1) I want to create a mini-thread here, to go through this revealing insight into Boris Johnson's thinking on the climate crisis. I think this very important, because we rarely get this type of insight. 🧵 independent.co.uk/climate-change…
2) The first think that stands out, is his warning of possible civilization collapse. Not least of all because I've been consistently saying this myself and actually using the collapse of the Roman Civilization in Britain as an example.
3) First I want to deal with what I consider the most important revelation.
"Admitting his own “road to Damascus” conversion - after a journalism career in which he scoffed at climate change - Mr Johnson said the key moment had only come after he became prime minister."
4) This is when it first clicked for him. 2 years ago. The science on anthropogenic climate change has actually been fairly certain for over 40 years.
"He said he was briefed by government scientists soon after arriving in Downing Street, in 2019."
5) I consider this the most revealing insight into a world's leaders thinking on climate ever.
'“I got them to run through it all and, if you look at the almost vertical kink upward in the temperature graph, the anthropogenic climate change, it’s very hard to dispute,” he said.'
6) What he has revealed, is he'd never really thought about it before, or made any attempt to avail himself of the basic facts, despite having been Mayor of London, and Foreign Secretary, a major journalist and Conservative leadership contender for a long time.
7) What this tells us, is it is possible to get into one of the most senior positions in government, Foreign Secretary, and yet be able to avoid being properly briefed on THE most important issue of our time.
8) This explains such a lot. It tells us that most world leaders have probably never been given a basic scientific briefing like this, and if they did, they were deliberately not thinking.
9) It is incredibly easy, if briefed by knowledgeable scientists, backed up by the facts, to leave anyone, including the most ardent "sceptic", in no doubt whatsoever.
10) However, there are some worrying things here, he seems to think it will only effect future generations.
In addition, he seems to make no connection at all with the biodiversity and general ecological crisis, which makes this crisis far more serious than most realise.
11) You see, when most people say something like they understand the crisis, realise how serious it is, you automatically assume they have read the basics and have got some grasp of the situation.
12) I came to an understanding of the ecological and sustainability crisis at a very early age, over 50 years ago. I have been thinking about it, reading and researching it, in a rather obsessive way since, did a degree in ecology etc.
13) I am just starting to realise that probably I've gone much deeper into thinking about this whole crisis in a joined up big picture way, than maybe anyone I've ever spoken to. I mean nearly 30 years ago, I had senior scientists say to me, I've never really thought about that.
14) In fact, I've never really thought about that is response I've had so many times I have utterly lost count. You see, often when I've asked these questions, made these points. I wasn't trying to demonstrate all my thinking, I expected illumination.
15) I expected to be told or pointed towards who was the leading thinker on this, what they said, pointed towards books or papers that dealt with this. Not to be told, oh I've never thought about that before.
16) On Twitter and elsewhere, I've repeatedly asked who or what organization, institute, department, what field of science, is looking at all the parts of this crisis? The climate, biodiversity, ecological, how it connects to our economies, in a joined up way.
17) If I get pointed somewhere, a quick 20 minute peruse, tells me there is huge gaps in the thinking and knowledge. That alarmingly, there is no one actually looking at this crisis we face in a joined up way.
18) It is frightening, that our prime minister, a 57 year old man, who first became an MP over 20 years ago, and whose father was writing books on the environment 50 years ago, only had a look at the evidence for the climate crisis, 2 years ago. The mind boggles.
19) To say there is a paucity of leadership in the world is incredible under statement.
Personally, the thing that really frightens me is that I seem to have thought about things, so many experts had never thought about at all.
20) When I say, I seem to have thought about things many experts don't seem to have thought about at all, does not make me any sort of expert on this. I simply know these issues and problems exist, not the answer to them. That is what is so frightening.
21) You see, when we were all hunter-gatherers, it didn't really matter if we didn't know everything, or never thought about the world we lived in. We were just another species, another animal.
22) However, when we falsely imagined we were a god like species, and started destroying large areas of the world in pursuit of "progress and development", you might have thought someone would be responsible enough to say, ought we not have a good think about what we are doing.
23) Yet this is the truly frightening thing, despite having known about this crisis for 50 years or more, we haven't even developed a field of science, an organization, examining the whole crisis in a joined up way. We're flying blind. un.org/en/conferences…
Further to my point about this, and it is really crucial for understanding the climate and ecological emergency we are in, and the failure of our system to change direction, is what Kuhn says about paradigm shifts and the structure of scientific revolutions.🧵
Thomas Kuhn says science textbooks give the false impression that science is a slow accumulation of knowledge and so the new big picture science portrays, the new paradigm is consistent with past understandings of science. Kuhn says this is not the case.
Kuhn says each time there is a major paradigm shift, that the new paradigm is often incommensurate with previous scientific views of the world. That it creates an entirely different view of the world we live in.
Nothing better illustrates the fallacious government thinking over the climate and ecological crisis. How not only Boris Johnson, but other world leaders, treat it like a PR crisis, and not the actual crisis it is. theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/o…
Only yesterday the latest UN report warned us that on current government plans around the world, we are on course for 2.7C of warming, nearly twice the below 1.5C of warming target of the Paris agreement. theguardian.com/environment/20…
It is very difficult to know what is going on here, other than our political and business leaders seem to be detached from reality and appear to believe that this crisis can be addressed with propaganda and spin.
Let me briefly explain the fallacious thinking and misinterpretation of what I said. I have never said we shouldn't have or use ideas. Only that seeing ideas as the ultimate reference is wrong.
What the map-territory relationship teaches us, is that even the very best ideas are partly mistaken and never the same as reality. So like maps, ideas are at best a guide to the world, we should always take with a pinch of salt. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80…
As any walker or hiker knows, maps are absolutely valuable for navigation. However, any experienced walker also knows you must never totally rely on the map. A map cannot tell you where there is a waterlogged piece of boggy ground where you will sink up to your waist.
I am well aware that some might consider this as a bit extreme. However, I'm not saying it works exactly like this, but we need some way of understanding how despite all the time and evidence, our so called leaders still refuse to do the right thing.
The latest UN report lays bare the incredible vacuity and dishonesty of the Net Zero by 2050 policy, which is actually putting us on course for 2.7C of warming, nearly double the Paris 1.5C target. theguardian.com/environment/20…
There is nothing wrong with aspiring to Net Zero in the next 30 years - with 2 big provisos.
1) This has to be actual Net Zero, not fraudulent not net zero.
2) We need rapid and drastic reductions in GHG emissions within the next 10 years to stay on course for the Paris target.
1) What if, and I propose this in all seriousness, our so called leaders cannot take adequate action to address the climate and ecological emergency - because they are not in charge of our system in the way we are led to believe?🧵
It is assumed that Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin et al, could if they wanted order adequate action to address the climate and ecological emergency.
What if they don't actually have this ability?
3) What I'm getting at is they might just be figureheads, the public face of a system, really controlled by many vested interests, with no one individual really being in control. Just a cabal of vested interests making huge wealth by destroying the Earth's life support systems.
Is Michael Mann in denial about the biodiversity crisis and the general ecological crisis? This is because it is now the second time he has blocked me for simply raising a point about it. Below are screen grabs of the exchange so it can be seen he blocked me for no valid reason.
Here is my very clear question which Michael Mann responded to. Note how I was only asking a very specific studies modelling biodiversity and ecological impacts. So Michael Mann's tweet response to me made no sense, because it wasn't about this.
I made 2 responses to Michael Mann, which I will post alone on the tweet below to make them easier to read. This is just to prove I am not leaving anything out.