Thread by @clim8resistance

The Prime Minister consulted 'scientists' on the most expensive, farreaching and draconian legislation in the history of this country's democracy...

... BUT DID NOT SEEK A COUNTER-POSITION.

That's foolishness in the extreme, for which we shall be paying for generations to come.

https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1454396373604896769

It was politics that assembled scientists -- institutional science -- to seemingly understand the problem of climate change.

And it was ideology -- environmentalism -- that framed institutional science's understanding of both the human world and natural processes.

Money then shaped the unfolding of that 'science'.

Institutional science abolished from its corridors any semblance of value-free investigation of the material world.

The view that human civilisation depends on natural processes & 'balance' became established as orthodoxy.

In other words, ideology colonised institutional science.

And science has no means to examine itself, to exclude ideology from its understanding, if it abolishes criticism from the scientific process.

Science becomes anti-science.

That allows ideology to fester.

This in turn allows a DEEPLY ideological, and profoundly regressive anti-human form of politics to dominate at global and national levels.

It wants to transform society, to bend it to the designs that its movers and players have for your life, in their interests.

The Prime Minister @BorisJohnson is acting in extreme bad faith.

And so are his counterparts.

"Science" is not a big enough fig leaf for their shame.

Footnote.

Would seeking a counter-position mean the PM finding people to tell him that climate change is not real and not a problem?

Maybe. But there are *many* positions, between "it's not happening" and "it's the end of civilisation".

We must surely hear them all.

Here is what I would tell him -- if only he could listen.

1. The half-century + of environmentalism has produced a range of alarmist prognostications, seemingly based on indubitable 'science', and each of which has failed.

2. What that demonstrates is that institutional science is capable of being 180 degrees out of kilter with reality -- in particular 'science' which has political utility for a global political project.

3. And what it shows in particular is that science is extremely vulnerable to -- not the remedy to -- ideology.

4. Ideological precepts have driven the 'science' underpinning the green agenda.

5. So in order to understand what kind of problem climate change is, it is necessary to understand green ideology, and how it has informed 'science'.

6. Institutional science is hostile to such criticism. institutional science is thus hostile to science.

7. Only debate and democracy can put institutional science back on track, to free it from ideology and interests.