Thunberg victory

[The Todal]

From The Times today:

A judge threw out charges against Greta Thunberg and four other
activists after finding that police had attempted to impose “unlawful”
conditions during an environmental protest.

The Swedish climate change activist, 21, was arrested for demonstrating
outside the InterContinental London hotel on Park Lane on October 17,
where heads of the world’s largest oil and gas companies were gathering
for the annual Energy Intelligence Forum.

Thunberg, two Fossil Free London (FFL) protesters and two Greenpeace
activists had pleaded not guilty to breaching Section 14 of the Public
Order Act 1986, which allows the police to impose conditions on public
assemblies deemed necessary to prevent serious disruption.

District Judge John Law found that the condition placed on the
demonstration was “so unclear that it was unlawful” and that those who
did not comply committed no offence.

Law also found there was insufficient evidence that the protest was
causing serious disruption, as the entrance to the hotel had been
cleared by the time of the arrests, rendering the condition “unnecessary”.

unquote

It is gratifying to see that police incompetence and the bullying of
demonstrators will not be tolerated by our courts. I daresay the
government expects the police to protect the interests of the big oil
and gas companies, but the courts are still independent.

[JNugent]

On that last point, it's probably fair to say that the government
expects the police - and the courts - to protect the interests of
ordinary citizens who are trying to go about their lawful business and
who in doing so, commit no offences.

THEY are the victims.

Thunberg is a perp.

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message news:l25hev...@mid.individual.net...

Maybe for deniers,

quote:

Many issues that are settled in the scientific community, such as human
responsibility for global warming, remain the subject of politically or
economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them-
an ideological phenomenon academics and scientists call climate
change denial. Climate scientists, especially in the United States, have
reported government and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their
work

:unquote

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

Or are happy to leave it as something for their children or grandchildren
to worry about.

Whereas Thunberg is claiming that ALL of these "ordinary people" of
yours are going to be the victims;

Apart from some billionaires who've either managed to set up a colony on
the Moon - along with Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and hopefully Branson
or on an Island somewhere like James Bond villains.


bb



>

[The Todal]

quotes

“It is quite striking to me that there were no witness statements taken
from anyone in the hotel, approximately 1,000 people, or from anyone
trying to get in,” the district judge said. “There was no evidence of
any vehicles being impeded, no evidence of any interference with
emergency services, or any risk to life.”

The condition imposed on protesters to move to a nearby location was
“becoming increasingly garbled and confused as it was passed on from
officer to officer”, he continued, adding that protesters had also not
been given sufficient time to comply.

The officer who arrested Thunberg said he had told her to move to
“Piccadilly Place”, a location that does not exist in London.

[District Judge] Law said that the protest was “throughout peaceful,
civilised and non-violent” and criticised evidence provided by the
prosecution about the location of where the demonstrators should be
moved to, saying the only helpful footage he received was “made by an
abseiling protester”.

He added that “excellent soundproofing” had also “diminished the extent
of intrusion”.

The judge said he would grant defence lawyer Raj Chada’s request for the
government to pay his legal fees and Thunberg’s travel costs.

[JNugent]

On 03/02/2024 10:16 am, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message news:l25hev...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 02/02/2024 10:20 pm, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is gratifying to see that police incompetence and the bullying of demonstrators
>>> will not be tolerated by our courts. I daresay the government expects the police to
>>> protect the interests of the big oil and gas companies, but the courts are still
>>> independent.
>>
>> On that last point, it's probably fair to say that the government expects the police -
>> and the courts - to protect the interests of ordinary citizens who are trying to go
>> about their lawful business and who in doing so, commit no offences.
>>
>> THEY are the victims.
>>
>> Thunberg is a perp.
>
> Maybe for deniers,

What has that to do with anything?

You don't have to be a "climate denier" (whatever that might be) to
suffer harm when held in a four hour traffic jam on M25.

