No statistics or ordinary metric of 'disaster', 'crisis', 'emergency' or even 'risk' support the claims that they exist. In many cases, they demonstrate the opposite.
Climate ideologues like Dessler play with words and numbers.
At least he admits it, eventually. Words mean whatever he wants them to mean.
I think 'disaster', 'crisis', 'emergency' and risk have very real meanings, which should not be toyed with by green propagandists. Desller is okay with misleading the public.
Unpack the framing, too... It is "anyone who says climate change is not a disaster or an emergency is expressing their values". But he does not take issue with anyone declaring a disaster or emergency.
It doesn't work both ways, in green world.
If 'values' drive declarations of crisis/emergency/disaster/risk, in favour of urgent policies, then climate scientists should explain to policymakers who have declare them that their declarations have no scientific basis.
But climate scientists do not challenge green hyperbole.
What's the point of the IPCC and climate science if climate scientists cannot challenge green hyperbole and Swedish teenage fear-mongers that screech "FOLLOW THE SCIENCE"?
If it's okay to bring subjective values -- ideology -- to climate policy, then it should be acknowledged.
If "You are completely allowed to look at the same data ... and conclude it is an emergency", why does concluding that there is no "emergency" make the "scientist" so angry?
Dessler has always want to have his cake and eat it.
Here's a piece from the archive, challenging Dessler's equivalence of global warming and a child with cancer.
There is no precedent for the deliberate immiseration of a population, such as that which is implied by #NetZero, without tanks and guns on streets, pointed at citizens.
Talk of using military 'intelligence' & force is about controlling domestic politics.
This is "the personal is political", rescued from the 1970s.
I.e., let virtue signalling obscure awareness of your material interests, to let bogus grievance mongers and race-baiters award themselves endless privileges at your expense.
You might be a socialist black man, or a capitalist Asian woman. But Femi and this TikToker want to claim that the black man and Asian woman should not discuss their political ideas, only the colour of their skin.
In order to do this, they have invented the idea of political parties 'openly' {sic} representing racism/homophobia/misogyny.
This reduces politics to a battle between identities, to displace democratic contest between ideas about how society & the economy should be managed.
Within months of having been formed, XR were invited to give evidence to Parliamentary committees, and had an hour long meeting with @michaelgove, in which he agreed with nearly everything their said.
Here's XR founder Gail Bradbrook speaking to the @beisgovuk committee.