Billionaire-backed activists styled as "academics" against democratic debate, freedom of speech, democracy, science...
https://twitter.com/lwhitmarsh/status/1452545910240600068
Whitmarsh believes that her research can help engineer social values, so that the government can elicit the public's obedience, rather than execute the public's wishes, as tested by democratic process. She was one of the four 'expert leads' that ran the UK Climate Assembly...
You can read my report on the Climate Assembly for the Global Warming Policy Forum at netzerowatch.com/climate-assemb…
Here's a clip. Notice what it says, in contrast to what Whitmarsh et al call for. It calls for democratic scrutiny -- oversight, not abolition of the putative counterpart in the debate.
Greens ban things. It's all they can do, because they are pathologically hostile to debate.
Greens ban things. It's all they can do, because they are pathologically hostile to debate.
The quote referred to is Whitmarsh's claim that "[the report from the climate assembly] gives a clear mandate to policy-makers for bold action to tackle climate change".
But as I point out in my report and in this video, that is manifestly not true.
But as I point out in my report and in this video, that is manifestly not true.
It turns out that many "academics" are extremely promiscuous with the concept of truth, you see.
And it turns out that the Climate Assembly, under the direction of Whitmarsh and fellow fake academics and civil servants heard from radical green activists presented as 'experts'.
And it turns out that the Climate Assembly, under the direction of Whitmarsh and fellow fake academics and civil servants heard from radical green activists presented as 'experts'.
As I point out, one of the experts was one of the founder members of the UK chapter of Earth First! - which was a pretty crazy organisation, on any analysis. Another was an XR organiser. The Climate Assembly members were not told of these activists' activism & pasts.
So it's a bit rich, isn't it, for @lwhitmarsh to complain about a charity not being in her view entitled to charitable status, when her own project turn out to be so massively compromised by her own ideological exuberance, but with much greater consequence...
The letter claims it wants to protect the public from what it claims is GWPF's departure from 'science'.
1. But Whitmarsh et al attempted to circumvent the democratic process.
2. They have deliberately sought to deny the public a debate.
3. They are manifestly ideological.
1. But Whitmarsh et al attempted to circumvent the democratic process.
2. They have deliberately sought to deny the public a debate.
3. They are manifestly ideological.
Academia's cynicism of the public and its contempt for democracy is an unfortunate historical turn.
But an academic, possessed by ideological zeal, is entirely consistent when she takes an instrumental view of the public, to demand the closure of civil society organisations.
But an academic, possessed by ideological zeal, is entirely consistent when she takes an instrumental view of the public, to demand the closure of civil society organisations.
On her view, you see, an organisation that is independent of the ideological agenda is dangerous to the public's understanding -- an understanding which must be curated and engineered by academics and public institutions, which know best how the public must think.
NB: all of history's tyrants -- and the remaining tyrants of the world -- have exactly the same notion of ideological hygiene. They make all sorts of elaborate arguments for the purging of recalcitrant perspective from the public sphere, for the good of the public.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