>
> quote:
>
> Many issues that are settled in the scientific community, such as human
> responsibility for global warming, remain the subject of politically or
> economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them-
> an ideological phenomenon academics and scientists call climate
> change denial. Climate scientists, especially in the United States, have
> reported government and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their
> work
>
> :unquote

So what?

That does not grant eco-loonies the right to commit criminal offences.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
>
> Or are happy to leave it as something for their children or grandchildren
> to worry about.
>
> Whereas Thunberg is claiming that ALL of these "ordinary people" of
> yours are going to be the victims;

It doesn't even matter whether she is wrong on that.

She does not have the right to commit offences against other people.

No-one does.

[kat]

Who didn't dare speak out because they would be berated by the mob in the
future, given the risk these days that could even be death threats.

approximately 1,000 people, or from anyone trying to get
> in,” the district judge said. “There was no evidence of any vehicles being
> impeded, no evidence of any interference with emergency services, or any risk to
> life.”

Lucky there was no need?

>
> The condition imposed on protesters to move to a nearby location was “becoming
> increasingly garbled and confused as it was passed on from officer to officer”,
> he continued, adding that protesters had also not been given sufficient time to
> comply.
>
> The officer who arrested Thunberg said he had told her to move to “Piccadilly
> Place”, a location that does not exist in London.
>
> [District Judge] Law said that the protest was “throughout peaceful, civilised
> and non-violent” and criticised evidence provided by the prosecution about the
> location of where the demonstrators should be moved to, saying the only helpful
> footage he received was “made by an abseiling protester”.

Evidence from someone who was abseiling down a building he should not have been on?

>
> He added that “excellent soundproofing” had also “diminished the extent of
> intrusion”.

For people who didn't dare leave?

Just an alternative way of looking at it.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Spike]

billy bookcase <bi...@anon.com> wrote:
> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message news:l25hev...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 02/02/2024 10:20 pm, The Todal wrote:

>>> It is gratifying to see that police incompetence and the bullying of demonstrators
>>> will not be tolerated by our courts. I daresay the government expects the police to
>>> protect the interests of the big oil and gas companies, but the courts are still
>>> independent.

>> On that last point, it's probably fair to say that the government expects the police -
>> and the courts - to protect the interests of ordinary citizens who are trying to go
>> about their lawful business and who in doing so, commit no offences.

>> THEY are the victims.

>> Thunberg is a perp.

> Maybe for deniers

Maybe not…

> quote:

> Many issues that are settled in the scientific community, such as human
> responsibility for global warming

The whole of the CO2 hypothesis rests on a relationship between changes in
CO2 concentrations and the resulting changes in temperature.

The relationship is credited to Arrhenius, but when you read his paper on
the subject, he uses work previously published by Lambert, who used an
empirical relationship to explain the relationship between the two. This
empirical relationship has never been proved, it was merely a convenience
employed by Lambert, and, I believe, one that operated over a very limited
range.

You can find the relationship in IPCC documents, but it is buried in a
footnote in a research paper, and is never quoted in documents published
for either
decision makers or the general public.

Even with this unproved relationship, the value of the constant in the
equation giving deltaT from the CO2 concentration has been steadily reduced
from about 5.6 to its current value of 1.43, down by almost three-quarters.

It certainly does *not* look like ‘the science is settled’.

> remain the subject of politically or
> economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them-
> an ideological phenomenon academics and scientists call climate
> change denial. Climate scientists, especially in the United States, have
> reported government and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their
> work
>
> :unquote
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
>
> Or are happy to leave it as something for their children or grandchildren
> to worry about.
>
> Whereas Thunberg is claiming that ALL of these "ordinary people" of
> yours are going to be the victims;

The Maldives were forecast to be under water by 2015. How did that work
out?

> Apart from some billionaires who've either managed to set up a colony on
> the Moon - along with Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and hopefully Branson
> or on an Island somewhere like James Bond villains.

--
Spike

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message news:l26rua...@mid.individual.net...

