XR A lawn unto themselves | The Mallen Baker Show

in this roundup of the week, Extinction
Rebellion protests against damage to the environment by damaging the environment,
a study suggests that the contribution to methane levels from fossil fuels is
higher than previously thought, and the US Republicans’ climate plan gets push
back from some of its own people as the latest Democratic candidates’ debate
makes a Trump second term more likely. My name is Mallen Baker, this is the Mallen
Baker Show for change makers. Last year I did a video titled ‘the world’s dumbest
climate action’ which was talking about the Extinction Rebellion action at the
Canning Town tube station where they alienated ordinary people in a significant
way and woke up the next day to a sinking realization that they’d scored a
massive own goal a known goal against the cause that they most care about. Well
this week we saw Extinction Rebellion in the news once again, this time in Cambridge
where, in order to protest against climate change, they committed vandalism
against the lawn of Trinity College. Because nothing quite protests against
damage to the environment like destroying some grass, apparently. They then took
some of a soil from the scene of the crime and dumped it at a nearby branch of
Barclays Bank. So that showed them. As you might expect this got a sizable kickback
from a lot of people including amongst people that I know who are generally
supporters. Not only were people professing their astonishment at the
type of action they’d taken part in but also expressing real frustration,
even rage, that the Cambridge Police had apparently just sat around and allowed
them to carry on with what by any definition of the law is criminal damage.
So did extinction rebellion wake up in the morning, hold their head in their
hands and realize it just scored a massive own-goal? Heck no! Here’s a poll
that was held on the Extinction Rebellion Facebook discussion page. Should XR dig up lawns as an act of climate activism? ‘Yes, more please’ got by far the most votes. ‘Yes, if a message is made clear’ got the next most,
which is another way of saying ‘yes’, ‘Only if replanting with wild
plants’ came next, which is just ridiculous, as we know putting wild plants
onto a lawn has been treated with selective weed killer isn’t anything
other than the flimsiest fig leaf which actually results in destroying a lawn
and killing a bunch of wild flowers as well. And commonsensical straight forward ‘never’ got just a humble nine votes. So absolutely no self-awareness there, no
sense of campaign savvy with regard to what actually makes for an effective way
to promote a certain message. And in discussion, what a number of people
basically said was but it was all justified because if you do nice things
then nobody pays any attention. As a justification for doing stupid actions
of destruction for alienate people from your cause, that is a pretty dumb one. Hey!
Let’s go around getting support for our cause by slapping people in the face!
Sure, it’ll be controversial but it’ll definitely be noticed and that means
more people will support us, right? Wrong. One commentator said this: “I think
psychologically it’s useful for XR rebels to prepare themselves for the
inevitable resistance and criticism. In some ways, it means that we’re doing
things right. We are trying to go against the dominant culture. We are trying to
take away the things that our luxurious and planet-destroying western lifestyle
gives us. Yes, resistance is indeed inevitable when you do dumb stuff that is
destructive and pointless. It doesn’t, however, mean that you’re doing things
right. All it means is that you’re creating conflict. Conflict is neutral as
to right or wrong and there are lots of ways to create conflict. To simply buy
into the simplistic notion that if we’re successful they will fight back – you’re
looking at things way too much within your own bubble and that’s getting in the
way of you interpreting the dynamics of what’s really going on.
Another comment said this: “On the ‘vandalism’ of digging up the lawn of a
posh college and putting some of the dirt in a bank, this is nothing compared
to vandalism of an economic system that is literally destroying the actual
planet that we live on’ So vandalism is fine if we targeting
‘posh’ targets is it? And these are the people who
say there’s nothing left wing about Extinction Rebellion. But of course this
general argument is the one that we hear over and over again. “if you think this is
bad, climate catastrophe will be worse” And it’s something that can be used to
justify any stupidity you care to name. And it could, in the hands of real
extremists, ultimately be used to justify violence of all sorts because if you’ve
convinced yourself that because of climate change ‘billions will die’, sooner
or later someone will be saying “yes a hundred people died when we downed that
airplane but that is nothing compared to the number that will die”. Same principle.
And then guess what – at some point it turns out the billions are not going to die.
Oops! “Well, we meant well”. Apparently one of the sources that influenced XR founder Roger Hallam to claim that six billion people
would die was a quote from Johan Rock- -strom from the Potsdam Institute for
climate impact research. Michael Shellenberger recently contacted
Röckstrom and asked him about this and discovered that whereas The Guardian
newspaper had quoted him saying that it’s difficult to see how we could
accommodate a billion people or even half at at a four degree temperature
rise, in actual fact he’d said not A billion people but EIGHT billion people.
Of course even with that extremely substantial amendment, he’s still
offering an extremist alarmist position. And we remind ourselves that both
