I mean regarding legal consequences. But I suppose they probably faced none at all, Britain being what it is today (which is not much worthy to speak of).
the majas are in perfect condition. all people terribly outraged, asking to have their hands cut off and comparing these activists to ISIS, can go visit them during normal museum hours.
the spanish police is taking care of them. They knew what they were doing was a crime and they are going to pay the consequences determined by justice.
these activists have also demonstrated at repsol or iberdrola headquarters.
in europe, in ten years, we will have difficulty growing wheat.
I suppose you're referring to this:
Although, your claim is enough off from what is actually being predicted, that you may as well be making stuff up. Such a claim seems to be representative of the lack of credibility that Septentrionalis was referring to, which may be even more counterproductive than vandalizing works of art.This study shows that climate change may have a severe impact on the agricultural landscape as defined today. Indeed, the Iberian Peninsula is notorious for being both a major hot spot for climate change and a major region for rainfed wheat and barley cultivation. However, future changes in cereal production do not show a homogeneous behaviour along the peninsulas’ major farming regions. Indeed, there seems to be a dichotomous demeanour between wheat and barley outputs depending on the latitude they are planted. Severe yield losses are projected for both cereals in the southern region mainly due to the increase in maximum temperatures in spring, particularly when assuming the worst-case scenario of greenhouse gas concentration trajectory. On the other hand, wheat and barley situated further north in the Iberian Peninsula show an increase in yield, which may be linked with the warming of early winter months.
No, IPCC (United Nations) data.
Are you saying there will be no problem growing wheat for another thirty or forty years (instead of ten)? Are saying that that would turn these campaigns into self-defeating alarmism?
I'm saying that your claim appears to have been wrong about the projection in every way, not just the timeframe. Wheat yields are projected to decrease in some regions of Europe while increasing in others. If correct, this could certainly be disruptive and may be the first stage in more serious developments to follow, but that's no reason to spread disinformation. Coming across as ill-informed and/or dishonest is no way to persuade anyone to take the situation seriously.
I have not presented any dishonest information, any lie. the activists we are talking about are not being accused of lying, they are being lynched for some of the methods they use.
"I don't believe in climate change because there is no absolute consensus on the projections". I don't know rick, it seems to me that what really happens is that these people just don't care.
Last edited by mishkin; November 06, 2022 at 08:28 AM.
Whether a product of dishonesty or simply ill-informed hyperbole, the result of spreading misinformation is the same. I’m not particularly well-informed on the topic, yet I could spot the BS a mile away, which a quick search confirmed.
Referring to minor legal consequences that the activists no doubt expected to face as a lynching doesn’t do anything to resuscitate your credibility. Neither does your absurd strawman. But my point wasn’t really about you, I just used your nonsense claim to illustrate it. For how that ties back to the main topic of the thread, see post #13:
You are coming up with some utterly ridiculous claim that is not within the realm of possibility by any stretch of imagination (such as wheat farming no longer being viable in Europe in 10 years) and when people point out that you are wrong, you imply that they are climate change deniers. Do you not see anything wrong with that?
I don't understand where you get these projections of yours and how you fail to see how impossible they are. If there was a continent-wide crop failure right around the corner and mass starvation in Europe was a real risk from thereon out, our entire societies would be in full crisis mode.
Spain has had excellent years recently with wheat harvest. In the past 20 years, Finland has been producing twice as much wheat than in 1980s and 1990s. This year was the 6th best in history. There is nothing alarming about wheat production in union-level EU statistics.
Last edited by Septentrionalis; November 06, 2022 at 09:12 AM.
Granted. But what does difficulty in growing wheat in Europe mean if not crop failures? My prediction is that barring the wars, there will be no difficulty growing wheat in Europe. The typical cause of famine and crop failure in Europe has been the cold periods, not warm.
It is okay to admit that someone lied to you about the short-term effects of climate change. We didn't see the Arctic sea ice gone by 2014 either.
Young people believe on climatr change and human contribution to it. Theyre too young to be as cynical as me. Good on them for protesting sonething, its not as ridiculous as a lot of causes.
Theyre getting scorn now but also plenty of clicks. Maybe a cause needs opposition to jeep it strong?
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
If you are protesting climate change, then your target should be a politician, banker or an industrialist, who would at least be logically considered as a valid target for environmental protests as those are the people that contribute to climate change.
Instead, their goal was to destroy or severely damage a globally recognized work of art, which they thankfully failed at. That being aid, these people are dangerous loons and their movement is resembling characteristics of a cult.
I hope they get the book thrown at them.
Their intention was to damage it (hence why they used glue), lucky for humanity the perp was too stupid to realize it would be covered with glass.
These people are just attention-seeking idiots and their actions hurt the environmentalist causes.
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
Yeah and I'm sure there are people that prefer big macs to waigu steaks.
Still doesn't change the fact that perps are dangerous loons who only damaged their cause.
If you are upset over human impact on climate change, then go protest outside government officials house or some industrialists mansion. But these people are too cowardly to actually stand up to people with actual power, so they target museums instead.
Mishkin just pretty much indicated what is the underlying problem before HH posted. They get a lot of publicity by targeting works of art. The seeming lack of connection to climate and the outrage it causes only makes the effect more pronounced. And getting publicity is their aim. They might not get so much sympathy, though.
Those who are concerned with their moral integrity should not call people who make sacrifices cowards even if they disagree with their methods or goals. The few individuals who get their faces on every news outlet in the world instead of just protesting as a part of some mass of people are not cowards. They are likely to suffer all kinds of repercussions and not just legal ones. And they knew that going in.
Yeah, a month in jail or so for trying to ruin a globally recognized work of art isn't a major sacrifice.
Again, man-made impact against climate change has names and addresses. Protest them - in their offices, mansions, galas, etc. But those tend to have heavily armed security detail, so inanimate object in museums are an easy target. Yep, these activists are cowards.