> On 03/02/2024 10:16 am, billy bookcase wrote:
>>
>> Whereas Thunberg is claiming that ALL of these "ordinary people" of
>> yours are going to be the victims;
>
> It doesn't even matter whether she is wrong on that.
>
> She does not have the right to commit offences against other people.

But if as you say it doesn't even matter if she is wrong on that, i.e. you
admit that she could be right, that all these "ordinary" people are going to
be victims, then who gives those responsible for creating all these future victims,
the "right" to commit *that* offence either ?

The point being that once they've committed their offence it will probably
be a bit late to do anything about it anyway, Not even to hold any Public
enquiry.

If as you admit, that Thunberg could be right, then she could well argue
that she was simply performing her civic duty by doing all she could to
prevent her fellow citizens, from future harm.


bb

[billy bookcase]

"Spike" <aero....@mail.com> wrote in message news:l26uff...@mid.individual.net...

>
> The Maldives were forecast to be under water by 2015. How did that work
> out?

By whom ?


bb

[David McNeish]

But she hasn't committed any offences? That's rather the point of the
story. She was going about her lawful business, if you will.

[JNugent]

So what?

Thunberg is still a perp and not a victim.

Ordinary people seeking to go about their lawful business, lawfully, but
being prevented from doing so, are the victims.

[nick]

Great name for a judge, though.
Almost as good as Judge Judge

Nick

[JNugent]

Oh, what's the latest prophecy for the Maldives?

Has it been amended?

[JNugent]

The victims won't see it like that.

[Spike]

JNugent <jnug...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 03/02/2024 06:34 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

>> "Spike" <aero....@mail.com> wrote:

>>> The Maldives were forecast to be under water by 2015. How did that work out?

>> By whom ?

> Oh, what's the latest prophecy for the Maldives?

> Has it been amended?

In the usual manner of climate believers and alarmists, the date for
flooding of the Maldives has been pushed back to the latter half of this
century, the original forecast (by the French in a 1988 report) of 2015
having passed without being fulfilled. In the mean time, the land area of
those islands has increased, as anyone with skill in using a search engine
can discover for themselves.

That French report was remarkable, not for its lack of fulfilment, but that
it followed possibly two decades of forecasts of an imminent ice-age.
Presumably the narrative changed to ‘global warming’ when it was realised
that the latter offered far more money-making opportunities than the
former.

--
Spike

[billy bookcase]

"Spike" <aero....@mail.com> wrote in message news:l293t2...@mid.individual.net...

> JNugent <jnug...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/02/2024 06:34 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "Spike" <aero....@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The Maldives were forecast to be under water by 2015. How did that work out?
>
>>> By whom ?
>
>> Oh, what's the latest prophecy for the Maldives?
>
>> Has it been amended?
>
> In the usual manner of climate believers and alarmists, the date for
> flooding of the Maldives has been pushed back to the latter half of this
> century, the original forecast (by the French in a 1988 report) of 2015

Link ?

I don'[t doubt there is one, the US and UK not enjoying a monopoly on
crackpots.

Only I can't find it.


bb

[Spike]

This was published by NASA a year ago:

QUOTE
Summary: The Republic of the Maldives is a low-lying island nation in the
Indian Ocean which has experienced rapid urbanization, landcover changes,
and sea level rise over recent years. The growth of tourism, coastal
erosion, and urbanization all have driven land reclamation efforts across
many islands. As in situ landcover change monitoring has proven difficult
across the vast archipelago, the NASA DEVELOP team collaborated with the
Maldives Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, and Technology; USAID;
and the U.S. Department of State to utilize Earth observations to predict
sea level rise impacts on coastal infrastructure. The team used a
supervised classification algorithm within Google Earth Engine to create
land use maps and time series analyses of nine islands and atolls using
imagery from Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus, Landsat 8 Operational
Land Imager, Sentinel-2 Multispectral Instrument, and PlanetScope, covering
a combined period of 2000 through 2023. Additionally, the team projected
coastal inundation with a modified deterministic Bathtub model utilizing
elevation data from CoastalDEM and 2050-2100 Shared Socioeconomic Pathway
scenarios identified in the NASA Sea Level Rise Projection Tool. The team
found that islands undergoing urban growth experienced a 23% decrease in
vegetation between 2014 and 2022. Furthermore, the model predicted that
57–63% of the study area’s built environment has a chance of inundation by
2100 under the low and high sea level scenarios.
ENDQUOTE