extremes on this topic have their favorite pet scientists, whose opinions
and voices they amplify. But ultimately it comes down to the published and
peer-reviewed science. And there’s no published science that supports the idea
that a four degrees world (which is not the world in any case but we’re
currently on course to get to) would only support somewhere between four to eight
billion people. That doesn’t matter because XR’s Rupert Read doesn’t need published science, or even Johann Rökstromm to
give evidence of the approaching apocalypse. He’s found something better. A
doomsday guru whose authority on the topic is totally
unchallengeable! And that guru is … apparently, JPMorgan! And once he’d
started tweeting about this he even got picked up by the BBC so that’s
exciting. Somehow he came across a secret report by JP Morgan economists aimed at
its clients, where it talks about how utterly apocalyptic climate change is
going to be. And this got Rupert very very excited indeed, because although
generally he would not give JPMorgan economists for time of day these
particular economists found favor in his eyes. He tweeted this: “Here’s a screenshot
of the most astonishing and distressing page from the private JP Morgan report
that I have been able to help leak …” Ooh, you can almost hear the heroism
using out of every pore! “It is clear that the earth is on an unsustainable
trajectory. Something will have to change at some point if the human race is going
to survive.” And then, in his next tweet: “More excerpts from the astonishingly
truthful JP morgan report” (that’s the definition of truthful that says it agrees
with my opinion) “… although precise predictions are not possible it is clear
that the earth is on an unsustainable trajectory. Something will have to change
at some point if the human race is going to survive. We cannot rule out
catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened.” Now
obviously, this is like catnip to Rupert. But those of you who regularly watch
these videos may be getting a general sense of deja vu, because it was only a
few weeks ago I was talking about a very similar document that was produced in
that case by McKinsey. Both documents are produced for clients to promote the
company’s risk management services. McKinsey’s was publicly available, JP
Morgan’s isn’t at the time of shooting this. I haven’t seen the full JPMorgan
report but from what we’ve seen there doesn’t seem to be a lot of difference
in their overall tenor. As I said when I discussed the previous document, it had
something of a credibility problem because it used the IPCC RCP 8.5
scenario as the basis for its predictions. By and
large the use of RCP 8.5 as the basis for anything has been very much
criticized in recent months since it massively is worse than where we really
are in terms of business as usual. Since JP Morgan’s document was written
by economists not scientists one assumes that they did something fairly similar –
drawing their climate scenario from the work of others. And it’s certainly
consistent with the text that would come from RCP 8.5. Let’s be clear,
there’s an incentive for both companies to do that they’re trying to sell risk
services. Talking up the potential downside of a predicted risk is kind of
a selling point for them. Rupert, however, decides that this is evidence of how JP
Morgan is now telling the truth. Just like ExxonMobil knew all about
climate change all those decades ago. He tweeted this: “Just think about that! The
largest fossil funder in the world is openly admitting that if we carry on as
we, are the human race will not survive!” It’s not actually quite what they said
and you know why would you think that they would suddenly be authorities on
the subject? Because you never thought they were before. It’s all something of
an overreaction for a bit of a corporate sales pitch. As I keep saying, if there’s
messages we should be paying attention to about the seriousness of climate
change it should come from the published research. not from corporate sales teams.
And on that note, there was indeed a new paper this week in the journal Nature,
suggesting that fossil fuels have made a greater contribution to increasing
methane levels than had previously been thought. It’s created headlines such as
this one in the independent. Climate crisis: Fossil fuels’ impact on planet
‘vastly underestimated'”. And this one from The Guardian. ‘Oil and gas firms have had
a far worse climate impact than thought”. Which is a typical Guardian take on all
of this. Not “hey guys, all those fossil fuels that we burned in
order to pull ourselves out of poverty and expand life expectancies and all of
that. Well they had an impact that we need to deal with!” Nope. Instead, it’s all blame. Never mind
that you burned those fossil fuels, and I burned those fossil fuels. We only did so
because of the evil corporates because we were happy living in our hovels,
barely subsisting a poverty level, dying young of horrible diseases. Remember
those times? Those were fun times! And then these evil corporates came along and
seduced us into buying all these fossil fuels and suddenly they made our lives
immeasurably better. Despicable fiends! So you know we have a problem to deal with.
Let’s take some responsibility for the fact, and recognise that we got here for
very good reasons. Anyway the thing the report doesn’t do is to suggest that
there’s more methane being emitted than we thought. This isn’t one of those
stories that says ‘things are more urgent than we realised’. Although some did read
it that way. In some ways, it’s actually good news. I know! I know! It’s saying that
of the methane emissions that we already knew were added to the atmosphere, fewer
of those are coming from natural sources and more of them from fossil fuels. And
