Carry on Camping

Camped down and ready to take on RBS

CLIMATE-change activists gathering in Edinburgh for a four day-day protest last night vowed to "shut down" the Royal Bank of Scotland after setting up camp at the firm's HQ.

Yeah, because climate change is an environmental issue and absolutely nothing to do with socialists and the left in general!
Lets have a look at what these people are planning to do on their world saving crusade shall we?

An RBS source said they had been using bolt cutters to try to cut padlocks on security bollards.

Why are they trying to cut padlocks on bollards? Surely not to allow their cars and vans access to the land? Land, by the way, which is owned by the bank. So they don't have any problem with setting up a protest on land which is not public. And about those cars? What's the carbon footprint of this protest. I hope to hear it's fully carbon neutral (don't hold your breath though).
Because it's a 'green' protest the bank seem to be ignoring this issue and are allowing them to protest. I wonder if I would be able to protest about their bail out money on that land without having my collar felt? If you read the article you'll also see that the bank are closing the nursery in the grounds to 'ensure the children's safety'. I doubt that the eco-warriors would be a threat to any kids and so this is grandstanding a wee bit, but this likely means staff who have their kids in the nursery (and any non-staff parents) will be inconvenienced by these people choosing to protest here. Why not protest on public land near the bank?
Then there's the choice quotes:

"We want to make a big scene, cause RBS to lose money. You might be looking at what we've done to RBS before - getting in the building, locking ourselves in, superglueing ourselves together, disrupting them."
-
"We are looking at peaceful protest and everything with the police is fine so far. But we hope from the police's point of view they'll be keeping themselves peaceful throughout as we've had bad experiences with them at the G20 and Kingsnorth power station protest in Kent."
-
"It is not our intention to put anyone in danger. When we have to break the law to make our point about RBS it will not be done in a destructive way. RBS is part of the problem, not the solution, there is no point in talking to them"

Then there's this idea that the police are 'fine so far' with a veiled threat that if the police then try to enforce the law they'll squeal like children and insist that they're victims of police brutality.
OK, so the stated aim is to cause a bank to lose money. So far so left-wing. As for that 'getting in the building, locking ourselves in', again - would I be able to protest in that way? I'd be lifted for trying to rob a bank! It seems that you can do anything you like as long as it's to save the planet.
The next quote above tells us that they'll break the law, but not in a destructive way. So that's OK then. Next time I steal a car I'll make sure I don't do any damage and then plod can just supervise me doing it. Save everyone a load of trouble.
The last line is the kicker. 'There's no point in talking to them'. In other words, since banks and business are part of the problem it is that which must be taken down. Classic lefty arguments. I dunno where they think the lifestyle that allows them to protest against the system will come from under socialism, what I do know is that every single socialist state we've ever seen has been brutal in suppressing dissent. Of any kind.
Funnily enough, the protesters have a 'non-hierarchical' setup (very Monty Python), yet manage to organise monthly gatherings (who does this) and have managed to appoint a 'media team' including the lovely Natalie Swift who is the source of the third quote above.
A lot of these people are the same ones who got away with breaking into Kingsnorth, the judge who felt they were OK to do that as they had their hearts in the right place is likely feeling very proud.
So it seems that we have a bunch of activists, spouting the same anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist, anti G20, in fact anti-everything that allows them their self-indulgent western lifestyle tagging themselves onto climate change. But, hey, climate change is not a left-wing issue. Give me strength. There's nothing I have seen in years of reading up on and following the news on this particular issue that has told me that there is a catastrophe waiting to happen. But it's a convenient catch all that makes plants grow more (and less), snow fall more (and less) and, well you get the picture, we have a science full of uncertainty that we don't yet fully understand but the scientists decided, for reasons I don't fully understand to claim had very little uncertainty. Before we allow the world to reorganise itself along the same lines as Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro I'd quite like to see something more than computer generated scenarios and studies that return so many conflicting results.

Looks like the scare is over; what's the next one?

That global warming meme seems to be dying now. Good. Hope you never put too much stock in it, this time next year it'll be like bird flu.

Might mean you'll feel a bit daft for having bought into it, but it's OK, you're most likely a socialist anyway and so you'll have plenty of experience of being wrong. Now, leave the rest of us alone ya nutters.

Making it up as they go along

or are they? The BBC's Michelle Roberts - Health Reporter says this (my emphasis):

Climate change 'will increase heart deaths'

Many more people will die of heart problems as global warming continues, experts are warning.

Climate extremes of hot and cold will become more common and this will puts [sic] strain on people's hearts, doctors say.

Except it's not what the report says at all, the report says a 2.0% increase in heart attack risk is attributable only to 1C drops in temperature and even better it specifically says:

Conclusions Increases in risk of myocardial infarction at colder ambient temperatures may be one driver of cold related increases in overall mortality, but an increased risk of myocardial infarction at higher temperatures was not detected. The risk of myocardial infarction in vulnerable people might be reduced by the provision of targeted advice or other interventions, triggered by forecasts of lower temperature.

So the usual alarmist note is taken, so caught up is our intrepid reportrer in her assignation of anything that is available to that modern catch-all 'climate change' that she is either blithely ignoring the referenced article she is reporting on, or she is well aware that a guaranteed byline is available on surely the world's top alarmist source (sorry Guardian) if those two dog-whistle words are in the copy.

I wont blame her completely for this blatant misreporting of what the study says, she does, after all, manage to find an accompanying piece on the BMJ site 'Temperature changes and the risk of cardiac events' where Paola Michelozzi, head of environmental epidemiology unit, Manuela De Sario, epidemiologist manage to perform the heroic task of making sure anything bad that can happen manages to have some climate stakeholder claim.

Climate change is a concern in many regions of the world where extreme hot and cold temperatures may affect people with cardiovascular diseases and increase the incidence of coronary events. The impact may be greater in areas with inequalities in the access to medical services.1

In the linked study (doi:10.1136/bmj.c3823), Bhaskaran and colleagues assessed the effect of temperature on the risk of myocardial infarction and other acute coronary syndromes2; they performed a time series analysis across 15 conurbations in England and Wales using clinically confirmed hospital admissions data. They found that each 1°C reduction in daily mean temperature was associated with a 2.0% (95% CI 1.1% to 2.9%) cumulative increase in the risk of myocardial infarction for 28 days; the highest risk was within two weeks of exposure. They found no association at higher temperatures.

So fair does, she's parroting a line that's been parroted onto a report which had nothing at all to do with rising temperatures. But it's a nice insight into the mindset - people wont respond to articles about climate change that don't mention heat so make sure that heat is also bigged up and scare tactics applied.

Is there a point to this? I think there is. I don't think this is sloppy reporting, I think it's desperation to add a bogeyman onto any story, no matter how tenuous the link. I don't doubt that if climate change was instead a fear about fuel shortages the article would have been skewered accordingly. And, to me this is what is so wrong about the whole thing, the alarmist nature of so many of the scientific advocates, journalists and politicians points to a problem that no one knows the actual outcomes but have vested interests (research grants, tax increases, environmental political goals and selling copy) and so will always push the worst (or worse!) case scenarios.

Either that or they really think the report said 'hot and cold' temps will increase heart attack risk and they want us all to live in hermetically sealed, air conditioned (irony alert) rooms kept at a perfect temp for optimal heart performance.