Climate Cult To Disrupt Austrian Grand Prix

I wonder how they will be traveling there? It’s on June 30th

Climate change activists threaten to disrupt Austrian Grand Prix

Hundreds of thousands of people will travel to Spielberg again at the end of this month, where the annual Austrian Grand Prix is scheduled at the Red Bull Ring. Perhaps their journey towards the circuit will not go entirely smoothly, with fears that climate change activists will be on the access roads and will cause delays.

Austrian police are at least taking that into account, the Kleine Zeitung reports. Indeed, there are indications that climate activists are using the race to protest – as they did a year ago, doing so by glueing themselves to the road surface. Removing them from that will take some time, but Austrian police expect adequate action to be taken in the event of protests.

Arresting known activists in advance is not something the authorities do. The police confirmed to the newspaper that protesting is a fundamental right. But after some point, the protest must be over and, moreover, the organisation of the Grand Prix (where 300,000 fans are expected over three days) must not go haywire.

Fearing that the climate stickers will also come onto the track during the race and then stick to the asphalt, the police are not. It is assumed that security measures at the Red Bull Ring are so strict that no one will manage to get over the fence on the track.

Well, I hope the police and security are on the ball, and have proper liquids on hand to deal with the glue. Too bad cutting their hands off is not allowed. Certainly do not want to run them over, those cars are expensive, and all that blood and gore affects windflow and slows the cars down.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

23 Responses to “Climate Cult To Disrupt Austrian Grand Prix”

  1. alanstorm says:

    Indeed, there are indications that climate activists are using the race to protest – as they did a year ago, doing so by glueing themselves to the road surface.

    Snowplows would be effective in removing them. Does Oz have snowplows?

  2. ckc2000 says:

    The protests will probably be more exciting than the race.

  3. James Lewis says:

    Regarding the MMGW hoaxers:
    “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Crichton was wrong. Scientific consensus is nothing more than when a large majority of scientists in a field are of the same opinion on a particular topic.

      There is a scientific consensus that tobacco use causes cancer, but as the great scientist Rush Limbaugh pointed out a small percentage of smokers develop cancers. And most people treated for cancer did not smoke!! Yet society made significant behavioral changes.

      HIV causes AIDS. CFCs reduce stratospheric ozone.

      Scientific consensus is not a law; is not binding; does not preclude further research. Sometimes a consensus is upended!! Look at the treatment of GI ulcers (Helicobacter!).

      That said, the arguments made against CO2-caused global warming are not scientific but primarily social and political.

      Crichton was a great science fiction writer and storyteller. As great as the movie “Jurassic Park” was, his novel was even better! Sort of like King’s “The Shining” novel was better than the goofy movie.

      He was concerned with out-of-control technology, especially biotechnology. Crichton also spoke out against scientists who ventured outside their own area of expertise, for example a medical doctor pretending to be an expert of climate.

      Crichton passed away in 2008 and since that time the Earth has warmed another 0.4°C (0.7°F).

      • Jl says:

        “Consensus”. Science by a show of hands-what possibly could go wrong? How many scientists would it take to falsify a theory that the other 99% believe in? One. How many would it take to falsify a theory that only 1% believe in? One. Hence, “consensus” is irrelevant. In other words, why then wouldn’t it take a consensus to over-turn a consensus?
        “What is your theory”? What is your verified cause-effect evidence that man’s emissions are warming the planet? Sorry, that comes first

    • david7134 says:

      Scientific consensus was used to justify the fact that cholesterol causes CAD. Yet it causes no disease. Diets lowering cholesterol actually cause CAD, but the “scientist” will not change their opinion. Statins do very little to effect CAD, but doctors are compelled to use them due to scientific opinion. Jeff worked for the main drug company that pushed the scientific opinion for their drug, which is virtually worthless.

      Scientific opinion and that pushed by Jeff all felt that the jab was essential to stop COVID. It did nothing and COVID was a mild disease if properly treated. But Fed organization prevented adequate treatment.

      Scientific opinion has been used to hold back almost all great movement in medicine and elsewhere.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        “dr” david is a certified liar who got rich from black Medicaid patients that he mocked as causing all their own problems by being lazy and stupid. He even said he used to conduct clinical studies for drug companies and would give them the results they wanted!!

        I’ve never worked on CAD and cholesterol but the consensus stands that statins reduce CAD. There is still debate if it’s an effect on serum cholesterol (and other lipids) and an anti-inflammatory effect. As “dr” david knows, statins DO reduce the size of atherosclerotic plaques and stabilize them (less friable, therefore less likely to disintegrate and plug heart, brain or lung microvasculature).

        “dr” david and his ilk opposed anti-Covid vaccines even though they vaccinated died at a much lower rate than the unvaccinated. Over a million Americans died from Covid.

        Like many hack pseudoscientists “dr” david refuse to conduct the hard work of research preferring to snipe at others.

        Please don’t address me again.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Rimjob (aka SMD) is a certified liar who sold stock in his company (Galera Therapeutics) pushing a therapeutic cancer treatment that didn’t work.
          Lost over $50M of other people’s money in less than 4 years.
          And he rants about others not doing the hard work of research and continues to cast aspersions onto others?

          Hypocrite much, fatso?

        • david7134 says:

          Once again, a liar.

          You asked why people are poor once, then somehow you extrapolated that to black people then to my black patients. Note, racist doctors do not see black patients and if I am seeing poor people, then that is usually a virtue.