that’s good news because the level of increase of methane from natural sources
was one of those unknowns. But some painted in a very scary fashion and the
methane bomb that was just waiting to go off and as the permafrost melts will
give this massive outflow of methane and it’ll cause runaway climate change. But
science never really supported that as likely to turn into this big runaway
effect. But now with even less of the methane apparently coming from natural
sources, one might take that as a positive thing overall. Methane is a more
powerful greenhouse gas molecule for molecule than carbon dioxide. But it
degrades in the atmosphere relatively quickly. If the use of fossil fuels goes
down, it also declines accordingly in relatively short order. So that
represents just another level of challenge to the US Republicans who
recently launched their climate plan. Which, as I mentioned here a couple of
weeks ago, avoids crossing Donald Trump’s overall support for
fossil fuels. When I originally mentioned the growing initiative within the US
Republican Party to start the journey back to the mainstream on climate, I had
certain commenters telling me how this showed “you know nothing about US
politics” and the Republicans would never do such a thing
since that would be an act of betrayal “caving in to the libs”!
Well, last week the House Republicans duly launched their proposals, which
looks pretty much like the ones that I’d said. Carbon capture features high on the
list. Clean energy likewise, and conservation. Representative Dan Crenshaw said “the Democrats have trained everyone to think that the only people who care
about climate change are the ones who engage in hysterical alarmism or engage
in real high-minded but ultimately false aspirations of “we’re going to decrease
this much …” but then they forget the actual solutions. Of course the
environmentalists and the Democrats dismissed the package as everyone would always
have expected. That isn’t the point. Obviously, from a campaign point of view,
as I highlighted before, the aim is to reassure the soft Republican vote
particularly the younger voters, that the party is going to get serious enough on
this issue so that they can feel free to vote for their party of preference
without worrying about climate change in- action. How do we know if it’s a
serious initiative or just a PR smokescreen? Well generally you know
substantive initiatives because they provoke resistance and blowback from the
people who are happy with the old way. And so we’ve seen. Representative Thomas
Massey, who advocates for more carbon in the atmosphere on the grounds but it
will spur more plant growth, said this: “The next step needs to be the trashcan
for all this stuff”. And the conservative Club for Growth agreed, threatening to
withhold support for any lawmaker that backs it. “Besides hurting our economy,
these measures will not make a single environmentalist vote for a Republican
and only alienate conservatives across the country.” Although as we saw last time
polling evidence of how it was seen by Republican voters didn’t really seem to
suggest it would be a huge negative. Certainly not in the rather restrained
form of these proposals. And Republican strategist Matt Gorman agrees. He said: “I
don’t think voters, at the end of the day, are going to be voting against you
because of this plan no matter what people say.” But the point is that the
critics see this in the same way that I presented it in my previous video. It’s a
first step. Once you begin this journey it leads inevitably to a next step. Now
that journey doesn’t take you all the way to AOC’s Green New Deal, or anything
like that. “But it does take you into places that Donald Trump would probably
choose not to go. And then there’ll be an interesting dynamic because by all
accounts the Democrats remain determined to see to it that Donald Trump gets his
second term. This week we saw Michael Bloomberg joined the debate stage for
the first time. This was an important moment. You have the radical socialist
Bernie Sanders leading the field. He’s now the favorite to become the
Democratic candidate and everyone bar for his committed supporters believes
that will guarantee a Trump win. Because Americans will simply not vote for
someone with his views. You have the would-be moderate candidates in some degree of
chaos and confusion. With Joe Biden, formerly the leading voice of reason
candidate, but with him seriously showing his age, and stumbling and
bumbling through debates. It didn’t really seem that he was a credible candidate
and that’s been reflected now in his plummeting poll ratings. Then you got
Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar vying for attention, but neither of them really
able to get the wider appeal that you need. And then you have Michael Bloomberg
stepping into the race, because he’s appalled at the chaos, clear that they
need strong leadership if they’re going to beat Donald Trump. And he’d thrown his
money into advertising, he’d gained some real momentum, with all the chaos and
confusion that’s been going on – he could step in as the grown-up in the room. The
voice of reason, whose business empire’s bigger than Trump’s, whose success was
demonstrable. All all of that. And then we got to the first
debate, his chance to hit the ground running. And he was awful. Just horrible.
All of the candidates gathered together to pummel him, and he pretty much begged
for mercy. I mean how is that possible? They were attacking him
with the obvious attacks! The absolute 100% predictable obvious attacks. And,
when confronted with the controversial policy of stop and frisk when he was
mayor of New York, the effective campaign approach would almost certainly have
