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.

Full moon tonight?

Reject sceptics' attempts to derail global climate deal, UN chief urges
Ban Ki-moon urges environment ministers to reject attempts by sceptics to undermine negotiations by exaggerating shortcomings in Himalayan glaciers report.

"Tell the world that you unanimously agree that climate change is a clear and present danger," Ban said.

These are the same faces who less than three months ago couldn't bring themselves to agree on what to do about this 'clear and present danger' at Copenhagen. Some thought we should spend 1% of the GDP of the 'west' on the climate protection of the 'developing world', while others felt that was an empty gesture and we should do more. Still others wanted assurances that this spending was guaranteed to be on top of other aid projects and not instead of.

When you have so many people arguing over what's in it for them it's not really surprising that they can't manage to agree to save the world.

There are the western leaders who pontificate about the subject every day. They've even started denigrating their own populations, calling anyone who disagrees with them flat-earthers, deniers and deluded. They all seem to have their own projects that will raise money, from us, for pie in the sky schemes that will likely see every taxpayer in their country paying more and more. Most of us are already taxed at the 50% mark already. But they will never commit to the demands of the developing world.
It seems to me that politicians in the west just want to raise more tax from us in a way that lets them do it with the least resistance, every single true believer I hear demands that we are taxed more to pay to save the world from a 2C rise in average global temperatures. I'm very wary of anyone who wants me to pay for their beliefs.

Meanwhile the developing world eye this greedily. And they are right to, they can see EU, Canadian, Aussie and US politicians parroting the same lines over and over. They are right to believe they are entitled to a slice of the pie. They say 600 billion a year, the west says maybe 40 and in between the UN thinks they should meet in the middle.

That's why true believers are quite happy to make noises about forcing through policy changes without the consent of the people. They know the politicians are using their hobby horse as a tool to force tax policies in. They know they have no hope of ever convincing the majority of opinion. They really only have one avenue they can go through. Tthe UN, with all it's corruption just happens to be their best hope for changing the world. It's no surprise that the most militant warmists also regularly shout off about social justice and anti-capitalist politics.

As that article above shows in it's punchline: "It should have been urgent last year, but we didn't live up to that urgency", they've got no chance with politicians.