Do you think that the rise in climate activism is a secular religion acting as a replacement for traditional religion? Climate activism as a secular religion has:
Both apocalyptic and utopian visions of the world.
Sacred texts such as An Unconvenient Truth.
Saints such as Al Gore and Greta Thunberg.
Acts of penance such as buying carbon credits.
The concept of privilege as a replacement for Original Sin.
Yes, totally, and related truths are also that humans need purpose, and community where they are valued and respected, and also Nature is indeed being killed by Technology, obviously.
You are now convinced. What's the way ahead to change the minds of the religiously committed who are on board the climate change... mob (shall we say) and all the destroy the economies to save the planet from CO2? Can it be done? One bit of good news is that you changed, but this seems to be an exceedingly rare occurrence.
How personally and professionally "uncomfortable" has it been for you to speak about climate change truth as you understand it now? If there were costs, were you surprised by them?
Who encouraged you most in your personal circle to follow the climate hoax and did they lean on ‘science’ or emotion as the foundation for their argument to persuade you?
One thing I really respect is that you said publicly you were wrong. Why do you think that is still so rare in activism, especially when people’s identity, community and moral certainty can get so wrapped up in a cause?
I live in Boston. When someone here tells me--with certainty --that electricity from wind and solar is already cheaper than electricity from oil and natural gas, what is the best possible reply that does not insult their intelligence or otherwise alienate them, and may possibly cause them to stop and think?
Why are young people, who are hypothetically motivated by solving climate change and helping the poor, pushing for movements that spend money on climate change at the expense of the poor, even though both left-wing orgs (e.g. GWWC and EA at Oxford) and right wing climate change organisations (Lomborg and CC) say that stopping poor people from being poor gets rid of basically all the climate casualties? Or taking money from innovation and spending it on corrupt subsidies (e.g. Dale Vince)?
How much do you think the extreme response to climate change comes from rage baiting for clicks on the internet and the need for scientists to gain funding money by making everything about the extremes of climate?
Donald Trump has consistently said that he hates windmills and that China only builds and sells them to the west and barely has any wind powered production itself, this, whilst being the worlds largest power producer via windmills by far. Anyone can google and fact-check this nonsense. Although agreeing with the thrust of the anti-wind lobby how can it prevail...sensibly?
People often talk about a god-shaped hole in the mind, do you also think there is a doom-shaped one to be filled with an end-of-the-world scenario (be it climate, nuclear or religious apocalypse)?
I have an idea that the best present response to potential changes in climate in any direction is to increase our ability to generate electrical power. With this we can heat if it gets colder, or cool if it gets hotter. And color or small-scale nuclear can be moved anywhere as needed. Your thoughts? Thanks.
What way do most ordinary people have of participating in the quest to improve the human condition, other than raising a few individuals each with a tiny chance of discovering or inventing something that increases life expectancy or lessens suffering or drudgery? And when that way is abandoned, is it any wonder that so many turn to activism?
Do you think that the rise in climate activism is a secular religion acting as a replacement for traditional religion? Climate activism as a secular religion has:
Both apocalyptic and utopian visions of the world.
Sacred texts such as An Unconvenient Truth.
Saints such as Al Gore and Greta Thunberg.
Acts of penance such as buying carbon credits.
The concept of privilege as a replacement for Original Sin.
Yes, totally, and related truths are also that humans need purpose, and community where they are valued and respected, and also Nature is indeed being killed by Technology, obviously.
You are now convinced. What's the way ahead to change the minds of the religiously committed who are on board the climate change... mob (shall we say) and all the destroy the economies to save the planet from CO2? Can it be done? One bit of good news is that you changed, but this seems to be an exceedingly rare occurrence.
How personally and professionally "uncomfortable" has it been for you to speak about climate change truth as you understand it now? If there were costs, were you surprised by them?
How has a focus on climate change allowed governments to get away with poor energy policy and distract from other important environmental issues?
Who encouraged you most in your personal circle to follow the climate hoax and did they lean on ‘science’ or emotion as the foundation for their argument to persuade you?
If climate doomerism is exaggerated, what environmental issues do you think actually deserve attention?
One thing I really respect is that you said publicly you were wrong. Why do you think that is still so rare in activism, especially when people’s identity, community and moral certainty can get so wrapped up in a cause?
I live in Boston. When someone here tells me--with certainty --that electricity from wind and solar is already cheaper than electricity from oil and natural gas, what is the best possible reply that does not insult their intelligence or otherwise alienate them, and may possibly cause them to stop and think?
Why are young people, who are hypothetically motivated by solving climate change and helping the poor, pushing for movements that spend money on climate change at the expense of the poor, even though both left-wing orgs (e.g. GWWC and EA at Oxford) and right wing climate change organisations (Lomborg and CC) say that stopping poor people from being poor gets rid of basically all the climate casualties? Or taking money from innovation and spending it on corrupt subsidies (e.g. Dale Vince)?
How much do you think the extreme response to climate change comes from rage baiting for clicks on the internet and the need for scientists to gain funding money by making everything about the extremes of climate?
Hello Lucy,
Thank you for taking our questions.
Sorry to be cheeky, but shouldn't the Just Stop Oil crowd be applauding Israel and the United States for stopping oil?
Thanks for taking my question.
Jen W
P.S. Where are the orange shirts? Shouldn't they be out having a celebration in the streets?
Donald Trump has consistently said that he hates windmills and that China only builds and sells them to the west and barely has any wind powered production itself, this, whilst being the worlds largest power producer via windmills by far. Anyone can google and fact-check this nonsense. Although agreeing with the thrust of the anti-wind lobby how can it prevail...sensibly?
Lucy, how much of the current groups engaged in climate activism are just sponsored by interested parties in "green" industry?
People often talk about a god-shaped hole in the mind, do you also think there is a doom-shaped one to be filled with an end-of-the-world scenario (be it climate, nuclear or religious apocalypse)?
I have an idea that the best present response to potential changes in climate in any direction is to increase our ability to generate electrical power. With this we can heat if it gets colder, or cool if it gets hotter. And color or small-scale nuclear can be moved anywhere as needed. Your thoughts? Thanks.
What way do most ordinary people have of participating in the quest to improve the human condition, other than raising a few individuals each with a tiny chance of discovering or inventing something that increases life expectancy or lessens suffering or drudgery? And when that way is abandoned, is it any wonder that so many turn to activism?