You see images of a wildfire from a far-off place you have never been to, that you have no connection with, and have no understanding of its politics, culture or economics... What does the wildfire signify to you:

A. Gaia's revenge

or

B. A failure to properly manage land

?
Now try the other way around. Your house burns down. Do you blame:

A. a fossil fuel company for selling you petrol/diesel, or providing your electricity

or

B. the local authorities, which failed to manage the risks of spontaneous combustion or arson spreading to properties

?
It is interesting that other people's tragedies become the objects of a story that we would not accept from our own politicians.

You lost your job? Not my problem - climate change did it.

Infrastructure failure destroyed your home? Not my problem - climate change did it.
"But Ben, that's a false question. Maybe higher temperatures made politicians/officials jobs harder!"

How could it possibly be harder for today's politicians to manage water and fire than for the politicians of the nineteenth century to build all that infrastructure?
Moreover, there exists very little evidence that wildfires have got more frequent, etc. (Ditto floods).

We are far wealthier, & have much better tools & infrastructure than 100 or more years ago, but we are reluctant to intervene in nature, & reach for irrational explanations.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ben Pile

Ben Pile Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @clim8resistance

8 Aug
Again, @SMC_London tries to whitewash fearmongering, and also ignores the smearmongering from the fearmongers in place of robust, transparent scientific debate and democratic policymaking.

theguardian.com/world/2021/aug…
The alarmist models are okay, says @SMC_London, because they got people to behave, and therefore fewer people got the virus.

It's okay that science has no test in reality.

It's okay that there's no opportunity for democracy or criticism or debate.
And it's okay that this technocratic, risk-obsessed form of politics is the dominant form of politics.

If that's 'science', then f*** 'science'.
Read 17 tweets
8 Aug
Q. What do you get if you put shrill moralism before road safety?

A. Squashed.
1. Needlessly impeding road users behind you would cause you to fail a driving test.

2. That also makes it more difficult for good drivers to attempt safe passes.

3. The road is not your social venue.

Jeremey Vine is as much a dangerous idiot as any unhinged boy racer.
Rule 66 of the Highway Code... Image
Read 4 tweets
8 Aug
The latest instalment of "Only people who agree with us may disagree with us".

Today's episode is "people who disagree with us love pollution and want the world to end".
"OMG, WE NEED TO SPEND £1.4 TRILLION TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE!"

"That's a lot of money & seems to be a low estimate, has not been produced by independent analysis, lacks democratic legitimacy & it may do more harm than climate change."

"OMG YOU WANT TO KILL THE PLANET!"
Read 7 tweets
7 Aug
Betts believes that governments should be answerable to (conflicted) institutional science.
More discussion about Betts' political ideas here.

Needless to say, Betts doesn't believe that institutional science (or himself) should be answerable to the public, despite its *obvious* errors, ideological biases and political advocacy.
Read 7 tweets
7 Aug
The significance of a quango hiding data from Parliament, from scrutiny and from criticism cannot be understated.

The data is being used to shape policy that will affect every single household, changing culture, behaviour lifestyle, opportunities & costing them many £thousands.
Well done to @aDissentient and @thegwpfcom for doing what MPs and governments were unwilling and unable to do: scrutinise the "independent advice" of the unelected, conflicted and arrogant @theCCCuk.
Since the Stern Report, there has been no debate about climate change in UK politics whatsoever. It was an unchallengeable orthodoxy. This was further cemented by the Climate Change Act in 2008, as well as the creation of 'research' organisations, at the same time.
Read 7 tweets
6 Aug
Bullshit.

Lockdown -- and other interventions -- was the most draconian and far-reaching implementation of the precautionary principle since its inception as such.

The vaccine was favoured only as the means by which the government could escape from the problem it had made.
Neither the UK government, nor the broader UK political establishment --including academia and science -- has departed from the precautionary principle.
The only hint that the UK could or would depart from the orthodoxy of the precautionary principle came in that first major speech from the PM, prior to lockdown.

It did, categorically, appear to signal the end of the PP's dominance in government's approach to risk management.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(