On the bright side, at least they weren’t driving fossil fueled vehicles
(Sentinel Republic) The World Naked Bike Ride is a global protest.
Organizers instruct riders on their Facebook page to obey police but warn that those riding naked may be ticketed.
Footage posted online from the Leeside event show cyclists – some decked out in intricate body-paint designs, others cheating slightly in shorts and swimming togs – waving and cheering as they cycle, as motorists beep their support.
More than 1,000 people are expected to take part in the World Naked Bike Ride when it returns to the streets of London later today. While clothing is optional, all participants will wear helmets and lights so they can be seen on the road.
It’s supposed to be about sharing the road and seeing bicyclists and stuff, and the article doesn’t really support the headline regarding climate change. However, when you check their website, there are all sorts of wonky links to “climate change”. In the FAQs we read
What does cycling naked have to do with environmental protest?
We face automobile traffic with our naked bodies as the best way of defending our dignity and exposing the unique dangers faced by cyclists and pedestrians as well as the negative consequences we all face due to dependence on oil, and other forms of non-renewable energy.
Can we assume they ride bikes that were made only with renewable energy? And do not use any petroleum products to lubricate their bikes? And that there are no plastics on their bikes?
Teach, you’re dumber than a turnip.
Do you understand even the simplest of concepts? Like your head fluffer (I know, that’s redundant), you insist that reducing CO2 emissions requires the immediate cessation of all use of petroleum and coal. No one is suggesting that. We guess that that kind of silly argument registers with the sort of people who think Sarah Palin is smart, so it’s a standard conservablog tactic.
So while conservatives work to make the world a worse place, you mock these kids who work to improve it.
我就是éšä¾¿çœ‹çœ‹
“Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” – IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer –
Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?†–
Fossil Fuel Use Must Plummet By 2050, End By 2100: G7 Meeting
James Hansen says the following in an Article for the Guardian.
“”The US, based on its proportion of the fossil fuel carbon in the air today, would owe $27 billion per year in tax fees. Chance of Congress providing that: dead zero. Maybe the UK will cough up its $6 billion per year and Germany its $7 billion per year. But who will collect Russia’s $7 billion per year?”” And what about China? No mention. India? Absent.
Nowhere in the entire article does he talk about replacing fossil fuels…only taxing them and making them so expensive that no one wants to use them anymore….As Obama’s secretary of energy said before he was secretary of energy….we have to make gasoline 7-8 dollars per gallon so no one wants to buy gasoline.
James Hansen in the same article:
Cap-and-trade is the antithesis of this simple system. Cap-and-trade is a hidden tax, increasing energy costs, but with no public dividend…..his solution is to tax the companies that make oil and gas and then give the money back to the people in the form of a payroll tax cut….super….
Again No solutions to replace fossil fuels…only TAXES to make them so expensive no one will want to use them.
In what amounts to a “final warning†about the dangers of not doing enough to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, the Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change (IPCC) said…………….“To keep a good chance of staying below the 2C, and at manageable costs, our emissions should drop by 40 to 70 per cent globally between 2010 and 2050, and falling to zero or below by 2100,†Dr Pachauri said.
So they want to drop useage by 70 percent… and replace them with what?
to wit:
A groundbreaking new study is confirming what green campaigners have long argued: in order to stave off climate disaster, the majority of fossil fuel deposits around the world—including 92 percent of U.S. coal, all Arctic oil and gas, and a majority of Canadian tar sands—must stay “in the ground.”
and replace them with what?
A campaign to persuade investors to take their money out of the fossil fuel sector is growing faster than any previous divestment campaign and could cause significant damage to coal, oil and gas companies, according to a study from the University of Oxford.
and replace them with what?
Another study.
The new analysis calls into question the gigantic sums of private and government investment being ploughed into exploration for new fossil fuel reserves, according to UCL’s Professor Paul Ekins, who conducted the research with McGlade. “In 2013, fossil fuel companies spent some $670bn (£443bn) on exploring for new oil and gas resources. One might ask why they are doing this when there is more in the ground than we can afford to burn,†he said.
“The investors in those companies might feel that money is better spent either developing low-carbon energy sources or being returned to investors as dividends,†said Ekins
and replaced with what?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in a stark report that most of the world’s electricity can – and must – be produced from low-carbon sources by 2050.
Impossible with current technology. Literally impossible.
***** A “large fraction†of species will face extinction and both human conflict and poverty will increase as resources dwindle, said the report, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
“These are multibillion dollar events that the rich are going to have to pay for, and there’s a limit to what they can pay,†said IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri. *****
Oh wait it gets better………..
!!!!!Yet for the first time, the IPCC is offering a glimmer of hope. It acknowledges that some of the changes will be beneficial – including higher crop yields in places like Canada, Europe and Central Asia – and that in others cases, people will be able to adapt to them.!!!!
The article goes on to talk about how its going to be easy to manage climate change, we just have to build better house, better flood control and adapt to the changing ecology……..lolololol….according to this article it appears as if the IPCC is giving up on mitigating climate change and are now going to jump feet first into MANAGING IT!!!!!
Lord have mercy.
Liam,
Do you still receive compensation from energy companies?
Once again, none of your “references” suggest we need to stop all use of fossil fuels tomorrow. 2050, 2100.