been to own it. To say ‘during my time, murders went down by half and the
beneficiaries were overwhelmingly the people of colour who are the most common
victims of violent crime in those areas.’ You might well say that there were
things about how the policies were implemented that you changed with
experience and all of that. But you basically sell the benefits, because
there were benefits. And we all know that if the outrage mob extracts an apology
from you, that apology is never enough and it’s never accepted. In the context of a
political campaign, it’s not that you never can – but how and why you do it you
have to be very canny. And then, of course, the other attacks focused on the fact that
Bloomberg is a billionaire. And you know if the people of any nation respect
success, surely it’s the American people. The line that “you know, I’ve built a
successful business from nothing which no one else on this platform has ever
done, and that gives me valuable experience.” That would have been a strong
counter to some of the cases that were made against him. But he didn’t say any
of those things – at least not in the most important first 45 minutes of the debate.
So you have to conclude that the whole appeal of Bloomberg as the ultra
competent grown up in the room has kind of gone now. How does that leave the
contest? Very probably in Donald Trump’s hands. Because, let’s face it, it’s inbuilt
to the American political systems that most presidents get two terms. Why?
Because, unless the president massively screwed up on an area of competence in
his first term, then you have a system for second term
elections where he remains unchallenged in his own party, but the Challenger
party spends the first part of the election tearing each other apart and
damaging themselves so grievously it makes it highly unlikely they will then
be able to win the actual general election.
It’s a strange old system but there it is.
Anyway let’s go on to one thing that I like and one thing that I don’t. First,
the thing I like. The ‘our world in data’ site launched a piece of data that I
found interesting this week. Which was the amount of global land that we’ve
spared because of how we’ve improved for yield of crops over the course of my
lifetime. Basically the amount of arable land under crops has stayed nearly the
same over the last fifty five years, but of course the number of people those
crops have fed has massively increased over the same time frame. To feed the
increased number of people at the rate of productivity that we used to have in
1962 would have required just under 900 million hectares more, which is more than
double from what we actually did use at six hundred and eighty million. That’s a
pretty impressive achievement to bear in mind when people are moaning about what
a dreadful mess we’ve made of the world. Now of course it’s not as simple an
equation as that graph suggests, and we have to ensure that such growth doesn’t
cover the cost of depleting and degrading soils and all of the rest of
it. But before wallowing in the negative,
because there’s always more to be done, let’s just take some satisfaction in an
outcome that was by no means guaranteed. And then the thing that I don’t like. As
regular viewers will know, I talk a lot about free speech on this channel. And I
defend the free speech of the critics of climate change to have a voice against
those that would deplatform and silence them. But here’s a reminder that
there are people who pay a much more grievous price in places where there are
serious consequences to exercising free speech. Homero Gomez in Mexico was a
guardian of the monarch butterfly. He was a driving force for the El Rosario
butterfly sanctuary. He’d do regular tweets with videos of him
talking about the sanctuary while surrounded by countless butterflies. He
encouraged the public to come and see the spectacular annual migration with
thousands of butterflies arriving from Canada. He clearly loved his work, deeply
cared for the creatures over which he had stewardship. And, at some point,
criminal interests who believe that deforestation trumps conservation and,
more importantly, trumps human life, murdered this man and left him in a well.
Three days later, they killed another guide at the butterfly reserve as well.
Gomez had spent his life trying to protect the butterfly from deforestation
and climate change. Now the state seems in no hurry to take action. Indeed, they
held a press conference declaring at first that his death was an accident and
he drowned. Which is fine, but doesn’t explain the blow to the head revealed by
the autopsy, or why his colleague was also beaten to death with a blunt
instrument. More than 50 local police officers were briefly detained and
interrogated in connection with the case, which gives you some sense of the
rotten state of the institutions there. It’s a sad reminder that while we’re
arguing about the fine principles of trying to make a difference as best we
can, for some people trying to protect the environment, or make other changes, it
can literally be a life or death struggle. And that’s pretty disgusting.
I mean it gets way too little attention, which means that the perpetrators feel they
can keep doing this sort of stuff with impunity. Only 3% of murders are solved
in the part of Mexico where this took place. Seriously unpleasant stuff. Let’s
celebrate and support the people who do what they can in the face of such odds.
These people are real heroes. Look, even if you don’t much care about the
specific cause but they’re fighting on behalf of, we should still support those who
speak freely and campaign when the stakes are that high. They are the ones who really
change the world. Anyway, that’s all for this week. My name’s Mallen Baker. This is
the Mallen Baker show