Which fits quite well the mention of the flooding of the Maldives being
pushed back to the latter half of this century.

--
Spike

[Adam Funk]

On 2024-02-03, billy bookcase wrote:

>
> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message news:l25hev...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 02/02/2024 10:20 pm, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is gratifying to see that police incompetence and the bullying of demonstrators
>>> will not be tolerated by our courts. I daresay the government expects the police to
>>> protect the interests of the big oil and gas companies, but the courts are still
>>> independent.
>>
>> On that last point, it's probably fair to say that the government expects the police -
>> and the courts - to protect the interests of ordinary citizens who are trying to go
>> about their lawful business and who in doing so, commit no offences.
>>
>> THEY are the victims.
>>
>> Thunberg is a perp.
>
> Maybe for deniers,
>
> quote:
>
> Many issues that are settled in the scientific community, such as human
> responsibility for global warming, remain the subject of politically or
> economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them-
> an ideological phenomenon academics and scientists call climate
> change denial. Climate scientists, especially in the United States, have
> reported government and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their
> work
>
>:unquote
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

I listened to a good podcast recently about "Weaponizing Uncertainty".

<https://www.vox.com/unexplainable>
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ws-znsx7zChWr-Hrx_D2kMT5rSnStvFOZhdmU-LAnow/edit#heading=h.6mizxwtjqtdz>

In particular, it discussed the way oil companies have been
undermining public understanding of the science, including by abusing
journalists into giving "equal time" to the small minority of denier
scientists to make people think it's still up in the air.

[Spike]

My understanding of the underlying science of anthropogenic climate change
is based on the following, which has nothing to do with oil companies
undermining anything. So far, no-one has managed to refute it, perhaps
because they simply don’t understand such science so prefer to ignore it:

The whole of the CO2 hypothesis rests on a relationship between changes in
CO2 concentrations and the resulting changes in temperature.

The relationship is credited to Arrhenius, but when you read his paper on

the subject, he referred to work previously published by Lambert, who used

an empirical relationship to explain the relationship between the two. This
empirical relationship has never been proved, it was merely a convenience
employed by Lambert, and, I believe, one that operated over a very limited
range.

You can find the relationship in IPCC documents, but it is buried in a
footnote in a research paper, and is never quoted in documents published
for either
decision makers or the general public.

Even with this unproved relationship, the value of the constant in the
equation giving deltaT from the CO2 concentration has been steadily reduced

from about 5.6 to its current value of 1.43, down by almost three-quarters,
perhaps one reason why climate alarmists have steadily wound their necks in
from early forecasts of 4.0+degC of warming to the current hysteria of
1.5degC.

It certainly does *not* look like ‘the science is settled’.

--
Spike

[Roger Hayter]

(Ignoring for a moment the particular topic of this protest), so your
proposition is that the only legitimate behaviour of ordinary people is a
Stahkanovite dedication to a brisk arrival at work and supporting the State by
production and daily loyalty oaths? By definition, those who join political
protests are not "ordinary people" but "perpetrators" and ordinary people
relinquish that status whenever they might choose to protest against their
government? Because political protests will "always" cause inconvenience to
ordinary people if only "ordinary" police or "ordinary" politicians.

So no "ordinary" person will protest because they will inconvenience others
and become a criminal.

Had your worthy proposition been firmly enforced by the Soviet Communist Party
then we would still have the Soviet Union.