          But I answered your question about the poor, but used another man’s words, a Senator of Rome 2200 years ago. You are so stupid you are unaware of that famous response.

  4. James Lewis says:

    Chicken Little Karen Man

    “Scientific consensus is nothing more than when a large majority of scientists in a field are of the same opinion on a particular topic.”

    You know, the Left sung 97% consensus even after it was shown that the numbers were lies.

    But tell me. Was the consensus in the mid forties that smoking was okay correct?

    And exactly how many of the “in crowd” know their is a lie.

    And the fact remains. Man Made Global Warming is a nice theory… But it isn’t “scientific”.

    “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]”

    Note that “predictive” word.

    And know that FL is not underwater…

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Chickenshit Lewis Man,

      The theory predicts that increased CO2 levels will cause warming.

      What is your theory of why it’s warming? Magic? Jesus? Volcanoes? Undetected heat rays from Alpha Centauri? Jewish Space Lasers?

      Or are the data on warming all faked?

      • James Lewis says:

        Chicken Little Karen Man

        If we accept that CO2 causes global warming then there is no prediction. I mean, it’s kinda like predicting that the sun will come up if the cock crows.

        The question then becomes what caused the increase during the 1000AD time frame. There was no use of oil or oil products. And don’t spout the old “it was just local weather” excuse. It has been discovered in Asia. Truly world wide.

        So what we have is a “theory” based on speculative science used for a “consensus” which is used to make money for various groups and give the Left “reason” to dictate what we can drive which will become “when”because the electrical infrastructure won’t support numerous EV cars.

        The thing is that IF the theory is real there is nothing the first world can do to correct the “problem.” The second and third worlds will not accept being kept in their current conditions since cheap energy gives them a way out.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Chickenshit Lewis Man,

          The theory is real – it’s just a theory. The evidence supports the theory.

          The theory predicts that as CO2 increases the temperature will as well.

          You demonstrate the “moving the goalposts” of the argument. It’s warming, the most likely cause is CO2… now your argument shifts to it’s just too difficult to “correct” the problem.

          That’s quite an admission. You object to the solutions.

          • david7134 says:

            Actually Jeff is wrong again. Certainly carbon is a greenhouse gas, but its concentration is only 0.04% and plants die at 0.02%. Now is carbon driving an increase in heat? NO. Because the increase in temp follows the rise in CO2. Then is it difficult to solve the problem? What problem. We only desire to know how taxes on western civilization will correct any issue in the liberal mind other than our destruction.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Actually mr david is wrong again. Certainly carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas with a concentration of 420 ppm and increasing. Carbon dioxide is driving an increase in heat.

            The increase in temperature follows the rise in CO2, just as mr david correctly claimed.

            The US and Europe have both cut CO2 emissions without raising taxes.

  5. david7134 says:

    Crichton was an MD and went through the the same rigorous studies for 8 years with subjects similar to the so called climate scientist, but much more rigorous. In one of his novels, forget which, he details all the studies on climate but looks at them with a critical eye and none hold up to scrutiny. Sure the world may be hotter, who cares. Looking at the data it is obvious the climate is changing just as it has for millions of years and it is not abnormally accelerating. A correlation with carbon has not even been correlated. Then the only solution offered is taxes, how does that solve a thing?

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Few medical doctors are trained as scientists.

      Crichton always wanted to be a writer and entered Harvard College majoring in English, had conflicts with department and changed his major to biological anthropology. He went to Harvard Medical and said he hated medical school. He never practiced medicine, but was a writer, publishing 4 novels under pseudonyms while in medical school!!

      Crichton was incredibly smart and a talented and popular novelist, but even smart guys can possess a blind eye.

      • david7134 says:

        You continually address me. And you lie. By your reckoning only those trained in a discipline can have an opinion or challenge an authority. There are few discussions here on drugs, so you can not render anything. You certainly can not claim to understand the education of an MD. A PhD in drugs just does not cut it. As to a blind, boy you are blind.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Galera Therapeutics Inc
          As of June 13, 2024 • 11:00 PM CDT

          It’s dead, Jim. Dead.

      • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

        You know everything about everybody don’t you Elwood? I mean you know all the cheaters and liars you know every crime every republican ever committed you know Crichton’ history his school records everything he did in school and the fact that he didn’t study medicine and just wrote books. You know everything. When you talk about somebody possessing a blind eye you should look in the damn mirror. You are one of the most close minded, stubborn, narcissistic individuals I’ve ever run across. You never admit you’re wrong, you never admit your errors you never admit anything that goes against what you believe. You are the perfect quintessential leftist Democrat communist. Everything they say you gobble up like manna from heaven and you never change your mind no matter how long you’ll prove it no matter how wrong they are.

        It’s funny just reading some of the nonsense that you print here

  6. Joe says:

    Will the scoring rules be compliant with Death Race 2000 ? Gluing themselves down lowers their point value.

  7. James Lewis says:

    Chicken Little Karen Man

    First, read this.

    (em>Ice core data shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels sometimes lag behind temperature changes by 600 to 1,000 years. This is because scientists can measure CO2 concentrations in tiny air bubbles trapped in ice thousands of years ago, and compare those readings with temperature data. For example, Antarctic ice cores show that at the end of recent ice ages, CO2 levels usually started to rise after temperatures had already begun to climb

    “sometimes lag” is a very powerful statement.

    Is that happening now? Doesn’t that put the theory that the current warming is caused by CO2 in limbo?

    Do you understand Popper’s “black swan” statement?

Pirate's Cove