August 23, 2023 - 10:00am
“Not being able to govern affairs, I govern myself.” That was the view taken by the 16th-century French essayist Michel de Montaigne, who lived at a time when France was wracked by civil war. He was unable to influence what was going on in politics, he reasoned, but he could cultivate his own character and intellect.
I thought immediately of Montaigne’s aphorism when I read reports of a Norwegian study purporting to find that people who became angry at news of climate change were vastly more likely to become activists. Feelings of fear and guilt were associated with supporting policies to tackle climate change, with the link to activism seven times stronger for anger than for hope. Norwegians are obviously disinclined to take the view that becoming a better person is a more productive use of their energies than attempting to fix the problems of the world.
The findings support an intuition that I have long had about climate change activism: that for many adherents, it is not entirely about the issue itself, but instead derives from deeper antagonisms, frustrations and dissatisfactions. This could be “capitalism”, their own backgrounds or what they perceive as the vulgarity and trivia of their own societies.
There is something very eerie about the blank-eyed fanaticism of Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil protesters, for example. To remain impassive in the face of someone who is begging you to let them get their child to hospital suggests a frightening level of deliberate detachment from normal human sympathy and solidarity. Such detachment — such nihilism — suggests to me that there are personal resentments bubbling under the surface.
These kind of actions are usually defended on the grounds that it is for the greater good of humanity, but that is not really how morality works. Moral action is about how individual persons are treated, and whose welfare and interests are within your control. We should be wary of people who can disregard the welfare and needs of the people in front of them in favour of complex abstractions. Humanity as an abstraction conveniently makes no specific, difficult or concrete demands on us, unlike those annoying, messy, imperfect human beings.
It’s also very clear that a lot of climate activists relish the performative aspects of the protests rather than having any clear alternative to the current slow but steady decarbonisation of the global economy. When they are asked for specific policy prescriptions, they very often either babble incoherently or make the most absurd utopian demands like “We need to stop using all fossil fuels immediately”, an act which would probably kill tens of millions of people. They often seem totally unaware of the steps that are already being taken by governments.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere is definitely a derangement there and a refusal to engage in debate. Almost every time I attempt to engage with a climate activist online I end being blocked (including by Monbiot). I believe they are now maintaining blocklists like the gender ideologues because I find I am blocked in discussions by people I have never had any engagement with whatsoever.
I am never rude but simply and calmly present them with evidence. I agree with them that there is climate change, that humans are contributing to it and that we need to fix it over time. I merely explain them about the uncertainties involved in assessing the climate sensitivity of CO2 and present them with arguments about the morality of what they are doing to poor people, both here in the UK, and in the global south, in pursing Net Zero and explain the problems of becoming reliant on China for our renewable technology.
I have had no children and am unlikely to sire any now, I haven’t been on a plane in 9 years, I’ve inherited an electric car which I now (rarely) drive and I’ve been a vegetarian for four decades. I would lay money that my carbon footprint is vastly less than most of these activists. Nevertheless, I am told I am a shill for the fossil fuel industry. I’m still waiting for the cheques to arrive.
Just like gender ideology, I believe their policy is now ‘no debate’. I blame the BBC and The Guardian, and their billionaire donors, for where we are today.
It’s very difficult to debate this issue since there is a huge knowledge gap, on both sides I might add. That can lead immediately to frustration, in particular when well worn sceptic arguments that have no bearing on reality are repeatedly put forward. For example, I have never met or encountered anyone who actually understands the concept correctly.
I was an academic philosopher, not a climate scientist, but I have endeavoured to educate myself as best I can by reading the IPCC reports and hundreds of books and papers (even Greta’s and arch-alarmist Wallace-Wells). At the end of it, the massive uncertainty of it all shines through (this is covered exceptionally well in Judith Curry’s recent book ‘Climate Uncertainty and Risk’).
From the other side, I mostly get ‘97% of scientists believe …’ by people who seem to imagine that (a) scientific truth is determined by consensus, and (b) this represents a consensus that 97% of climate scientists believe in Net Zero by 2050, which they do not. It is pointing out things like this that leads to the block.
Education, rather than propaganda, certainly helps here – see Zacher & Rudolf’s ‘Environmental knowledge is inversely associated with climate change anxiety’ (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03518-z).
Thanks for the link, that was quite interesting. I’m uncertain of your high regard of Judith Curry however. She has a long history of climate change denial and links to the fossil fuel industry, who are well known for funding sceptic rhetoric.
That’s incorrect. I suggest you read her website and her publications.
It’s a typical response. People are told that Curry, Lomborg, Shellenberger etc. are ‘deniers’ when none of them deny AGW, in order to deflect people away from actually reading what they have to say, which is genuinely motivated in trying to find solutions that allow the global south to develop their infrastructure, build flood defences etc..
Don’t forget big oil – if they dare to step out of line they are all in the pay of big oil.
Yes! The hallmark of an AGW cultist is not just crediting greenhouse physics, but in rejecting any non-fossil power source that could actually produce enough energy to replace oil. Their real agenda is not taking industrial carbon out of the system, but taking out industry itself.
You’re wrong about Curry. It’s important to be aware that Lomborg and co are making a living from this niche area of publishing reasonable sounding sceptic material. It’s all very clever PR for the fossil fuel industry and the funding links have been well established.
By Desmog? 🙂
By Desmog? 🙂
Don’t forget big oil – if they dare to step out of line they are all in the pay of big oil.
Yes! The hallmark of an AGW cultist is not just crediting greenhouse physics, but in rejecting any non-fossil power source that could actually produce enough energy to replace oil. Their real agenda is not taking industrial carbon out of the system, but taking out industry itself.
You’re wrong about Curry. It’s important to be aware that Lomborg and co are making a living from this niche area of publishing reasonable sounding sceptic material. It’s all very clever PR for the fossil fuel industry and the funding links have been well established.
It’s a typical response. People are told that Curry, Lomborg, Shellenberger etc. are ‘deniers’ when none of them deny AGW, in order to deflect people away from actually reading what they have to say, which is genuinely motivated in trying to find solutions that allow the global south to develop their infrastructure, build flood defences etc..
Seriously, she does not deny climate change. In fact, she was a darling of the alarmist side until climategate.
Maybe not now but she did, and that’s why she lost her job. https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/
You simply refuse to look at things objectively Robbie. Curry didn’t lose her job. She resigned – because she was sick of the politicized science.
I read part of the desmog profile you linked to. It was way too long to read entirely and is nothing more than smears and innuendo and tired cliches that she’s in the pay of big oil. She’s basically accused of not being sufficiently alarmist. I didn’t read one thing saying this is how she gets the science wrong.
Bold prediction. This comment will be flagged by someone and the entire thread will be deleted for the next 24 hours. Whoever is doing this is deliberately censoring debate.
I think you’ll find she chose to leave academia. She now does forecasting for paying clients – if she gets it wrong she’s out of business.