  1. My rules for comments in this forum.

    You can post your opinion freely in the comments to any of my videos. I like to engage with people on arguments and issues. I will, time permitting, happily engage with comments that are polite and broadly on topic for the video in question. You can still post what you want but if you want a response from me, those are the criteria. If you want to preface your biting critique with an observation of what a total idiot I am, knock yourself out, but I won't respond to those comments any more than I would if someone said that stuff in real life.

    Out and out obscenities and personal abuse will be removed. Posts that are just links to other videos you want to promote will be removed. People who engage in bullying other commenters will be asked to stop if I think they are making commenting here unpleasant for others. If they refuse to stop then they'll be removed from the channel.

  2. There is a reason why most of the people who stand for Parliament, (and anything else) fail. Politics is like farming. It is more difficult than it looks. I know that there are capacity restraints also but the point stands.

  3. " luxurious and planet destroying western lifestyle " ,,, still think these people are not left wing Mr Baker . there is more information in that phrase than the rest of the entire post , I don't know anyone that has a "Luxurious " lifestyle ,me and most of the people I know are just getting by , and the end phrase " planet killing western lifestyle " reveal this person's political views as a western world hater , whether that be hard line socialist , Marxist or just plain old communist . you keep telling people that the climate movement hasn't been hijacked by the far left , then you provide us with the proof that it has .

  4. The Canning town protest group were expressly told by XR not to go ahead. Half of the group complied and half went ahead on their own initiative but not as part of XR. Its a little unfair to claim it an XR action and own goal. It was stupid, thats why XR wanted nothing to do with it. The media used it as a means to smear…..

  5. Note methane is measured in parts per BILLION. Currently 1500 MAX 2000 FROM WHERE SEEhttps://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/charts/cams/methane-forecasts?facets=undefined&time=2020022100,3,2020022103&projection=classical_global&layer_name=composition_ch4_surface CO2 IN PARTS PER MILLION.

  6. The XR lot are as stupid as the poor animals that they all like to eat. All that meat protein has done nothing for their intellect whatsoever. Dreading when the warm weather starts and they all drag themselves away from their centrally heated homes in order to make a pest of themselves on London's streets again. For myself looking forward to the extinction of the human race we're a nasty smelly ugly bloodthirsty lot and what we do to the animal kingdom on a daily basis fills me with grief.

  7. I rarely comment on utube vids but after quite a few views I'd just like to say I love your level headed,& including both sides of the argument approach.

  8. 20:30 – the contribution of fossil fuels and derived fertilizers should be acknowledged here. Also, GM technology. Pretty much everything the lefties hate. They are misanthropes.

  9. Careful Mallen, you’re in danger of becoming a climate realist! For heavens sake don’t do an investigation into the real science of climate or you’ll become a denier!

