1) Just a quick note to anti-maskers, mask-sceptics and associated science deniers. The primary purpose of wearing a mask in confined public spaces is to protect other people from virus spread by infected people. See this video as to how it works.🧵
2) The COVID virus is primarily transmitted by an infected person exhaling droplets carrying the virus, with a largely invisible plume being projected in front and around them, every time they exhale, cough or sneeze. gov.uk/government/pub…
3) As the video demonstrates any sort of face mask greatly reduces the spread of this plume of potentially infected droplets, drastically reducing the likelihood of nearby people becoming infected. It really is that simple.
4) Protecting the mask wearer from the social perspective is of secondary importance, but important to individuals. However, any effective mask also works to drastically reduce the likelihood of a person inhaling droplets from an infected person.
5) Many cite reasons for not wearing a mask, yet "Experts say there are very few medical reasons for people to skip masks.". Most people granted exceptions have put pressure on overstretched GPs and don't deserve exemptions, most of which are spurious. webmd.com/lung/news/2020…
6) Vocal anti-maskers repeatedly cite specious and spurious reasons for not wearing masks, all of which simply refuse to acknowledge the preponderance of evidence. It's libertarian sophistry, spread by malign propagandists, and spread by "useful idiots". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_id…
7) A "useful idiot" means someone who unwittingly serves the agenda of often malign interests, without realising they are being used. Certain ideologies don't want the public to listen to scientific advice, for reasons other than that stated.
8) A typical argument implies that masks do not give full protection to the user, so are useless. Yet, as we've seen, the primary purpose of a mask from a social and public perspective is to reduce the risk from the virus being spread by exhalation, meaning this argument is moot.
9) It is this mixing of non-relevant arguments, and the failure to acknowledge demonstrable facts, which makes this whole process specious sophistry. lexico.com/definition/sop…
10) I am sorry for having to be so blunt about this. But ALL anti-masking arguments are specious and it is tiresome having to deal with each false argument. So I have just created this thread to cite to each and every such stupid false argument. thefreedictionary.com/specious+argum…
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.
Total climate ignoramus Andrew Neil, who has such bad judgement that he inadvertently fronted an extreme right wing populist TV channel without knowing what it was, now wants to return to mainstream TV to misinform the public about the climate crisis. theguardian.com/media/2021/nov…
Nothing better illustrates the obstacle to addressing the climate crisis. A bunch of very powerful and influential people, who control everything believe they know best when it comes to the climate and ecological crisis.
The only thing all of these people have in common is a complete lack of knowledge about the subject. None of them have any formal qualifications in a relevant subject, and at best they have done some very cherry-picked shallow reading.
I thought it was a good time to remind people of this. In 2016, journalist Roberto Saviano, who wrote books exposing the workings of the Italian mafia, said that the UK was the most corrupt country in the world, and supported his assertions. independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…?
He said it was the London financial centre that was the centre of this corruption. You know, one of the major centres for financing the fossil fuel industry, which is one of the gravest threats to humanity.
It was the UK who taught effective torture methods to the Brazilian military dictatorship. They called it the "English Method". It's no coincidence that so many despots send their sons to English public schools and Sandhurst. boingboing.net/2014/05/30/the…
The only good thing to come out of COP26 is that at least we now know with absolute certainty that our current leadership/system is utterly incapable of meaningfully addressing the climate and ecological emergency.
What inspired me to write this scathing response is good people, experts, have wasted the best part of 30 years engaging with politicians who quite clearly don't want to do anything meaningful, and who are actually far more concerned about protecting the fossil fuel industry.
The fact that governments still provide this obscene level of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, 30 years after they were supposed to be reducing emissions, and by implication fossil fuel burning, says they're utterly disingenuous in their sentiment. theguardian.com/environment/20…
"The only way the defenders of business as usual can be in a position of protecting BAU from reform, is to pretend be trying to address the climate and ecological emergency, and therefore put themselves in a position of control over what measures are considered and implemented."
It's in quotes, because I just wrote it in an email to someone.
This is what triggered me writing this, and it pretty much encapsulates what I've been trying to get across in my threads on Twitter i.e. the narrative. nature.com/articles/d4158…
1) What this is illustrates is how accurate my previous thread was about the primary obstacle to a realistic agreement to address the climate crisis is. It's just crude self-interest. Countries which can profit from fossil fuels don't want to give them up. independent.co.uk/climate-change…
2) Here's my other thread. Whilst it was focused on personal wealth and privilege, the ability to profit from fossil fuel extraction, ultimately comes down to the same thing. Individuals personally benefiting from what is driving the crisis.
3) Just think about the countries constantly obstructing progress. The most notorious is oil rich Saudi Arabia, then we have Australia with it's massive coal resources, Russia with it's oil and gas reserves, and the list goes on.