rodrigues is related to Shirley Rodrigues, deputy London mayor for the environment, that has twice (at least) tried to suppress scientific conclusions that go against the ULEZ narrative?
“UK Climate Alarmists Debate Violence (hitting bottom?)”
***************
Does damaging petrol pumps constitute violence?
Police tackle ‘Just Stop Oil’ protesters vandalising London petrol stations – YouTube
**********
I am beginning to believe that the climate alarmist narrative is one way (along with end-of-the-world prognostications — remember Harold Camping some years back) in which society weeds out the most ignorant, gullible and naive people who don’t know how to think critically for themselves and look more cynically at belief systems like CAGW. I hope I never see the day when I degrade mentally (think Biden) and start believing everything that the U.N., academia, the MSM and my government tell me.
People tend to embrace ideas that appeal to them emotionally or which provide confirmation bias for their pre-conceived belief systems, and never mind the facts. Hatred of or opposition to fossil fuels likely provides at least some of the impetus for CAGW. Climate scare believers are made by playing on that hate. Using hate and fear to get into their heads and getting them hooked is not hard to do. Cults do that to recruit new members.
When climate alarmists start seriously contemplating violence, it is time that we start asking ourselves if this climate scare has gone on too long. It was back in 1988 when James Hanson testified before Congress and seriously got the CAGW ball rolling. That’s 35 years. It has drawn me to the famous quotes of H. L. Mencken who, to a certain extent, has made a cynic out of me as well.
Violence begets violence. If they resort to this tactic, they will open a can of worms that will never again contain the worms.
“For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”
I don’t think they have the slightest clue as to what the consequences of their actions will be. The people of the UK have a long history of amused tolerance of extreme or erratic behaviour, until we don’t – then it stops.
This winter will be an interesting test.
If pensioners start freezing and starving in the cold dark, things might get dicy for the Lord’s and Ministers.
These extremists are cognitive dissonance plebs on nuclear steroids!
Yes, but bear in mind that cognitive dissonance is a force which causes reconciliation within the human mind.
Perhaps the extremists might be more accurarately described as being immune or resistant to the positive effect of cognitive dissonance.
I just love how these activists are always urging other people to sacrifice themselves in pursuit of the activists goals.
If they truly believed that the fate of the earth was on the line, they would be out front leading the demonstrations and violence.
Bottom line fear mongering leads to self righteous hysteria creating cadres of vulnerable normies and no so normies for the gifted elite to manipulate into street action. The people who are radicalizing cadres are corrupt political power seekers. Seems even heads of state are falling victim.
It’s the communist belief that they can perfect humanity by creating the perfect society, all over again.
Up to now, communists/socialists have managed to kill several hundred million people. This time their goal is billions.
And once again, the reveal that they consider themselves to be the only smart ones on the planet, and that this alleged intelligence gives them carte blanch to run the lives of everyone else.
Delusional. If they were truly intelligent they would realise that their own ideology is badly flawed and their approach to protesting is alienating more and more people who have the mental capacity to think how climate change activism is going to affect them 10 years down the line and reject it.
Look how many marxist/communists declare that “this time it’s going to work”.
“Personally , I’ve now reached a point where I believe breaking the law for the climate is the ethically responsible thing to do.” (- Chris Packham, UK Wildlife TV presenter & conservationist)
______________________________________________________________________________
Hmm can gas chambers for deniers be far behind?
They are free to break the law but I would enforce the law brutally.
“Pour encourager les autres!”
You would, but would the current government?
The current government needs to be made to enforce the law, that is their job. If they can’t do their job they need to go.
… and be replaced by another government who won’t enforce the law either?
Would you be willing to use violence in order to make them go?
What do you consider violence?
“Packham, however, is deeply sympathetic towards the ordinary people who have become some of Britain’s most hardline climate activists, via actions organized by the guerrilla pressure group Just Stop Oil. “
Ordinary people!??? Packham is a deluded idiot. Socialism goes on about the ordinary people but seems to be adept at killing millions in the name of equity, justice and good intentions. The modern left despise the ordinary person, especially when the ordinary person doesn’t want what they are being forced to accept.
“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” – Thomas Sowell
Socialism is the theory that when you take money from the productive, and use it to buy the votes of the unproductive, you can perfect society.
I see no evidence that the eco loons aren’t getting everything they want, every day, in every way, and at an alarming pace. If they could snap their fingers and attain their proclaimed utopia this afternoon they would still find some reason to resort to force and violence, because force and violence are their raison d’être. They dress it up with appeals to nature, the environment, ecology, Gaia,
the whales,the eagles,uncluttered mountaintops, polar bears, and the climate, but those are their Trojan horses, to be abandoned the way feminists abandoned women when they stopped being useful enough as a cause, and for the same reason: They’re nihilists at bottom. They’re impervious to data, facts, logic, and reason because they’re not seekers of the truth but of death. If you’re agog at their mind-numbing irrationality in the face of insurmountable evidence, it’s because you benevolently grant them a humanity they haven’t earned. They’re not trying to save the smallest snail darter. Weather modification, mining for EV materials, decommissioning nuclear plants, making CO2 a “pollutant” in the service of shutting down Western civilization: Those are the pipe dreams of rabid misanthropes. They’re foaming at the mouth to see the final results of their suicidal schemes. To range-of-the-moment barbarians, Nut Zero is an eternity away. They’re working up their nerve to pick up a gun and finish the job themselves, because for them the “debate” about whether to use violence was over a long time ago.To them, the world will never be perfect enough.
Meanwhile, it’s all coming apart from the top down:
“IPCC chairman rebukes exaggerated climate alarm
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has welcomed the rebuke of exaggerated climate hype and alarm by Professor Jim Skea, the new Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In interviews with German media, Skea said it is wrong and misleading for climate activists to imply that temperature increases of 1.5°C posed an existential threat to humanity.
In the eyes of many climate activists, limiting warming to 1.5°C has become the decisive benchmark for ‘saving the planet’. In 2018, the IPCC warned that humanity had 12 years to prevent a global climate catastrophe if global warming could not be limited to 1.5°C.
https://www.sustainabilitymatters.net.au/content/sustainability/news/ipcc-chairman-rebukes-exaggerated-climate-alarm-329382719#:~:text=In%20interviews%20with%20German%20media,for%20'saving%20the%20planet‘.
“Why Did Bill Gates Make Sudden U-Turn On Climate Doom Narrative?
Microsoft co-founder, philanthropist, and climate alarmist Bill Gates has backtracked on ‘climate doom’ prophecies. The writing is on the wall for the political and financial elites, who have long championed imminent climate doom, realizing that the public sees through the charades.
In 2021, Gates previously warned about apocalyptic consequences if the world does not achieve zero net carbon emissions by the year 2050. He also promoted his new book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster” (fear sells).
On Thursday, Gates made a sudden U-turn on his climate doom narrative and now expects “No temperate country is going to become uninhabitable.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/why-did-bill-gates-make-sudden-u-turn-climate-doom-narrative?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1848
Well I think the eco-nazis policies will harm the environment with poorly thought out plans that blight the country-side and put ridiculous pressure on the mining industry. So then eco-realistics would be justified in violence against eco-idiot plans and such.
I’m surprised that the eco-nazis didn’t think about that, but deep thinking and prudence are not hallmarks of the left.