  10. Mallen Baker, really, really, 60 square meters of hallowed turf is ur only concern, really, with a strait face, really?! Sir ur soooooooo anti-ER you keep harping on about tiny minor matters. In the half an hour that ER damaged some grass 60 square meters in Oxfordshire tuff, that same 30 minutes can you please list, for the sake of balance, the acreage of rain forest that was destroyed in 30 minutes in Australia (bush fires) or Indonesia (PalmOil) or Brazi (F*cking McDonalds). Can you stop being an Oil Company Shrill for 5 minutes look in the mirror and tell the truth FOR ONCE PLEASE tell ur views what happen in the 30 minutes in those same earth 30 minutes in a like for like basis, in just 30 minutes, in those 3 counties I have listed, and why your have decided to give them a free pass to them and hammer ER. Im all ears Mr Baker.

  11. You got it, Mallen and it's an enigma. In fact, the idea that the world would be a better place if it were not for fossil fuels, serves right into the hands of the climate activists. This blob of erroneous information that's used when the climate activists promote their campaigns is the nub of the whole fantasy they create about the future of the human race. They don't know what happened in the past and they proselytize about what's going to happen in the future.

  12. Why does YT feel the need to attach an unsolicited Wikipedia article spewing propaganda lies by paid for, non-scientific "science" agenda-driven such so-called "authoritative" (but unreliable) sources? As if YT thinks it is its job to dictate what truth is by using such weak tools!

  13. I think you should acknowledge that the oil biz did it's damnedest to hold back sustainable tech – knowingly – not to mention ev's….

  14. Enjoyed your video – XR are looking increasingly ridiculous
    Just one point
    "Methane is a more powerful gas (molecule for molecule) than CO2'
    erm – not true actually
    If you look at the comparison of the radiative absorption spectra of the two gases
    carbon dioxide has a much bigger range than methane – and methane is totally
    overlapped by the water vapour spectrum.

    The only reason that methane is quoted as "more powerful" is because (at current levels) it
    hasnt saturated the available and appropriate radiative energy – although water vapour already
    fully absorbs those wavelengths.
    Of course, CO2 is fully saturated.
    In addition, methane doesnt last as long in the atmosphere since it reacts with O3 and quickly
    Methane is actually (by all measures) a very weak greenhouse gas.

    RIP Mr Gomez.

  15. While I am not a real psychologist, my vast experience tells me that Rupert Read gets around in a state which we call, a heightened state of arousal.
    So when he comes across information like the J P Morgan stuff, he does get very excited indeed.

  16. Doesn't Methane decrease by half every 8 – 9 years?
    And if that is true, is that not, relatively short order. It is quite long order.

  17. That was really sad news out of Mexico. I didn't know anything about this individual case but have known of others where speaking up puts a lot more on the line than a hashtag assault.
    In this particular case, the dichotomy couldn't be more absurd and tragic.
    Flowers and Butterflies, so symbolic of peaceful happy nature and a person who stands up for that is so brutally murdered.
    No wonder some people want a wall.

  18. Put them on an island and give them nothing. Place hidden cameras and make it a reality show. Place bets on who dies next.

  19. Big oil (energy) companies will make an absolute fortune from green energy in the long run, so of course they're seeking to be the new 'authority'.

  20. Jackson urged caution. “We don’t know yet what scenario we’re on,” he said. “I think most climate scientists will tell you that we’re below the RCP 8.5 scenario. But every year that emissions increase like they have this year, it makes the 8.5 scenario more plausible.”

    Jackson published his first academic paper in 1989, just a year after the nasa scientist James Hansen first warned Congress that global warming had begun in earnest. I asked whether he thought actual emissions would ever come close to RCP 8.5. 

    “It’s nuts,” he said. “But I used to think a lot of things were nuts that turned out not to be nuts.”  Rob Jackson an Earth scientist at Stanford and the chair of the Global Carbon Project.                                                                                                                       Mallen is a talented U Tuber and makes some valid points however Rob Jackson has perhaps a more helpful take on RCP 8.5

  21. The murder of that defenceless little lawn by psychopathic thugs belonging to a terror group so extreme that even ISIS have refused to work with them, is of course a tragedy. The death by predictable drowning of many acres of winter crops is a statistic. We actually don't need smelly farmers with their funny voices as all our food grows in supermarkets. Remember folk, it's extinction by exponential collapse and also by 2026. Enjoy!

