Thread by @SteB777

1) We need to talk about the way doomism is being used by certain climate scientists as a pejorative term for many climate activists. It's necessary to discuss this, because post COP26 this term is being widely abused and used against anyone questioning the efficacy of COP talks.

2) I've not been follow this whole narrative enought to know the exact origin of this narrative. However, climate scientist Michael Mann seems to be instrumental in it's current usage.
theguardian.com/environment/20…

3) Quite frankly I've been baffled by Mann's whole framing of what he calls doomism, or doom-mongering, because his whole framing of it seems misconstrued. The people he and others following his lead are accusing of being doomists, self-evidently aren't what they are accused of.

4) Having been long experienced in challenging online climate change denial I am certainly familiar with the doom narrative used by what seem to have been false flag astro-turfers, saying it's pointless taking action, because it's too late. I've always challenged this.

5) So yes, doomism as defined by Michael Mann has long been a facet of climate change denial, and indeed it seems likely to have emanated from climate change denial factories. Although it's always impossible to know the exact motivation of those making these claims.

6) I think doomism, can be most accurately framed as fatalism. You know, the simple narrative, it's too late to do anything, so we might as well forget about taking action, because we can't change what will happen anyway.

7) In other words, if this argument was framed by climate change denial troll factories, as seems likely, the intention was to demotivate people from wanting to take action on climate change, under the pretext it was too late.

8) Indeed, this fits in with Mann's narrative, that doomers are inactivists.

"Inactivists know that if people believe there is nothing you can do, they are led down a path of disengagement."
theguardian.com/environment/20…

9) This all seems fairly clear cut, as I can attest to this version of doomism as a real phenomenon I have experienced myself online, and it seems to be part of orchestrated denial.

10) However, this is where it gets bizarre. Mann and some other climate scientists inspired by him seem to be using it to characterize what some young climate activists are saying, and activist organizations like @ExtinctionR.

https://twitter.com/dougmcneall/status/1461334578791161862

11) As I closely follow activists, including the young activists, and XR etc, I am absolutely baffled by the characterization of them as doomists. Most are clearly calling for action, system change. The diametric opposite of doomists.

12) What most activists being labelled as doomers are actually saying, is that we are only doomed, IF WE FAIL to take the necessary action to shift to as sustainable system. In fact not so different to Michael Mann's own arguments.

13) I mean I am utterly baffled. I think I've a much better understanding of the position of the people being labelled doomists and inactivists than Michael Mann and the other climate scientists flinging accusations of doomism around.

14) I've been blocked twice by Mann (for some reason he unblocked me at one point) for simply raising a few issues for clarification about this. So presumably, Mann has classed me as a doomist. Which is absurd given my actual position.

15) It's very difficult to know what is going on. Do those engaging in these false accusations of doomism, simply misunderstand the position of those they are falsely accusing of doomism, or are they simply trying to smear them, because they see them as opponents?

16) I will clarify why I consider these claims of doomism, false and baseless. Those apparently being accused of doomism, are all campaigning hard for action and system change to avert catastrophe.

17) Remember, a doomist is someone who says there's no point in action, because it is too late. Demanding action and system change, to avert catastrophe, is actually doing the exact opposite of this. How can committed activists, be inactivists?

18) In his Guardian interview Mann name checks only 2 people @dwallacewells and Jonathan Franzen. Plus he refers to the Deep Adaptation movement.

19) I'm at a slight disadvantage here because I've never really read either of these 2 people (only articles, where I've not found much of interest. Nor have I ever delved that much into Deep Adaptation, mainly because I've got my own original take which well pre-dates it.

20) However, what I can say with a high degree of certainty is that the 2 named individuals seem to have little primary influence with most of the activists being labelled doomists. Whilst Deep Adaptation does have it's followers, it is not really mainstream with activists.

21) Also from what I've seen from @dwallacewells tweets etc, he doesn't seem to be a doomist as framed by Mann, as he posts lots of campaigning stuff to address the climate crisis.

22) Likewise, from what I have seen from those in the Deep Adaptation camp, they are not saying we're all doomed, it's not worth taking action. In fact quite the opposite.

23) A possible explanation of this misunderstanding came up after a tweet by @JustCollapse with a petition to stop Professor Michael Mann labelling activists 'doomers' and/or 'bad actors'.

https://twitter.com/JustCollapse/status/1461573533188849664

24) Professor Richard Betts, who was tagged in, responded, assuming because of the title collapse, that this organization were doomers. I think this was a genuine error and I am not criticising @richardabetts as he acknowledged he might have got it wrong.

https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/1462125059439579136

25) I had a look at their about page, and drew Professor Betts' attention to this, which he acknowledged here. This got me thinking, is this all simply a grand misunderstanding over the term "collapse"?

https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/1462139055748038657

26) Are some climate scientists mistakenly referring to climate activists as doomers, simply because they misunderstand the arguments of many climate activists and have been misled by Michael Mann's characterization of them?