--
Roger Hayter

[JNugent]

No, sir, it is not (and that was obvious).

Next question.

> By definition, those who join political
> protests are not "ordinary people" but "perpetrators" and ordinary people
> relinquish that status whenever they might choose to protest against their
> government?

No.

Protest - that is, mere protest - certainly does *not* have to
inconvenience, delay or otherwise harm innocent persons who are simply
living their lives and going about their lawful business, whether that
involves journeys to work, schools, hospitals or anything else.

You can protest by writing to the press or other media. You can write to
your MP or even visit that person at their local surgery or lobby
him/her at the House of Commons. You can go to see, or otherwise
contact, your local councillor. You can enlist the aid of your trade
union. There are many ways to protest without harming innocent others.

That is the *correct* meaning of "protest": making your views known when
opposing something you don't like (but always bear in mind that not
everyone will share your views on the matter and that you have no
God-given right to prevail and even less to cause them harm).

> Because political protests will "always" cause inconvenience to
> ordinary people if only "ordinary" police or "ordinary" politicians.

It doesn't inconvenience me if you write to the Guardian. Or the Radio
Times. Or send an email to your MP. I would encourage you to protest all
you like by... er... protesting in a way that does not harm me or anyone
else. You have NO right to do that. And if the situations were reversed
you'd be saying the same thing (not that I would attempt to harm others).

>
> So no "ordinary" person will protest because they will inconvenience others
> and become a criminal.

IF they harm others or otherwise break laws as a part of their protest,
they ARE criminals. That's the way that law works. There should be no
need to point that out here, of all places.

>
> Had your worthy proposition been firmly enforced by the Soviet Communist Party
> then we would still have the Soviet Union.

That is nonsense. The Soviet Union was not brought down by popular
protest. It collapsed of its own accord because of the inherent
contradictions within the "system" of socialism.

But citing the Soviet Union and its internal politics is what we call
"scraping the barrel". Isn't it?

[kat]

Work? What about urgent hospital appointments. What about getting to your
child's funeral? What about emergency vehicles - I suppose it is far better for
the world if my house burns down while our government is persuaded to cover the
fields in solar panels and windmills ( and China builds more and more coal fired
generators ) but somehow I find that "inconvenient".

There is no need to cause people inconvenience while demonstrating. Apart from
anything else it tends not to help the cause.
--
kat
>^..^<

[Sam Plusnet]

I think they learned all these tactics from the Tobacco Lobby - and have
improved on them.

I'm surprised at the number of people who will happily accept
"These scientists make stuff up because it keeps them in a job."
yet somehow overlook the vested interests of the large, well funded,
organisations which are impacted by the changes being made to reduce
anthropogenic damage to the environment.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Les. Hayward]

On 06/02/2024 20:25, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> I'm surprised at the number of people who will happily accept
> "These scientists make stuff up because it keeps them in a job."
> yet somehow overlook the vested interests of the large, well funded,
> organisations which are impacted by the changes being made to reduce
> anthropogenic damage to the environment.
>

I doubt that many people would 'deny' that the climate is changing -
after all, it constantly does. Many might also accept that less than
desirable actions may have influenced that change, however many fewer
people would accept that all of the (sometimes crazy) ideas promulgated
in order to redress the effects are likely to make the slightest
difference and in some cases, would make things worse for all.

A degree is not required to make this simple observation.

[Adam Funk]

"More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette!"

> I'm surprised at the number of people who will happily accept
> "These scientists make stuff up because it keeps them in a job."
> yet somehow overlook the vested interests of the large, well funded,
> organisations which are impacted by the changes being made to reduce
> anthropogenic damage to the environment.

Yes, and when the media put scientists in front of the public they
should have to disclose any industry funding or employment.

It would be interesting to see a 2x2 table breaking scientists down by
climate change acceptance or denial and by whether or not they get any
money from fossil fuel industries.