We can’t reduce fossil fuels use 70% in the next 85 years? Probably not if you have your way. But then you get compensated by energy companies.
Listen, I don’t begrudge that you receive compensation from energy companies but you should have disclosed that fact before making arguments. Of course Exxon employees, managers, investors and contractors will defend the source of their income!
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
Here’s a couple of other Sinclair quotes:
“If we are the greatest nation the sun ever shone upon, it would seem to be mainly because we have been able to goad our wage-earners to this pitch of frenzy.â€
― Upton Sinclair
Certainly our leisure and donor class cannot be bothered to work to a pitch of frenzy.
“One of the necessary accompaniments of capitalism in a democracy is political corruption.â€
― Upton Sinclair
Our current crony capitalism is the perfect example. Politicians make policies to reward corporations, then work for corporations lobbying their former colleagues for even more favorable policies! It’s why we’ve become a plutocracy. Or is it a corporatocracy?
Again Jeffery Your group is of one mind.
To end fossil fuel use with NO solutions to what comes next.
Generating Electricity is possible I have presented earlier a study in which using all of the current oil/gas/coal along with new alternatives will NOT produce enough electricity to meet the worlds needs in 20 years which used to be the stated goal of the IPCC and AGW everywhere.
20 years….was the talk of the town. Now its 35 years….2050……….and even now the bar has been pushed out to 2100.
It used to be that as AL GORE said were all going to die by 2100 if we all dont just……do x and y and z. Now 2100 is the new 2035.
I get about 100 percent of my income from fossil fuels………
Because WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS this planet would still be in the stone ff’ing age. EVERYTHING in made from, produced by and delivered too you and me by fossil fuels.
Fossil Fuels run the planet….they are what keeps people alive till they are 90. Nothing we do, the car we drive, the bike we ride, the internet we use, the computer you argue with me about, the phone line or cell phone you use to discuss business, the grass you grow, the trees you plant……..
ALL OF THAT is dependent upon fossil fuels.
And the Envirowhackos all want to throw it away because they have managed to convince IDIOTS that CO2 is a pollutant and that a warming planet is bad for everyone.
We call you guys envirowackos for a reason.
You keep saying we want to phase them out……I dont really care….but once again your going to have to reinvent CIVILIZATION to phase out fossil fuels totally because in reality EVERYTHING comes from fossil fuels.
And If a socialist makes a comment then I dont want to hear it. Socialism and Communism are failed experiments. Its called productivity….in a socialist and communist systme their is no incentive to be productive because you are going to get yours no matter what…….
Unfortunately in a capitalist system people are allowed to earn more then their neighbor and the reason why? Because Fossil Fuels are powering everything under the sun.
Even those freaking alternative energy sources are made with Fossil Fuels. You guys basically are loons and I opened my above discussion with the fact that the real agenda of AGW is the replacement of capitalism with socialism………even you keep quoting your favorite socialist in your arguements.
We “DENIERS” understand progressives hate, loathe and despise capitalism because its dependent upon fossil fuels…..the problem is that without fossil fuels we will all be the sub sahara.
You guys have no plan to replace fossil fuels other then a few windmills……and then we all literally starve to death…..
Not only are you guys whacko’s but your insane too and the NAZI’s have nothing on you as your all want to embark on mass genocide to reduce the population from 6 billion to 500 million in the next 85 years.
Yes….you call us nuts….well the other shoe is on your foot….you guys are just plain nuts.
give me a plan….and you cant.
ahh NUTPICKING !!!
so easy to do
But Liam why not go for the hard targets like the US Navy or the National Academy of Science.
Climate truthers sure do say the darndest things. Teach posted that 2012 would mark the beginning of global climate cooling.
What does the Navy have to do with anything John. With your guys plan…there will be no navy because their will be no fossil fuels to fuel the boats and ships and planes and helicopters. Of course the Navy is taking an active interest in Global warming.
The National Academy of Science.
Lets see……..About Us. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, nonprofit organization of the country’s leading researchers. The NAS recognizes and promotes …
Members are elected to the National Academy of Sciences in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research.
So you have a private organization who stuffs the ballot box for like minded scientists and then profess them to be unbiased in their AGW beliefs? Members of this organization Include nearly every AGW scientist on the planet and only a few non believers.
Lets see John…….
Do you believe that the Cato Institute is unbiased? How about the Heritage foundation. Heartland Institute?
Yet you tell me to challenge a private organization stuffed with AGW truthers as if its the final and definitive truth about AGW.
As for the Navy…….icebergs float…rogue icebergs present a problem. Rising sea levels change sounding readings and make accessible areas which currently were not accessible. Additionally Im assuming you are clueless to how sonar works but gradient layers tend to mask passive sonar and deflect active sonar…..sub searching becomes more difficult the larger the gradients become between warm and colder waters…..The US navy has always had a passionate interest in the oceans and any change in ocean temperatures would interest them greatly.
The question I have is SO what. Most everyone acknowledges that the earth is warming and that the oceans are warming…..
However you should read the current report by the IPCC which is now embracing climate change and making the pronouncement that we will adapt…we just need to do some things differently in order to adjust and heaven forbid a warming planet actually has some really nice benefits……they actually said that……
Now back to a biased think tank and a Navy Im waiting for a plan to replace fossil fuels……
comeon john whats the plan?