Why don’t you just read her book or her website articles instead of meekly obeying biased people who are telling you not read to her work.
Happy to discuss her book with you at any point. Tell me what you think she gets wrong.
Curry takes the same approach as Lomborg – cherry picking certain niche datasets that appeal to reason and on their own can stand out as well thought out and researched. It’s merely strawman after strawman however and fails to encompass the bigger picture and the global trends. They never discuss the real issue either, which is energy. It’s not really about heat or temperatures, once someone can grasp the roll of energy in this concept then they will understand the crisis.
Please give us examples of cherry picking.
Problem with woke green blob is that they have no realistic solution to GW.
Even if West shut down industry completely, nothing would change because of China, India and Africa generating much more pollution.
Most of them call anyone who mentions overpopulation in 3rd world countries racist and fasc&*t.
I tried to discuss GW with many of them and none has any understanding of science or engineering.
Many are just frustrated Marxists who found new religion.
Ain’t that the truth?
Ain’t that the truth?
Please give us examples of cherry picking.
Problem with woke green blob is that they have no realistic solution to GW.
Even if West shut down industry completely, nothing would change because of China, India and Africa generating much more pollution.
Most of them call anyone who mentions overpopulation in 3rd world countries racist and fasc&*t.
I tried to discuss GW with many of them and none has any understanding of science or engineering.
Many are just frustrated Marxists who found new religion.
Curry takes the same approach as Lomborg – cherry picking certain niche datasets that appeal to reason and on their own can stand out as well thought out and researched. It’s merely strawman after strawman however and fails to encompass the bigger picture and the global trends. They never discuss the real issue either, which is energy. It’s not really about heat or temperatures, once someone can grasp the roll of energy in this concept then they will understand the crisis.
You simply refuse to look at things objectively Robbie. Curry didn’t lose her job. She resigned – because she was sick of the politicized science.
I read part of the desmog profile you linked to. It was way too long to read entirely and is nothing more than smears and innuendo and tired cliches that she’s in the pay of big oil. She’s basically accused of not being sufficiently alarmist. I didn’t read one thing saying this is how she gets the science wrong.
Bold prediction. This comment will be flagged by someone and the entire thread will be deleted for the next 24 hours. Whoever is doing this is deliberately censoring debate.
I think you’ll find she chose to leave academia. She now does forecasting for paying clients – if she gets it wrong she’s out of business.
Why don’t you just read her book or her website articles instead of meekly obeying biased people who are telling you not read to her work.
Happy to discuss her book with you at any point. Tell me what you think she gets wrong.
Maybe not now but she did, and that’s why she lost her job. https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/
That’s incorrect. I suggest you read her website and her publications.
Seriously, she does not deny climate change. In fact, she was a darling of the alarmist side until climategate.
That’s the thing. People don’t have the time or inclination to research climate change. I don’t blame anyone for that. But for people who do research the issue, they become much less alarmed about the future.
I’ve seen multiple Oxford style debates about climate change. The alarmists have lost every time. When people sit down in a room and listen to both sides of the argument, they become less alarmist, not more.
You are lost in your own bias. 80% of the population accept the basic premis of human caused climate change. Those in denial tend to be older right wing males. That’s from a recent Yougov survey.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/08/18/what-extent-do-britons-think-human-activity-respon
Never voted for a right wing party in my life and I accept AGW. Alarmism and hysteria is a different matter entirely.
What bias? I have repeatedly and explicitly stated to you that I believe CO2 is warming the planet and that it’s a problem.
Robbie – your response has absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand. As a commenter has noted above, scientific truth is not decided by consensus – and certainly not by consensus of the general public.
Nor does being old, male or right wing make you a priori more likely to be wrong about something.
My response was a reflection of the article and an attempt to debate why climate activists are labelled as extremists, nihilistic fanatics and alarmists. These people care deeply about what is happening and are clearly frustrated and angry when the government appears to be making U turns on previous commitments.
My response was a reflection of the article and an attempt to debate why climate activists are labelled as extremists, nihilistic fanatics and alarmists. These people care deeply about what is happening and are clearly frustrated and angry when the government appears to be making U turns on previous commitments.
OK, so what.
Many young woke idiots believe in far left rubbish and supported traitor Corbyn for PM.
Taking anything what mentally ill, uneducated Greeta says seriously is itself sign of mental illness.
She needs to go home and clean her room.
She needs to go home and clean her room.
Never voted for a right wing party in my life and I accept AGW. Alarmism and hysteria is a different matter entirely.
What bias? I have repeatedly and explicitly stated to you that I believe CO2 is warming the planet and that it’s a problem.
Robbie – your response has absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand. As a commenter has noted above, scientific truth is not decided by consensus – and certainly not by consensus of the general public.
Nor does being old, male or right wing make you a priori more likely to be wrong about something.
OK, so what.
Many young woke idiots believe in far left rubbish and supported traitor Corbyn for PM.
Taking anything what mentally ill, uneducated Greeta says seriously is itself sign of mental illness.
You are lost in your own bias. 80% of the population accept the basic premis of human caused climate change. Those in denial tend to be older right wing males. That’s from a recent Yougov survey.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/08/18/what-extent-do-britons-think-human-activity-respon
I admire your determination to read through the literature and identify the glaring uncertainties – it’s a pity that the majority of mainstream media journalists seem incapable of this. You are right to point out that consensus does not represent proof, or even robust evidence. When the climate alarmists state ‘97% of scientist believe …’, those figures include me – twice. The two scientific institutions of which I am a member have, without asking my opinion, declared that the climate emergency is real and that achieving ‘Net Zero’ is imperative and that their membership fully supports this. This despite the fact that the vast majority of those members are experts in fields other than atmospheric chemistry. In reality, there are probably only a few hundred scientists worldwide with sufficient expertise in atmospheric chemistry to provide a professional opinion on climate change. But there are an awful lot more scientists who use similar modelling techniques as tools in their own discipline, and recognise the uncertainties involved in such modelling. Most will have developed a BS detector to be able to pick apart the statistics often spouted by the climate alarmists. Yet there is little or no criticism from the scientists or institutions. In part, this is due to the Institutions’ reliance on State patronage, and representing many members whose livelihoods rely on Government contracts. And it’s not just the institutions, the same applies if you work for a private sector company that relies on Government contracts. Going back to the original article, climate activism is certainly based on faith with a scientific veneer, and not on science itself. Perhaps the more insidious problem is that scientists have to adopt this faith, or at least acquiesce to its teachings, if they want to maintain their livelihoods.
Great post and really terrible indictment of scientific community.
Fasc*%m and communism comes to mind.
But I think we are getting distracted by claims and counterclaims of GW debate.
Key question should be whether current policies can deliver what is supposedly required to stop climate catastrophe.
You really don’t need to be an expert in atmospheric chemistry to see that current policies will never deliver that objective.
Mainly because sacrifices in living standards in the West design to achieve nonsensical objectives are irrelevant in view of policies of China, India etc.