27) There is a whole genre of "collapsology". I don't claim any particular insight into it as I've never read most of the works. But at least many using this term do not mean total collapse, but simply a transition to another system, preferably planned.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapsol…

28) In other words, the "collapse" being talked about as inevitable, is the collapse of the system in it's present form. Hopefully with a transition of a sustainable and fairer system. Not we're all going to hell in a handcart. Only we will be if we try to cling to BAU.

29) I don't want to put words into the mouths of others, but this collapse doesn't seem to mean what the climate scientists using the term doomism, seem to think it means.

30) As an aside here, I've now come to the conclusion that all ideologies are unhelpful. This is why I am not interested in understanding these different schools of thought. I have my own analysis about the unsustainability of our current system.

31) However, my personal approach is somewhat different as I purely see things in terms of practical problem solving, which I feel is hindered by too much adherence to pre-existing ideas about solutions, which is what I regard ideology as.

32) Coming back to Michael Mann's framing of what he calls doomism. He refers to the idea of an "Arctic methane bomb will cause runaway warming and extinguish all life on earth within 10 years" and links this to Deep Adaptation.
theguardian.com/environment/20…

33) As I say, I'm no scholar of these schools of thought as I personally regard them as unhelpful. However, I can't help but think Michael Mann is confusing the ideas of Guy McPherson with Deep Adaptation.

34) What is the point of trying to adapt to anything if all life, and that includes humanity, would be extinct in 10 years time? It doesn't make any sense.

35) I can't be certain of this because I'm not a mind reader and Mann is so vague about who he is referring to. But it seems to me he's taken the ideas of inevitable catastrophe from the likes of Guy McPherson and is projecting it onto others with very different ideas.

36) My understanding is that those in the Deep Adaptation camp have posited tipping points etc, possibly Arctic methane release, but not necessarily to the degree it would "extinguish all life on earth".

37) I am baffled that Mann's theories about doomers etc, have got so much traction. He is totally outside his area of expertise and is most certainly not any sort of authority on human perception in general or these schools of thought he is falsely labelling as doomers.

38) Professor Michael Mann is a climate scientist. I see absolutely nothing in his CV that makes him any sort of authority on the thinking of others. Presumably Mann argues against climate straw man arguments, because this is the only thing he has any expertise in.

39) Yet this is the whole thing, it is a climate and ecological emergency, and the climate component is only one part of the existential threat to our civilization. As far as I can see, Mann has no expertise in biodiversity or ecology.

40) Mann blocked me the second time for referring to biodiversity and specifically to this article by Sir Robert Watson I linked to in my response to him.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

41) All the climate scientists dismissing concerns of what they call doomers, are not addressing the rest of the ecological crisis. When you look at the whole ecological crisis, it becomes clear that you need far more radical change than if you just look at the climate component.

42) In the words of the Sir Robert Watson article I referenced above.

"We cannot solve the threats of human-induced climate change and loss of biodiversity in isolation. We either solve both or we solve neither."

43) This is what those taking the lead from Mann and smearing activists as "doomers" are totally in denial about. That we need far more radical changes to our present system to avert catastrophe and create a sustainable system, than just climate measures.

44) None of the current suggested measures to address the climate crisis will in anyway address the biodiversity crisis, let alone the rest of the ecological crisis. In fact they might make it worse.

45) Currently, climate is not even the main driver of biodiversity loss, even if it maybe in the future. Any climate scientist assuring activists that if their climate solutions work everything will be fine, doesn't know what they're talking about.
unep.org/news-and-stori…

46) But then, why should a climate scientist understand the whole ecological crisis, biodiversity loss and the threat it poses to us, because again it is outside their area of expertise?

47) This is the whole problem. Many activists are simply not as in denial about the whole ecological crisis as some climate scientists, falsely labelling them as doomers, are. The activists want the whole crisis addressed, not just the climate bit. This doesn't make you a doomer.

48) All I am asking for is for those flinging false accusations of doomer at activists, to think a bit more about the whole situation, and to only use the term for real doomers. Not as a general insult to those they disagree with, which is dishonest.

49) All constructive responses and dialogue welcome. But please don't just keep responding with unsupported assertions, because that is a dishonest style of argument. I will have to block anyone who persists with this style of dishonest argument. Just support what you say.

@ClimateHuman @JKSteinberger @GeorgeMonbiot

@threadreaderapp Please unroll?