Thread by @clim8resistance

They already knew this.

They knew this BEFORE #NetZero.

They believed that XR and the Climate Assembly would either i) change the public's mind, or ii) create an alternative 'democratic mandate' by proxy.

https://twitter.com/GaiaFawkes/status/1425410228766613508

That's why @michaelgove met with XR just six months after being founded -- they claimed to speak for 'the people'.

But they represented nobody at all, other than about 3,000 weirdos.

They had been established to push Net Zero & Citizens Assemblies.

XR were convened to organise a new alarmist push towards climate policy in the wake of Trump and Brexit.

The Green Blob finally realised it needed to address the problem of democratic legitimacy, which it lacked.

So we got XR & Greta.

The Government and the green blob were both equally sure that XR and Greta -- and favourable news media coverage -- would tip the public's view, and that the Climate Assembly would seal the deal.

They acted accordingly.

But nothing has gone to plan.

If you want to understand the absolute chaos in official thinking on climate change, read the Guardian.

The only official claims that the Guardian & its tiny readership believe are claims relating to the costs of climate policy & climate "inaction".

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

In truth, the costs of climate 'inaction' are trivial. Equivalent to the cost of maintenance of civil infrastructure.

Why?

Because there is nothing that "climate change" can do to us which the climate cannot do to us.

To understand this point, consider the claims of the argument for 'action': that extreme weather events become more likely. Incidentally, most of this 'extreme weather' is just milder winters.

So let's begin to enumerate the risks:

A. More frequent/intense storms -- mostly increased streamflow & higher probability of flooding.

B. More frequent heatwaves/periods without rain.

C. Sea level rise.

Also incidentally, none of these increased risks has been detected.

A. Tells you nothing that you did not already need to account for.

B. Tells you nothing that you did not already need to account for.

C. Tells you nothing that you did not already need to account for.

Again: the claim is that the risks of extremes has increased.

But this makes ZERO difference from the point of view of planning and policymaking -- and other services throughout the economy.

If you saw a doubling of the risks of, say, extreme storms that we might expect to see just once a decade, that *would* be a very clear signal in the data that climate change was happening. (And we've seen nothing like it.) But it would make no difference to what to do about it.

The alarmists storyline is that increased intensity of storms and so on will destroy civilisation.

But i) there is no evidence of this happening & ii) it is simply *NOT POSSIBLE* for weather to do this.

Civilisation exists from the Arctic Circle to the Equator.

Civilisation is not simply humans finding their sensitive ecological niche. Civilisation is *precisely* adaptation: social organisation, such that we loosen our dependence on the 'environment', which becomes trivial to day-to-day life.

If it rains more, *civilisation* allocates more resources to water management. Ditto, if it rains less, *civilisation* allocates more resources to reservoirs. If storms increase in intensity, *civilisation* demands tighter building codes. Land can even be reclaimed from the sea.

The notion that 21st Century life is predicated on Natural Providence is not science. It is mysticism. It is, paradoxically, owed to the above fact that human society has all but dissolved its dependence on nature.

In order to have 'nature' at the centre of your ideological perspective, it is necessary to have almost zero material relationships with anything.

That is why environmentalism is the political religion of degenerate, Western, wealthy, upper middle classes.

It is only from a position of idle opulence that it is even possible to conceive of the world as dependent on a benign weather -- Natural Providence.

It ignores all the hardships and all the realities of meeting human wants and needs before, during and after industrial society.

And that is why organisations such as XR are -- literally -- convened on the basis of experiences of overseas hallucinogenic drug sessions.

They went in search of themselves and came back convinced that society, not they, needed to change.

They are of course, at the extreme. But the same is true of the wider green 'movement', such as it is.

*It* is unhappy with *its* life in in advanced, capitalist, industrial/postindustrial society. And *it* can only conceive of finding authenticity by turning the clock back.

Survey the populations of any of the institutions that champion climate change, to make it their core mission.

They exude a sense of being ill-at-ease with the world. It is beyond them to look back through history, and say, "we're alright". They want and need *CRISIS*.

Why? Why is an engorged, entitled, mediocre political class so keen to define itself by crises?

The same reason as any other. Because they want more.

They have no idea about how to make the argument for it. So green mythology allows them to champion the cause of LESS (for you).

There's much more to say, and I could go on, but this is a megathread now.

Suffice it to say that there is FAR more to the agenda that Johnson wants to advance than a problem identified and a solution identified by 'science'. History shows us otherwise, if we will listen.