,
16 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I'm fairly sure some of us have been telling political parties for a very LONG time that ultimately climate change only serves to signal to voters the very worst of a remote, aloof, self-regarding political establishment (and their cronies)...
They said that we said it because we're nasty people.
But look at the facts...
But look at the facts...
Climate policies have not served as a successful political wedge in the Anglosphere - the US and Australia, the same is looming for Canada. It hasn't been a wedge issue in the UK, where there has been a cross-party consensus at the voter's expense.
It's falling apart in Europe, with the GJs and Germany's ridiculous policy failures. And it's splitting Europe.
Brazil is pulling out.
None of that is because of deniers and their nasty words.
Brazil is pulling out.
None of that is because of deniers and their nasty words.
Geopolitics and national political agendas are completely different now to what they were in 2005.
We deniers have long pointed out that the consensus -- political and scientific -- is fragile.
That's not because we're nasty.
We deniers have long pointed out that the consensus -- political and scientific -- is fragile.
That's not because we're nasty.
The failures of the climate agenda are owed entirely to the undue ambitions of climate policy-makers and climate institution-builders.
There were insufficient foundations for those projects, and the voter had to pay for it.
There were insufficient foundations for those projects, and the voter had to pay for it.
That's not a sustainable relationship -- a concept that climate advocates ought to understand.
It is obvious that the climate 'movement' is aware of this.
The alarmism has been turned up well past 11 over the last year. There has been an entire tsunami of it.
The alarmism has been turned up well past 11 over the last year. There has been an entire tsunami of it.
Yet it does not work.
All we ever said was that you need to debate it -- to argue your case.
You're left hoping for natural disasters to use as a backdrops for your photo ops.
All we ever said was that you need to debate it -- to argue your case.
You're left hoping for natural disasters to use as a backdrops for your photo ops.
Instead of debate... You did this...
'Cognitive dissonance' does not even begin to explain this phenomenon... This is a *professor of political science*.
HOW does one become a professor of political science, but be so catastrophically oblivious to political reality, and so unquestioning of one's own political perspective and ambitions... ideology?
Was is it that, like climate science, if an academic pointed out the problems, and the dearth of reflection on and criticism of the agenda, he or she would be pushed out?
It's an indictment of academia, not merely academics, either way.
This is undeniably a problem caused by the proximity of the academy to government.
They took the legitimacy and the value of the compact for granted.
They were wrong.
This is undeniably a problem caused by the proximity of the academy to government.
They took the legitimacy and the value of the compact for granted.
They were wrong.
"Governments are doing what we're telling them about climate change. This is progress", said academics.
In reality, the academics were doing what government had told them to do.
They were the only ones who didn't know.
In reality, the academics were doing what government had told them to do.
They were the only ones who didn't know.
There's a difference between speaking truth to power and speaking truth for power.