Great post and really terrible indictment of scientific community.
Fasc*%m and communism comes to mind.
But I think we are getting distracted by claims and counterclaims of GW debate.
Key question should be whether current policies can deliver what is supposedly required to stop climate catastrophe.
You really don’t need to be an expert in atmospheric chemistry to see that current policies will never deliver that objective.
Mainly because sacrifices in living standards in the West design to achieve nonsensical objectives are irrelevant in view of policies of China, India etc.
Thanks for the link, that was quite interesting. I’m uncertain of your high regard of Judith Curry however. She has a long history of climate change denial and links to the fossil fuel industry, who are well known for funding sceptic rhetoric.
That’s the thing. People don’t have the time or inclination to research climate change. I don’t blame anyone for that. But for people who do research the issue, they become much less alarmed about the future.
I’ve seen multiple Oxford style debates about climate change. The alarmists have lost every time. When people sit down in a room and listen to both sides of the argument, they become less alarmist, not more.
I admire your determination to read through the literature and identify the glaring uncertainties – it’s a pity that the majority of mainstream media journalists seem incapable of this. You are right to point out that consensus does not represent proof, or even robust evidence. When the climate alarmists state ‘97% of scientist believe …’, those figures include me – twice. The two scientific institutions of which I am a member have, without asking my opinion, declared that the climate emergency is real and that achieving ‘Net Zero’ is imperative and that their membership fully supports this. This despite the fact that the vast majority of those members are experts in fields other than atmospheric chemistry. In reality, there are probably only a few hundred scientists worldwide with sufficient expertise in atmospheric chemistry to provide a professional opinion on climate change. But there are an awful lot more scientists who use similar modelling techniques as tools in their own discipline, and recognise the uncertainties involved in such modelling. Most will have developed a BS detector to be able to pick apart the statistics often spouted by the climate alarmists. Yet there is little or no criticism from the scientists or institutions. In part, this is due to the Institutions’ reliance on State patronage, and representing many members whose livelihoods rely on Government contracts. And it’s not just the institutions, the same applies if you work for a private sector company that relies on Government contracts. Going back to the original article, climate activism is certainly based on faith with a scientific veneer, and not on science itself. Perhaps the more insidious problem is that scientists have to adopt this faith, or at least acquiesce to its teachings, if they want to maintain their livelihoods.
Knowledge?? I would argue that it is nothing more than fanaticism. I’ve also never met or encountered anyone who knows how to tame solar flares, stop volcanos or alter the tilt of the planet. Reducing human generated carbon to zero might return us to a primitive environment, but how do you explain what happened to the dinosaurs?
If you are old enough, you might recall from your school education that planet was much warmer than now in the past.
Well before industrial revolution.
I have not heard single climate activist being able to explain it.
If you are old enough, you might recall from your school education that planet was much warmer than now in the past.
Well before industrial revolution.
I have not heard single climate activist being able to explain it.
Except yourself of course!
Well, now you come to mention it.
Well, now you come to mention it.
What is the correct concept of climate science? Do you understand the water vapour feedback loop?
He doesn’t need to.
He is member of green cult.
We are heretics and should be burnt at the stake.
He doesn’t need to.
He is member of green cult.
We are heretics and should be burnt at the stake.
Apart form you that is
I was an academic philosopher, not a climate scientist, but I have endeavoured to educate myself as best I can by reading the IPCC reports and hundreds of books and papers (even Greta’s and arch-alarmist Wallace-Wells). At the end of it, the massive uncertainty of it all shines through (this is covered exceptionally well in Judith Curry’s recent book ‘Climate Uncertainty and Risk’).
From the other side, I mostly get ‘97% of scientists believe …’ by people who seem to imagine that (a) scientific truth is determined by consensus, and (b) this represents a consensus that 97% of climate scientists believe in Net Zero by 2050, which they do not. It is pointing out things like this that leads to the block.
Education, rather than propaganda, certainly helps here – see Zacher & Rudolf’s ‘Environmental knowledge is inversely associated with climate change anxiety’ (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03518-z).
Knowledge?? I would argue that it is nothing more than fanaticism. I’ve also never met or encountered anyone who knows how to tame solar flares, stop volcanos or alter the tilt of the planet. Reducing human generated carbon to zero might return us to a primitive environment, but how do you explain what happened to the dinosaurs?
Except yourself of course!
What is the correct concept of climate science? Do you understand the water vapour feedback loop?
Apart form you that is
Does the Guardian have billionaire donors? That really is news to me….
Worth a read
https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50975405/how-bill-gates-bankrolls-the-media-outlet-that-claims-its-not-backed-by-billionaires/
Thank you for that link. I can now continue to ignore their panhandling with an even clearer conscience than before. The Guardian’s got decent sports coverage, although incredibly various progressive nostrums are even getting shoehorned into that these days, and to give them credit there are occasions when some dim memory of what journalists ought be stirs and you get some quality.
It remains worth reading just be sure that claims about woke/progressive views are not being exaggerated or misrepresented by ‘right wing’ media. They really are that barmy.
Times sports coverage is much better, although getting more woke by the day.
Times sports coverage is much better, although getting more woke by the day.
Thank you for that link. I can now continue to ignore their panhandling with an even clearer conscience than before. The Guardian’s got decent sports coverage, although incredibly various progressive nostrums are even getting shoehorned into that these days, and to give them credit there are occasions when some dim memory of what journalists ought be stirs and you get some quality.
It remains worth reading just be sure that claims about woke/progressive views are not being exaggerated or misrepresented by ‘right wing’ media. They really are that barmy.
https://www.theguardian.com/info/2018/oct/02/philanthropic-partnerships-at-the-guardian
Isn’t Mr Soros a supporter. I think he has a few quid
Don’t worry he won’t have time to either spend or enjoy it, for the Reaper stalks him.
Don’t worry he won’t have time to either spend or enjoy it, for the Reaper stalks him.
Worth a read
https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50975405/how-bill-gates-bankrolls-the-media-outlet-that-claims-its-not-backed-by-billionaires/
https://www.theguardian.com/info/2018/oct/02/philanthropic-partnerships-at-the-guardian
Isn’t Mr Soros a supporter. I think he has a few quid
Just as I predicted. The entire thread has disappeared. One person hijacks the debate, fails to produce coherent arguments, and makes it all disappear by flagging some comments, And Unherd plays right into it.
It’s very difficult to debate this issue since there is a huge knowledge gap, on both sides I might add. That can lead immediately to frustration, in particular when well worn sceptic arguments that have no bearing on reality are repeatedly put forward. For example, I have never met or encountered anyone who actually understands the concept correctly.
Does the Guardian have billionaire donors? That really is news to me….
Just as I predicted. The entire thread has disappeared. One person hijacks the debate, fails to produce coherent arguments, and makes it all disappear by flagging some comments, And Unherd plays right into it.
There is definitely a derangement there and a refusal to engage in debate. Almost every time I attempt to engage with a climate activist online I end being blocked (including by Monbiot). I believe they are now maintaining blocklists like the gender ideologues because I find I am blocked in discussions by people I have never had any engagement with whatsoever.
I am never rude but simply and calmly present them with evidence. I agree with them that there is climate change, that humans are contributing to it and that we need to fix it over time. I merely explain them about the uncertainties involved in assessing the climate sensitivity of CO2 and present them with arguments about the morality of what they are doing to poor people, both here in the UK, and in the global south, in pursing Net Zero and explain the problems of becoming reliant on China for our renewable technology.
I have had no children and am unlikely to sire any now, I haven’t been on a plane in 9 years, I’ve inherited an electric car which I now (rarely) drive and I’ve been a vegetarian for four decades. I would lay money that my carbon footprint is vastly less than most of these activists. Nevertheless, I am told I am a shill for the fossil fuel industry. I’m still waiting for the cheques to arrive.
Just like gender ideology, I believe their policy is now ‘no debate’. I blame the BBC and The Guardian, and their billionaire donors, for where we are today.
How many Green activists would take on local drug gangs or grooming gangs?They are middle class white nitwits wanting to be rebels against an enemy who never fights back, fighting for a cause that doesn’t exist, thinking that they are “warriors”.
Virtue-signalling at its most extreme.
Virtue-signalling at its most extreme.
How many Green activists would take on local drug gangs or grooming gangs?They are middle class white nitwits wanting to be rebels against an enemy who never fights back, fighting for a cause that doesn’t exist, thinking that they are “warriors”.
I get the feeling from a lot of climate activists that they feel we are getting our just desserts for being greedy, self centred, consumerist etc. They almost seem to wish for the catastrophe they protest against. And they put too much emphasis on purity of spirit than practicality and compromise.
Certainly if it were to turn out that there was actually no problem, and that we could carry on behaving as we have with no consequences – I think many would be deeply disappointed.
Having read John Gray’s ‘Black Mass’ some years ago. My eyes were opened to the fact that hysterical environmentalism is simply a resurgence of millenarianism among the non-religious.I remember as a child seeing people on street corners, proclaiming that end times and the return or Christ would soon be upon us. Today on those very same streets. Activists walk up and down proclaiming that environmental catastrophe is at hand and giving out flyers.
It’s exactly the same want/need for world ending catastrophe that drives them. Such strong beliefs make any rational discussion of human impact on the environment impossible.
From Nietzsche onwards people have been observing the parallels in thinking between Christianity and the ostensibly secular belief patterns that have followed.
Of course that doesn’t settle things one way or the other – but it does suggest a careful scepticism.
From Nietzsche onwards people have been observing the parallels in thinking between Christianity and the ostensibly secular belief patterns that have followed.
Of course that doesn’t settle things one way or the other – but it does suggest a careful scepticism.
Disappointed? If they believed no change was necessary, they’d be devastated. Therefore, they will never believe that.
Having read John Gray’s ‘Black Mass’ some years ago. My eyes were opened to the fact that hysterical environmentalism is simply a resurgence of millenarianism among the non-religious.I remember as a child seeing people on street corners, proclaiming that end times and the return or Christ would soon be upon us. Today on those very same streets. Activists walk up and down proclaiming that environmental catastrophe is at hand and giving out flyers.
It’s exactly the same want/need for world ending catastrophe that drives them. Such strong beliefs make any rational discussion of human impact on the environment impossible.
Disappointed? If they believed no change was necessary, they’d be devastated. Therefore, they will never believe that.
I get the feeling from a lot of climate activists that they feel we are getting our just desserts for being greedy, self centred, consumerist etc. They almost seem to wish for the catastrophe they protest against. And they put too much emphasis on purity of spirit than practicality and compromise.
Certainly if it were to turn out that there was actually no problem, and that we could carry on behaving as we have with no consequences – I think many would be deeply disappointed.
I’ll never forget the UN holding a news conference underwater in scuba gear in the Maldives – promoting hysterical claims that island nations would soon be drowning underwater due to rising seas. Fast forward 20 years and there is absolutely no question 80% of Pacific coral islands, including the Maldives, have grown in size. This is not science. This is not rational debate. The UN has never acknowledged its overblown predictions. We keep hearing about impending global food shortages. The UN has literally been predicting this for 30 years. We should be in the grip of global famine right now, yet agricultural production relentlessly keeps expanding. Still they continue to make the same predictions and are never held to account.
I also laugh at the very wealthy resort developers spending billions on new, high-end properties in the Maldives. And new airports. All to be washed away in a few short years.
And Obama, Gore etc spending millions on properties on the coast of USA.
And Obama, Gore etc spending millions on properties on the coast of USA.
The food shortages were in Sri Lanka after they were forced to adopt ESG ‘guidance’ and discontinued using nitrous fertilizer. And then there’s the recent mass culling of livestock in Ireland and elsewhere. Don’t worry though, we’ll still be allowed to eat bugs which I hear are absolutely delicious.
I also laugh at the very wealthy resort developers spending billions on new, high-end properties in the Maldives. And new airports. All to be washed away in a few short years.
The food shortages were in Sri Lanka after they were forced to adopt ESG ‘guidance’ and discontinued using nitrous fertilizer. And then there’s the recent mass culling of livestock in Ireland and elsewhere. Don’t worry though, we’ll still be allowed to eat bugs which I hear are absolutely delicious.
I’ll never forget the UN holding a news conference underwater in scuba gear in the Maldives – promoting hysterical claims that island nations would soon be drowning underwater due to rising seas. Fast forward 20 years and there is absolutely no question 80% of Pacific coral islands, including the Maldives, have grown in size. This is not science. This is not rational debate. The UN has never acknowledged its overblown predictions. We keep hearing about impending global food shortages. The UN has literally been predicting this for 30 years. We should be in the grip of global famine right now, yet agricultural production relentlessly keeps expanding. Still they continue to make the same predictions and are never held to account.
“We should be wary of people who can disregard the welfare and needs of the people in front of them in favour of complex abstractions”
Precisely. Inexcusable cruelty has been meted out in pursuit of some loftier goal by every despotic regime in history. Think Soviet Union, Cambodia etc etc
The phrase put me in mind of something different – a soldier, for example, prioritising the rather abstract idea of the defeat of a despot (say Adolf X, or Saddam Somebody) over the welfare and needs of the opposing soldier in front of him. We have usually been asked to be grateful to rather than wary of these figures. It depends, as always, on your view of the longer game.
I would want editor of Unherd to explain censorship on this pages.
You write communism, all good.
You write fasc&%m or naz*£m and it is “awaiting for approval” even if you don’t support it in your post.
Total disgrace.
The phrase put me in mind of something different – a soldier, for example, prioritising the rather abstract idea of the defeat of a despot (say Adolf X, or Saddam Somebody) over the welfare and needs of the opposing soldier in front of him. We have usually been asked to be grateful to rather than wary of these figures. It depends, as always, on your view of the longer game.
I would want editor of Unherd to explain censorship on this pages.
You write communism, all good.
You write fasc&%m or naz*£m and it is “awaiting for approval” even if you don’t support it in your post.
Total disgrace.
“We should be wary of people who can disregard the welfare and needs of the people in front of them in favour of complex abstractions”
Precisely. Inexcusable cruelty has been meted out in pursuit of some loftier goal by every despotic regime in history. Think Soviet Union, Cambodia etc etc
I think another reason that they these activists are so angry, deranged or hysterical is due to the way information around climate change is being presented. From supra-national bodies, national governments, most media and NGO’s the information is catastrophised with no balancing information. So currently we are told that we are in the phase of “Global Boiling”, a heatwave in Europe is then presented to confirm it along with wildfires, which in most cases have been caused deliberately or through bad land management, and then exacerbated by high temperatures. So the Earth is burning due to Climate Change. Ergo, hysteria.
That messaging we get from authorities and institutions is absolutely hysterical. We are bombarded with the most extreme claims. For the avg person just living their lives, it’s hard not to be influenced by this. I feel bad for the children. They’ve been exposed to nothing but oppressive messaging their entire lives.
That messaging we get from authorities and institutions is absolutely hysterical. We are bombarded with the most extreme claims. For the avg person just living their lives, it’s hard not to be influenced by this. I feel bad for the children. They’ve been exposed to nothing but oppressive messaging their entire lives.
I think another reason that they these activists are so angry, deranged or hysterical is due to the way information around climate change is being presented. From supra-national bodies, national governments, most media and NGO’s the information is catastrophised with no balancing information. So currently we are told that we are in the phase of “Global Boiling”, a heatwave in Europe is then presented to confirm it along with wildfires, which in most cases have been caused deliberately or through bad land management, and then exacerbated by high temperatures. So the Earth is burning due to Climate Change. Ergo, hysteria.
I was once chatting online with a climate activist who informed me that he had recently driven from Georgia to New York City to participate in an anti-global warming rally. My response was, “You drove?” Idiot.
“Everybody wants to change the world but nobody wants to change themselves”
A lyric from “Do You Really Want It?” by Nothing More.
Spot on really.
“Watergate does not bother me – does your conscience bother you?”
“I don’t have a conscience. I have a carefully curated basket of obsessions.”
“I don’t have a conscience. I have a carefully curated basket of obsessions.”
“Watergate does not bother me – does your conscience bother you?”
Hah! Similarly, we were on an airport shuttle and got to chatting with a fellow passenger. She announced proudly that she was flying out west to protest the building of an oil pipeline. My husband said, “Why aren’t you taking your bicycle?” All the other passengers broke out laughing.
Ironically the creation and transport of the food spent during the cycling may be causing more emissions than driving.
And most likely, her house has 2 or 3 air conditioning zones, a huge kitchen that never gets used, because she gets take-out delivered to her, she drives a gas-guzzling Suburban and uses more water on her lawn daily than the average Haitian drinks in a year.
You’re guessing, aren’t you?
You’re guessing, aren’t you?
Aces.
Ironically the creation and transport of the food spent during the cycling may be causing more emissions than driving.
And most likely, her house has 2 or 3 air conditioning zones, a huge kitchen that never gets used, because she gets take-out delivered to her, she drives a gas-guzzling Suburban and uses more water on her lawn daily than the average Haitian drinks in a year.
Aces.
“Everybody wants to change the world but nobody wants to change themselves”
A lyric from “Do You Really Want It?” by Nothing More.
Spot on really.
Hah! Similarly, we were on an airport shuttle and got to chatting with a fellow passenger. She announced proudly that she was flying out west to protest the building of an oil pipeline. My husband said, “Why aren’t you taking your bicycle?” All the other passengers broke out laughing.
I was once chatting online with a climate activist who informed me that he had recently driven from Georgia to New York City to participate in an anti-global warming rally. My response was, “You drove?” Idiot.
The short answer as to why they are so angry is: “Because it’s a secular religion, and the heretics are the evil enemy.”
Mankind is an inherently religious being, and denied a formal religion we cling to other lesser things with the same zeal. In these secular religions we attain righteousness through adherence. Be that through the right racial views, human right views, or global environmental views adherents are justified.
Unlike a political group that will just dissolve if it’s no longer to the advantage of the members, those who have given themselves over to these secular religions will fanatically glue themselves to the pavement, or even self-immolate over it.
Ya. It feels like people are filling a god hole.
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton
If it weren’t for the havoc they wreak, the adherence of modern secular-atheist man to creeds far more implausible than the existence of God, would be hilarious.
For about the twentieth time in Unherd comments… that quote, again?
By all means have a view of your own, but Chesterton has no more insight into the human soul than many others who’d disagree with him. It is, i grant, a peg on which to hang one’s own religious hang-ups, which many others do not share.
Neither do many “modern secular-atheist” people require adherence to other creeds. It’s quite simply my contention that all creeds are, in the end, fatuous, but that does not mean those of us with no need of such things lack a sense of the spiritual every bit as deep as those who choose to follow a particular creed or religion; perhaps even more so in many cases.
G.K. Chesterton
Atheism is also a religion.
Tell us about your spiritual sense Steve. I ask not be be provocative but because whenever someone tells me (generally without me asking) that they have no religion but that they’re as, if not more, spiritual than those who follow a religion the responses are unsatisfying, a bit vapid, along the lines of liking nice music or enjoying a country walk or pretty things; you know, something along those lines.
How would you know how deep anyone else’s spiritual sense is anyway? I mean unless they’re in the Teresa of Avila league. Now there’s a sense of the spiritual for you! Though I’d expect her religious practice helped a bit.
G.K. Chesterton
Atheism is also a religion.
Tell us about your spiritual sense Steve. I ask not be be provocative but because whenever someone tells me (generally without me asking) that they have no religion but that they’re as, if not more, spiritual than those who follow a religion the responses are unsatisfying, a bit vapid, along the lines of liking nice music or enjoying a country walk or pretty things; you know, something along those lines.
How would you know how deep anyone else’s spiritual sense is anyway? I mean unless they’re in the Teresa of Avila league. Now there’s a sense of the spiritual for you! Though I’d expect her religious practice helped a bit.
For about the twentieth time in Unherd comments… that quote, again?
By all means have a view of your own, but Chesterton has no more insight into the human soul than many others who’d disagree with him. It is, i grant, a peg on which to hang one’s own religious hang-ups, which many others do not share.
Neither do many “modern secular-atheist” people require adherence to other creeds. It’s quite simply my contention that all creeds are, in the end, fatuous, but that does not mean those of us with no need of such things lack a sense of the spiritual every bit as deep as those who choose to follow a particular creed or religion; perhaps even more so in many cases.
Self-immolation would be good. After the fire had burned out, their carbon footprint would be zero.
Ya. It feels like people are filling a god hole.
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton
If it weren’t for the havoc they wreak, the adherence of modern secular-atheist man to creeds far more implausible than the existence of God, would be hilarious.
Self-immolation would be good. After the fire had burned out, their carbon footprint would be zero.
The short answer as to why they are so angry is: “Because it’s a secular religion, and the heretics are the evil enemy.”
Mankind is an inherently religious being, and denied a formal religion we cling to other lesser things with the same zeal. In these secular religions we attain righteousness through adherence. Be that through the right racial views, human right views, or global environmental views adherents are justified.
Unlike a political group that will just dissolve if it’s no longer to the advantage of the members, those who have given themselves over to these secular religions will fanatically glue themselves to the pavement, or even self-immolate over it.
Another Physics Nobel Laureate signs the declaration , but zero press…. https://clintel.org/nobel-prize-winner-dr-john-f-clauser-signs-the-clintel-world-climate-declaration/
And someone immediately gave you the ‘thumbs down’. -Incredible!
And my ‘Avast’ security blocks the Clintel sites telling me they are infected by a virus. Unclear which virus. Choice of…
openmind virus
rationalthought virus
cultdangers virus
freespeech virus
Avast used to be good free product but became progressively worse 4 or 5 years ago, blocking perfectly safe sites.
It is not blocked by any of my tools.
On the other hand, they are many people who would want to infect it…
Avast used to be good free product but became progressively worse 4 or 5 years ago, blocking perfectly safe sites.
It is not blocked by any of my tools.
On the other hand, they are many people who would want to infect it…
The experimental validation of Bell’s Inequalities, no less. If anyone’s going to argue with an experimental physics genius of that calibre, they’ll have to get up very early in the morning.
And someone immediately gave you the ‘thumbs down’. -Incredible!
And my ‘Avast’ security blocks the Clintel sites telling me they are infected by a virus. Unclear which virus. Choice of…
openmind virus
rationalthought virus
cultdangers virus
freespeech virus
The experimental validation of Bell’s Inequalities, no less. If anyone’s going to argue with an experimental physics genius of that calibre, they’ll have to get up very early in the morning.
Another Physics Nobel Laureate signs the declaration , but zero press…. https://clintel.org/nobel-prize-winner-dr-john-f-clauser-signs-the-clintel-world-climate-declaration/
“Similarly, the persistent activist hostility to nuclear energy, often on the most absurd grounds, suggests that what animates them is not seeking practical alternatives to fossil fuels which would enable the global free economy to keep chugging on as before, but rather a total reconfiguration of our way of life. It is political and personal neuroses about “capitalism”, society or man’s wealth-generating mastery of nature that are really bothering them.”
It has been clear to me for some time that what animates climate activism and anticapitalism in general is firstly the fact that increasing numbers of young people are shut out of having a stake in the economic game. Why would you support capitalism if you’re being told the best you’ll get from it yourself is as a mere spectator to the fruits of other people’s labour? That you’ll always rent instead of own your own home, that you’ll be taxed to support old people’s pensions without getting one yourself, and that the number of jobs with career prospects is steadily declining, leaving yourself in permanent precarity?
Don’t get me wrong: I appreciate the absurdity of opposing capitalism and then complaining about the fact that one remains poor. But you have to remember that most functional adults take many years to understand at an instinctive level the relationship between industry, economics and their own situation in life. We’ve spent about 25 years steadily eroding the UK as a place where things are made and built, which is why there’s a shortage of both jobs and houses, the two main issues that young people face. Modern young people didn’t do this to themselves, even if many of them might support the politics involved in degrowth strategies. And it’s not enough that idealistic young people might support the politics of degrowth as a pretext for dismissing their concerns: there are legions of well-off adults now who were once younger idealists who bore nothing more than an education in how the world works as a consequence for their naivete. Why is it now OK to argue, as we appear to be, that young idealists must now bear the real costs of degrowth? For me, part of the social contract is that we avoid harsh outcomes such as this.
Don’t get me wrong: when Just Stop Oil block roads the way they do, I am often filled with a desire the set about them with a baseball bat while they sit there refusing to move. Their cretinous intransigence is infuriating. But I do gain a tiny scintilla of sympathy for them when I look at the quality of the social contract they are expected to inherit.
Good points and I agree. If I were their age, I’d be livid too. They’ve also just been stuffed over entirely by the Covid response, possibly had their lives shortened by subclinical myocarditis, and AI is going to damage their job prospects further and leave them with useless degrees and huge debts to pay off. Their future looks bleak.
I am sorry but most young woke idiots in London were fully supportive of covid policies, whereas older people like me were sceptical, still meeting up and travelling whenever possible.
I am sorry but most young woke idiots in London were fully supportive of covid policies, whereas older people like me were sceptical, still meeting up and travelling whenever possible.
You’ve got a point that I largely agree with, but a lot of these clowns are frightfully posh. Indigo Rumbelow hasn’t been condemned to a lifetime of house shares & deliveroo riding. There’s a strong element of revenge of the posh in all this, as evidenced by the unequal burden of all their proposals that the poor will have to bear.
I thought the road sitters were mostly rather mature, not young idealists? Hearing complaints about housing, I ask “and what is your parents’ view?” since established householders prevent housebuilding.
You will never be able to build enough housing to accommodate 1 million immigrants a year, especially in London and South East.
You will never be able to build enough housing to accommodate 1 million immigrants a year, especially in London and South East.
I am sorry, but you are giving young woke idiots free ride here.
Yes, capitalist system is malfunctioning at the moment.
But so many young are so inoculated with Neo-Marxism that they refuse to see that far left policies lead nowhere, apart from poverty, dictatorship and violence.
I admit in uk both major parties are committed to destructive policies of mass immigration and net zero.
But woke young, based on my conversations with them in London, refuse to accept that mass immigration is the main reason they can not afford the house and that their granddaughters will be wearing burka and their sons hanged from cranes if they are gey.
Good points and I agree. If I were their age, I’d be livid too. They’ve also just been stuffed over entirely by the Covid response, possibly had their lives shortened by subclinical myocarditis, and AI is going to damage their job prospects further and leave them with useless degrees and huge debts to pay off. Their future looks bleak.
You’ve got a point that I largely agree with, but a lot of these clowns are frightfully posh. Indigo Rumbelow hasn’t been condemned to a lifetime of house shares & deliveroo riding. There’s a strong element of revenge of the posh in all this, as evidenced by the unequal burden of all their proposals that the poor will have to bear.
I thought the road sitters were mostly rather mature, not young idealists? Hearing complaints about housing, I ask “and what is your parents’ view?” since established householders prevent housebuilding.
I am sorry, but you are giving young woke idiots free ride here.
Yes, capitalist system is malfunctioning at the moment.
But so many young are so inoculated with Neo-Marxism that they refuse to see that far left policies lead nowhere, apart from poverty, dictatorship and violence.
I admit in uk both major parties are committed to destructive policies of mass immigration and net zero.
But woke young, based on my conversations with them in London, refuse to accept that mass immigration is the main reason they can not afford the house and that their granddaughters will be wearing burka and their sons hanged from cranes if they are gey.
“Similarly, the persistent activist hostility to nuclear energy, often on the most absurd grounds, suggests that what animates them is not seeking practical alternatives to fossil fuels which would enable the global free economy to keep chugging on as before, but rather a total reconfiguration of our way of life. It is political and personal neuroses about “capitalism”, society or man’s wealth-generating mastery of nature that are really bothering them.”
It has been clear to me for some time that what animates climate activism and anticapitalism in general is firstly the fact that increasing numbers of young people are shut out of having a stake in the economic game. Why would you support capitalism if you’re being told the best you’ll get from it yourself is as a mere spectator to the fruits of other people’s labour? That you’ll always rent instead of own your own home, that you’ll be taxed to support old people’s pensions without getting one yourself, and that the number of jobs with career prospects is steadily declining, leaving yourself in permanent precarity?
Don’t get me wrong: I appreciate the absurdity of opposing capitalism and then complaining about the fact that one remains poor. But you have to remember that most functional adults take many years to understand at an instinctive level the relationship between industry, economics and their own situation in life. We’ve spent about 25 years steadily eroding the UK as a place where things are made and built, which is why there’s a shortage of both jobs and houses, the two main issues that young people face. Modern young people didn’t do this to themselves, even if many of them might support the politics involved in degrowth strategies. And it’s not enough that idealistic young people might support the politics of degrowth as a pretext for dismissing their concerns: there are legions of well-off adults now who were once younger idealists who bore nothing more than an education in how the world works as a consequence for their naivete. Why is it now OK to argue, as we appear to be, that young idealists must now bear the real costs of degrowth? For me, part of the social contract is that we avoid harsh outcomes such as this.
Don’t get me wrong: when Just Stop Oil block roads the way they do, I am often filled with a desire the set about them with a baseball bat while they sit there refusing to move. Their cretinous intransigence is infuriating. But I do gain a tiny scintilla of sympathy for them when I look at the quality of the social contract they are expected to inherit.
Or in other words, climate change activists are really just people who don’t like the society they have found themselves in, and are angry about it. What they really want is for humanity to be something other than it is, to which I can only say ‘good luck with that’, but failing that, they’ll try to do what a lot of other members of minority viewpoints have tried to do, propagate their views through trickery, deception, and the use of political and economic power. They aren’t scientists, mostly, and for all their science talk, they are the most unscientific, self-righteous, dogmatic people who have managed to get into the public sphere. They ignore evidence because they have no real interest in doing the real work of collecting data, building models, understanding how hundreds of different variables come together to produce something as complicated as climate and weather. They bat aside non fossil fuel alternatives like nuclear energy because that might actually solve the problem but leave the industrial civilization they hate intact. At the end of the day, a lot of them are just religious fanatics not far removed from the guy who screams allahu akbar as he blows himself and everyone around him up. I fully expect the climate cult to get to that point in the future, though I shouldn’t call them the climate cult. Anti-industrialists or just anti-humanists would be more accurate. Climate change is just the excuse they’ve latched onto as a justification/rationalization for their dogma. I feel like these poor souls would have been better off had they been born into Amish or Mennonite families, as their preferred lifestyle seems to mesh with those groups.
Or in other words, climate change activists are really just people who don’t like the society they have found themselves in, and are angry about it. What they really want is for humanity to be something other than it is, to which I can only say ‘good luck with that’, but failing that, they’ll try to do what a lot of other members of minority viewpoints have tried to do, propagate their views through trickery, deception, and the use of political and economic power. They aren’t scientists, mostly, and for all their science talk, they are the most unscientific, self-righteous, dogmatic people who have managed to get into the public sphere. They ignore evidence because they have no real interest in doing the real work of collecting data, building models, understanding how hundreds of different variables come together to produce something as complicated as climate and weather. They bat aside non fossil fuel alternatives like nuclear energy because that might actually solve the problem but leave the industrial civilization they hate intact. At the end of the day, a lot of them are just religious fanatics not far removed from the guy who screams allahu akbar as he blows himself and everyone around him up. I fully expect the climate cult to get to that point in the future, though I shouldn’t call them the climate cult. Anti-industrialists or just anti-humanists would be more accurate. Climate change is just the excuse they’ve latched onto as a justification/rationalization for their dogma. I feel like these poor souls would have been better off had they been born into Amish or Mennonite families, as their preferred lifestyle seems to mesh with those groups.
“A picture paints a million words”.
The caption photograph says it all.
I assume you mean the Greta picture. I was thinking something along those lines also. What a perfect picture of her. Not that what she looks like is at all relevant, but – can you imagine what she’s going to look like in about ten or twenty years? It makes me shiver.
I assume you mean the Greta picture. I was thinking something along those lines also. What a perfect picture of her. Not that what she looks like is at all relevant, but – can you imagine what she’s going to look like in about ten or twenty years? It makes me shiver.
“A picture paints a million words”.
The caption photograph says it all.
The staggering hypocrisy of technocrats traveling to climate summits in their private jets gives the game away: in a world of more and more human beings living longer vs dwindling resources, the elites want everyone else gone so they can have those resources all to themselves. In the past, they had to tolerate the lower classes because they were the ones who actually built things and made things work. With the advent of AI, working people will become needed less and less. So time for them to go. For the good of the planet, of course. No wonder the mass media is pushing this.
The staggering hypocrisy of technocrats traveling to climate summits in their private jets gives the game away: in a world of more and more human beings living longer vs dwindling resources, the elites want everyone else gone so they can have those resources all to themselves. In the past, they had to tolerate the lower classes because they were the ones who actually built things and made things work. With the advent of AI, working people will become needed less and less. So time for them to go. For the good of the planet, of course. No wonder the mass media is pushing this.
Caring for mankind is the perfect excuse to treat men (and women) badly.
Caring for mankind is the perfect excuse to treat men (and women) badly.
All of the above plus, I suspect, an excess of both time and money in many cases.
All of the above plus, I suspect, an excess of both time and money in many cases.
Nothing new here – good old progressive extremism. Mao’s Red guards ritually killed and ate the livers of their professors in university – you know, to do good for society in fighting capitalism.
Nothing new here – good old progressive extremism. Mao’s Red guards ritually killed and ate the livers of their professors in university – you know, to do good for society in fighting capitalism.
Talking of Montaigne, they belong to a new ‘enlightenment’ cult, these activists. They believe that the world needs to be brought out of the darkness of capitalism into a new spiritual light. Essentially, there are new apostles to the old revolutionary tradition of installing a different World Spirit to guide humanity. It’s all there in Hegel’s mysticism.
Talking of Montaigne, they belong to a new ‘enlightenment’ cult, these activists. They believe that the world needs to be brought out of the darkness of capitalism into a new spiritual light. Essentially, there are new apostles to the old revolutionary tradition of installing a different World Spirit to guide humanity. It’s all there in Hegel’s mysticism.
Different side of the same coin….why do people have to contstantly shriek their virtue?
Acceptance that we are all sinners (and no this is not a biblical reference) is good to place to start when deciding on one’s outlook.
Religion has all but disappeared yet the Pharisees remain.
Greta Rises!
?
?
Greta Rises!
Religion has all but disappeared yet the Pharisees remain.
Different side of the same coin….why do people have to contstantly shriek their virtue?
Acceptance that we are all sinners (and no this is not a biblical reference) is good to place to start when deciding on one’s outlook.
If the climate is really boiling, I’d think twice about travelling in a private jet, when the real concern, is owning a private car of course.
If the climate is really boiling, I’d think twice about travelling in a private jet, when the real concern, is owning a private car of course.
From Robert Zubrin’s “The Case for Nukes”.:
“There are three principal reasons why the leaders of putative environmentalist movement have been committed to destroying the nuclear industry for the past half-century.
One is because they are true adherents of anti-human ideology, believing that humanity is fundamentally a race of vermin, whose number, activities, and liberties must be severely constrained in order to protect a statically conceived “Nature”. Liberating humanity with unlimited energy would upend that grand project.
Another, more immediate concern, is that the environmentalist organisations require pollution for educational purposes. Accordingly, they hate nuclear energy because it would solve the problem they need to have.
The third motivation, however, is the most compelling of all. They work to destroy the nuclear industry because they get paid to do so.… Characterising these organisations as businesses, I do not wish to discount their ideological motivations. They’re sincerely committed to ending the progress of human civilisation, or at least denying its benefits, such as electricity, opportunity, proper nutrition, and good health, to those parts the world who do not yet have them.…”
He deals with capture of the regulators by activists with the purpose of making permitting as difficult lengthy and expensive as possible. Sabotaged by regulation.
From Robert Zubrin’s “The Case for Nukes”.:
“There are three principal reasons why the leaders of putative environmentalist movement have been committed to destroying the nuclear industry for the past half-century.
One is because they are true adherents of anti-human ideology, believing that humanity is fundamentally a race of vermin, whose number, activities, and liberties must be severely constrained in order to protect a statically conceived “Nature”. Liberating humanity with unlimited energy would upend that grand project.
Another, more immediate concern, is that the environmentalist organisations require pollution for educational purposes. Accordingly, they hate nuclear energy because it would solve the problem they need to have.
The third motivation, however, is the most compelling of all. They work to destroy the nuclear industry because they get paid to do so.… Characterising these organisations as businesses, I do not wish to discount their ideological motivations. They’re sincerely committed to ending the progress of human civilisation, or at least denying its benefits, such as electricity, opportunity, proper nutrition, and good health, to those parts the world who do not yet have them.…”
He deals with capture of the regulators by activists with the purpose of making permitting as difficult lengthy and expensive as possible. Sabotaged by regulation.
“Smile, Greta! Please, oh please, oh pretty please?” The lady doth protest too much.
It is just this kind of article and rhetoric that leads to negative discourse. What is the point of the article other than to troll one side or feed the confirmation bias of the other?
As it happens I was reading an article on this very subject the other day, and how climate activism is being conflated with other subjects and characteristics to alienate it.
A key element of the disinformation playbook is to ‘other’ certain groups in society – setting them apart by attributing negative characteristics. Though it may seem trivial, using this kind of language against environmental movements helps to drive a wedge between members of society.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/08/20/weaponising-the-climate-crisis-how-extremists-and-politicians-are-polarising-the-debate
Just like it’s a right wing “culture war”. It’s usually because the left like to project though both sides are guilty of bait and switch. Most people are apolitical and simply want evidence to make their own decisions but our experts and politicians deal in ideology and narrative.
You’re absolutely correct, they do and that’s because it works. The big problem until fairly recently is showing people evidence that it is actually happening – it’s hard to convince someone of the pains of reaching net zero targets with theory based on longtermism. Therefore folks who get passionate or indeed angry about it are labelled as crazy extremists or as above nihilistic fanatics, which is just disgusting.
Throwing out terms like “denier” or “conspiracy theory” don’t help either.
Ordinary people are well convinced of ‘the pains of reaching net zero targets’, they’re the ones being asked to bear the costs.
You keep ignoring most posters here who admit that GW is happening but are sceptical that any measures taken by the West will have any affect because of pollution caused by China, India, basically all of the 3rd world.
Then there is overpopulation happening in 3rd world.
I am sorry but you can not have West standard of leaving if your country population grows 5 or 6 times in 60 years like Pakistan or Nigeria.
Basically all sh*te countries.
Tried to reply but “awaiting for approval”.
Total joke.
Lefty ver%&n censorship is strong on Unherd.
Throwing out terms like “denier” or “conspiracy theory” don’t help either.
Ordinary people are well convinced of ‘the pains of reaching net zero targets’, they’re the ones being asked to bear the costs.
You keep ignoring most posters here who admit that GW is happening but are sceptical that any measures taken by the West will have any affect because of pollution caused by China, India, basically all of the 3rd world.
Then there is overpopulation happening in 3rd world.
I am sorry but you can not have West standard of leaving if your country population grows 5 or 6 times in 60 years like Pakistan or Nigeria.
Basically all sh*te countries.
Tried to reply but “awaiting for approval”.
Total joke.
Lefty ver%&n censorship is strong on Unherd.
You’re absolutely correct, they do and that’s because it works. The big problem until fairly recently is showing people evidence that it is actually happening – it’s hard to convince someone of the pains of reaching net zero targets with theory based on longtermism. Therefore folks who get passionate or indeed angry about it are labelled as crazy extremists or as above nihilistic fanatics, which is just disgusting.
Waste of words is the twin of wasted energy.
How about, in place of ‘negative discourse’, writing ‘criticism’. Your readers’ eyes won’t glaze over and your brain might get refreshed.
Just like it’s a right wing “culture war”. It’s usually because the left like to project though both sides are guilty of bait and switch. Most people are apolitical and simply want evidence to make their own decisions but our experts and politicians deal in ideology and narrative.
Waste of words is the twin of wasted energy.
How about, in place of ‘negative discourse’, writing ‘criticism’. Your readers’ eyes won’t glaze over and your brain might get refreshed.
It is just this kind of article and rhetoric that leads to negative discourse. What is the point of the article other than to troll one side or feed the confirmation bias of the other?
As it happens I was reading an article on this very subject the other day, and how climate activism is being conflated with other subjects and characteristics to alienate it.
A key element of the disinformation playbook is to ‘other’ certain groups in society – setting them apart by attributing negative characteristics. Though it may seem trivial, using this kind of language against environmental movements helps to drive a wedge between members of society.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/08/20/weaponising-the-climate-crisis-how-extremists-and-politicians-are-polarising-the-debate