  22. Hi Mallen. Rev.com is an inexpensive way to add closed captions to your videos. Apparently lots of folks like captions.

  23. They are not "Climate Activists" they are far Left protestors using a made up issue to introduce their preferred form of Governance.

  24. Of course JP Morgan etc want to promote Climate alarmism, the money they stand to make if global Governance is introduced in incalculable.

  25. XR's style of activism is inherently self-contradictory and discredits XR, but it is more important that they are also undermining all arguments for moves towards sustainability. It is concerning that some news media, notably the BBC, continue to present XR and similar activism as morally good. I'm very concerned about sustainability and recognize that massive change is needed and would be better if taken urgently. These people are standing in the way of that but think they are doing the opposite.

  26. Excuse my language, but XR are a bunch of fucking idiots.
    I'm convinced that these cretins have absolutely nothing to do with environment protection.
    And more about generally attracting easily lead individuals in to their organisation.
    And of course the likes of JP Morgan are sooo concerned about climate change! 🙄
    Them and Goldman Sachs, and all the other banks who have got their fingers in the CC pie!

  27. "We are trying to 'take away' the things that our luxurious and planet destroying western lifestyles give us."

    That basically says it all, doesn't it? Excuse us for breathing. Literally.

  28. I feel like your channel is due for a scientific account on how to keep us near 2 degrees C instead of all of these political videos. I started following you thinking this was more of a scientific approach but am finding it’s more opinions of how the leftists get things wrong than coming to common ground for a solution.

    Just an opinion from somebody who started out as a fan but has since fizzled due to what I perceive as a bias.

  29. "….strange old system" Like keeping around a centuries-old aristocracy. I think I'll keep our Democratic Republic thank you very much.
    Those children who tore up the lawn are your biggest supporters aside from those being paid by the IPCC. But you already know that….

  30. What I find most concerning is that the police seem to have taken a side, and it's an odd position for police in general, but they stand by as property damage is done, and stand aside while grooming gangs rape, abduct, drug and prostitute children and even charge parents and other who try to rescue the girls who are the victims, . but it's cult like, and one wonders at what stage the EX-Arrr idiots will drink the cordial leaving us to know why all this distraction has been allowed to go on and on, and it won't be pretty .

  31. Mallen, off subject- hope you don't mind- but, what do you think of the Skeptical Science web site? https://skepticalscience.com/
    I look at numerous climate blogs and web sites including that one because I don't think anybody really understands the climate so I want to see what everyone says- without becoming prejudiced. It seems to be the ultimate "defender of the faith". Any skeptic posting there needs to be wearing heavy armor because they'll slash away at you if they don't just fail to allow the comment. They have no mercy for even moderate skeptics because defeating skeptics is their mission.

    So, Mallen, I sense you're sort of a middle of the road guy when it comes to climate change. You don't deny it like Tony Heller (I'm a big fan of him) but you don't seem terrified that the end is near either- so, like I said, I'm curious what you think of that site.

  32. Excellent video. ER doesn't get much publicity here in the US so I mostly rolled my eyes at that part but I'm glad you spent several minutes discussing the Democratic Primary which has the potential to have a much greater global impact.

  33. It's not anything to do with the environment, these people are out an out communists and their main intention is to bring down the west,. This comes straight out of the horses mouth, one Stuart Basden under the heading. Extinction Rebellion isn't about the climate. These people need to be stopped they are the western people's true enemy

  34. “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.” “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

  35. Unless I'm mistaken when methane degrades doesn't it turn into CO2 and water ? It's still adding to the green house gas quanta…………………….isn't it ?

  36. The Cilmate change Sience is based on false and blatently falsified documents, charts etc. How many of the last 20 year climate change computerised models have actualy been right. =0

  37. Mallen Baker a change agent for the citizens assembly, pro Extinction Rebellion and profit of the dooms day cult.

  38. Considering the amount of attention you have given to XR and Greta, I'd like to hear you give your thoughts on Naomi Seibt in a future video. I'd never heard of her before reading this A1 article in Monday's paper. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/02/23/meet-anti-greta-young-youtuber-campaigning-against-climate-alarmism/ I don't like the tone the WP took, but maybe that is due to my own bias.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *