environment

Activists say their voices are stifled by increasing rules and restrictions at COP28 climate talks

27 Comments
By LUJAIN JO and SIBI ARASU

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


27 Comments
Login to comment

Shouldn’t the activists be protesting on Zoom instead of flying to Dubai?

How exactly do you think that would work? There is an argument about discussion being made remotely when everybody is actively trying to hear what others have to say, but protests? that makes no sense, the whole point is to force people to hear things when people are trying to get those voices silenced.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Reputations earned by some are affecting the welcome that all protestors receive. Evidenced even today, and reported by Reuters, when Activists poured mud and chocolate milk on the facade of St. Mark's Basilica in Venice. Prompting the mayor to angerly condemn the protest as “shameful" and a "serious act of vandalism." As similar acts have happened in multiple locations in multiple countries, can the caution of this nation's authorities be seriously critized?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

hello activists did you go there by feet?

reply is noooo...cars,planes,boats-all using fossil fuels but wait we want to save our planet...

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

The denial of the climate crisis is stupid and suicidal. Our knowledge of physics and system theory tells us that in the wake of the inputs inserted by humans the climate system has become nonlinear and unstable. This system is full of malignant positive feedback loops that push it away from equilibrium. There are no stabilizing mechanisms whatsoever that can keep the climate system in equilibrium. But there is no need to be an expert: The rapid rise in temperature and humidity is visible to the naked eye. The catastrophic loss of our planet and the ultimate extermination of humanity are very near. There may still be a remedy: Getting out from energizing ourselves from carbon, and moving on to a new era of energizing ourselves from the sun's radiation and from heavy nuclei. That is easy to do, and should have been done a long time ago. However, there are powerful social forces that fight vehemently against this simple and obvious cure and against the attempt to salvage the planet and the human race. These enemies of the planet claim that moving to modern transportation based on electricity will ruin our society. These devils do not explain how can the usage of efficient, high performance and enjoyable electric cars ruin our society? And what society will remain when the temperature rises to hundreds of degrees Celsius and all the oceans boil and become steam?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

And what society will remain when the temperature rises to hundreds of degrees Celsius and all the oceans boil and become steam?

That part doesn't make any sense, maybe remove it from your comment template? (I'm amazed that none of the moderators noticed you have been copy&pasting this, unmodified, for weeks now.)

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Roy, you say that an element of my comment does not make sense to you, and you demand that I remove it. However, you do not refute my statement, and you do not substantiate your claim that my statement does not make sense.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Roy, I cannot modify my message, because it is true. Would it help you if I modify my wording?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

you say that an element of my comment does not make sense to you

Not only to me, it does not make sense, period. Global warming will not lead to a temperature of "hundreds of degrees celsius" and "oceans boiling and becoming steam". It's bad enough if temperatures rise by a few singular degrees. You devalue your other arguments by ending with hyperbole fiction.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Roy, you claim that greenhouse process will not lead to a temperature of hundreds of degrees Celsius and to the boiling of the oceans. What is the basis for your claim?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

you claim that greenhouse process will not lead to a temperature of hundreds of degrees Celsius and to the boiling of the oceans.

No, I denied your claim that it does.

What is the basis for your claim?

Onus probandi: The burden of proof lies with you having made the claim, not with me having denied it.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Roy, the rule is onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. Hence, it is your right to demand from me to substantiate my statement. However, if you just claim that my statement is a hyperbole, without challenging me to substantiate it, then your claim is void.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

if you just claim that my statement is a hyperbole, without challenging me to substantiate it

Then, unless you substantiate it, it stands denied. Whether or not you see my denial as a prompt for substantiation is not my concern, and neither is your attempt to introduce arbitrary "rules of argumentative engagement".

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Here is the substantiation of my statement that the greenhouse process will cause the temperature to rise to hundreds of degrees Celsius and to the boiling of the oceans. Actually I state further that this will happen very rapidly. The inputs inserted by humans have triggered several positive feedback loops in the climate system. But even a single such loop is enough to be malignant. One loop which is embodied in the climate system is the temperature-humidity loop: The rise of the temperature causes a rise of the humidity and vice versa – the rise of the humidity causes a rise of the temperature. What is the nature of any unstable system driven by a positive feedback? The system "escapes" from equilibrium fast, until it reaches some saturation. Consider a sound amplification system whose output is fed back to the input: You hear a loud squeak, which is saturated only when the power supply reaches its limit. The climate system will saturate only when all the water in the oceans become steam. Our sister planet, Venus, has undergone this process exactly. Venus used to be a cool planet with oceans. Now it is a fiery and barren gyroscope which rotates around the sun without any purpose.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

One loop which is embodied in the climate system is the temperature-humidity loop

You are mixing up water vapor feedback with the runaway greenhouse effect.

Water vapor feedback is relevant, but "only" doubles the temperature increase caused by carbon dioxide.

However, a runaway greenhouse effect like on Venus (your "boiling of oceans" scenario) is not possible on Earth. Even if we burnt all available fossil fuels on earth we would, by far, not reach the necessary carbon dioxide saturation in the atmosphere.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Roy, the carbon gases are only the trigger. They only provide the initial ignition to the vicious cycle. This is the meaning of a nonlinear system: A small input causes a large change of state.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Roy, why do you insist so much on using your petrolium wagon when you can enjoy a modern electric vehicle?

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

This is the meaning of a nonlinear system: A small input causes a large change of state.

Please read up on the physics of the runaway greenhouse effect. There are prerequisites that Earth cannot meet.

why do you insist so much on using your petrolium wagon when you can enjoy a modern electric vehicle?

I do not own and have no necessity for a car. I am also not a climate change denialist, and I reject your attempt at painting me as one.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I haven't owned a car since 1979. How much gas have I saved?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

 How much gas have I saved?

Where are you keeping it and what are you saving it for?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

gcFd1

    How much gas have I saved?

> Where are you keeping it and what are you saving it for?

You tell me. How much gas does your SUV use per year times 44 years. This adds up to some that I didn't burn polluting the environment. How many dollars did I save?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Shouldn’t the activists be protesting on Zoom instead of flying to Dubai?

Shouldn’t they screen share their placards instead of using real paper which killed a tree.

Practice what you preach.

Valid points.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

You tell me.

Ok--you haven't saved any gas, obviously.

How much gas does your SUV use per year times 44 years.

You tell me--in 44 years.

This adds up to some that I didn't burn polluting the environment. How many dollars did I save?

You saved zero.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

gcFd1

You saved zero.

I didn't buy 44 years of gas. I didn't buy 44 years of insurance. I didn't have to pay for vehicle maintenance. I didn't have to buy 10 new models. I used all those saved bucks for other items.

I didn't pollute the atmosphere as much as you SUV drivers.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Valid points

Still completely invalid, how can a protest can be held on a medium that can make ignoring them even automatic? The argument that refutes the points is still there and you did not argue against it.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

I didn't buy 44 years of gas.

So. You bought other things I didn't buy. It all evens out.

I didn't have to buy 10 new models.

Me either. We share a lot in common.

I used all those saved bucks for other items.

See? You admit you didn't save anything,

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

So true.

Incorrect grammar, illogical sequencing of random words.

Result--in kind words, no meaning.

So, no arguments about the contents of the topic, just empty criticism about how other people write things not according to your liking? Again, for other people the comments are perfectly fine.

These comments you make just trying to make people write only what you want to read are still against the rules, no matter how many times you keep doing it.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites