They’re calling it “Science Rebellion”
Scientists Stage Worldwide Climate Change Protests After IPCC Report
Over 1,000 scientists from 25 different countries staged protests last week following the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s new report. The report warned that rapid and deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are necessary by 2025 to avoid catastrophic climate effects.
The group, called the Scientist Rebellion, writes in a letter that “current actions and plans are grossly inadequate, and even these obligations are not being met.” Their protests “highlight the urgency and injustice of the climate and ecological crisis,” per a statement from the organization. (snip)
Scientists historically have had differing opinions about becoming activists on topics related to their work, but that has started to change in recent years, reports Chelsea Harvey for E&E News. (snip)
Scientists around the world expressed similar fears during protests last week, and demanded rapid action to address climate change from their governments.
Scientist Rebellion protesters in Washington, D.C. chained themselves to the White House fence. Spanish scientists threw fake blood over the facade of the National Congress. Panamanian scientists staged demonstrations at various embassies, and German protesters glued themselves to a bridge. In Malawi, scientists held a teach-in at Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, per the Scientist Rebellion statement.
Well, this seems sane, right? They’ve given up scientific rationality for advocacy of a doomsday cult.
Did anyone in the media ask the scientists what changes they’ve made in their own lives to become carbon neutral? Probably not, especially since few actually covered this protest.
Another one and they really, really mean it this time.
Greta ain’t getting any younger.
#LosingTheNarrative
#OK,Groomer
Bwaha! Lolgf
A whole thousand? Wow – that’s (calculator noises) 1.5 one-hundred-thousandths of the population!
We should IMMEDIATELY conform to their wishes!
The news would be a lot more informative and useful if “journalists” had ANY grasp of numbers.
Then again, if they had this understanding, they’d be too smart to be journalists, wouldn’t they?
There. Fixed it for you.
What does “rapid and deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are necessary by 2025” mean? From the internally linked article:
Who here, who anywhere, believes that global greenhouse gas emissions can be cut by 43% by 2030?
62.5% of our electric generation capacity is through the burning of coal, natural gas and petroleum. Another 19% comes from nuclear power plants, which emit steam, water vapor, into the atmosphere, from their cooling towers. Add to that the greatly increased electricity demands that moving to plug-in electric vehicles would create.
Don’t worry about global warming, worry about global grooming…
Basically speaking, scientists, and other experts, are usually very naïve and dumb when it comes to things outside their field.