I leaflet for JSO and have seen the violence from police & public and heard much verbal abuse too.
I wish everyone would just understand that if the politicians did listen to the UN, scientists & academics & act like we are in a real climate & biodiversity emergency, JSO wouldn’t be disrupting anyone at all!!
Why do you think "climate change" even exists, never mind that it has to be "solved"? The UN, the WEF etc are plainly lying to us. It's just incessant propaganda.
Can I prove they are lying? Of course.
Their hockey stick graph shows that the temperature of the world never did anything strange until the Industrial Revolution. Just a steady decline until then. So it follows that any increase since then must indeed be down to us.
But this is the ACTUAL graph showing the changes in the world's temperature since 900 AD:
It's all about GROWTH. Wanting growth (nationally or worldwide) causes demand for new oil & gas. But what happens when we DO get growth? A lion's share of it gets hoovered up by the RICH and POWERFUL. We mustn't let them have it when they have too much already
We must LEARN and TEACH that TRUE HAPPINESS comes from FRUGALITY, HUMILITY and EMPATHY
I believe that false optimism is one of the biggest threats to the climate movement - we cannot be both "optimist" and "science-based". Optimism is a skewed view of reality, whereas a science-based perspective requires a dedication to objectivity.
I am personally struggling with a climate movement that is "optimist" - Optimism means that, if I roll my "climate dice", I expect that the dice will show a number 5 or higher. Any real scientist knows that the most likely value of the dice is 3.5, and that any 'higher' expectation is unscientific. Yet, the climate movement claims to be scientific, but many are "unscientifically optimistic" - a paradox and a breaking point. Because, once we allow ourselves to be "unscientific climate activists", how can we expect others to believe the objectivity of the "science of climate" that we promote?
Yet, being unbiased and realistic is tough and leads into other paradoxes: we have to acknowledge the shit that we are in. The first tipping point of the climate, the melting of the Arctic, is in full shift already. It will inevitably trigger the second tipping point, the melting of permafrost along with the release of massive amounts of methane that makes our burping cows look like a funny joke. The Earth System is readjusting, and we cannot do anything about that. Those who will live through the 2050s will learn a lot about 'transformation' - like it or not. Many people will die, and humans will vote in brutal governments to defend their privileges. Accepting this new reality is tough and requires deep spiritual work - on acceptance, trauma, and hope. Most "science-based" researchers and educators have a problem with this spiritual stuff because spirituality is non-scientific - even if we allow ourselves some scientifically unfounded optimism because we need it for our survival.
But once we have become "optimist" scientists, we are no longer scientists but we are believers of selective facts, we choose the facts that we believe in. By then, we are no different than climate deniers - they also just chose different facts that help them keep their mental health. Once we don't permit us to see the reality as it is, we become just one more splinter group with our own reality, our own conspiracy, our own echo bubble. We become irrelevant in a cacophony of conspiracies.
Facts and objectivity don't work so well with the masses. That is the reason that all the science has failed to get the climate repaired in the past 50 years. You can quibble with words, should we call it optimism or not? Should we be upbeat or glum? But scientists have to acknowledge the range of human experience and realize that some people need optimism, some need anger, some need hope, some need fear to get moving and do something. Arguing about which approach is best is like saying there is only one type of renewable energy that is needed. We need all of the above.
Why do you think "climate change" even exists, never mind that it has to be "solved"? The UN, the WEF etc are plainly lying to us. It's just incessant propaganda.
Can I prove they are lying? Of course.
Their hockey stick graph shows that the temperature of the world never did anything strange until the Industrial Revolution. Just a steady decline until then. So it follows that any increase since then must indeed be down to us.
But this is the ACTUAL graph showing the changes in the world's temperature since 900 AD:
I agree with the premise of this article but I disagree with the means.
Throwing paint onto a painting is a turn off and has nothing to do with why oil continues to profit off of our complacency. We need to vote as consumers, as activists engaged in education and political change. Yes- it’s the long view. Look up organizations like For Freedoms, for example: buy billboards along main roadways to activate action. We ALL need to participate and I believe we are out there wanting to engage. BUT I’m not willing to let oil company’s and politicians off the hook through vandalism that doesn’t connect to THEIR actions. Just sayin’.
Hi Nancy. Félix, the author, here. There are many of targeting the actions of FF companies. And in general, there are many ways of enacting change in complex systems. The history of successful social movements shows that 1) we often don't know what strategies will work and 2) the ones that work are often incredible unpopular and successful and inconvenient at first, and 3) you need to be loud. Billboards have some advantages but lack the "inconvenience" factor that I think is often importent in causing public dialogue.
I totally disagree with the premise of the article. What in the world is wrong with feeling good? I got tired of feeling depressed. It made me apathetic. And people don't want to be around you. So I don't agree with labeling positivity as toxic. Now some may be more effective in the climate movement being angry and glum, but that is just not working for others. Finding joy can be a good motivator for many and it gives them a reason to get out of bed and do something. That works for me. So acknowledge that some prefer a different mood to do their climate work in than others and stop labeling one side or the other as bad.
I get your point that different people have different emotional needs, and that context matters. Thanks for that point!
Yet, "Feeling good" is not the same as "being optimist". And "feeling pessimist" is not the same as "being depressed". We may differ in language. My point is how the "dictate to be optimist" can make it impossible to be critical, and leaves us susceptible to conspiracy/misinformation. An objective scientist does not skew her assessment of likelihoods, which an optimist (or pessimist) usually does. I believe we are mixing the realm of rationality (how we assess risk) with the realm of spirituality (how we seek meaning and hope and joy). There can be toxic spirituality that embraces false optimism (e.g. "Jesus will come in time and protect all true believers!"). There can be toxic rationality that selectively interpreting facts in order to meet my spiritual needs ("Corn ethanol is a GREAT solution for bringing down GHG emissions and makes me feel good!").
We can also be objective and have a positive emotional and spiritual grounding - based on true acceptance of reality as it is, not on tainted perception. I regret that we are struggling with the very concept of spirituality - either we embrace religious dogma, or we feel "above it" because we are too scientific to be spiritual. In both cases, one outcome is toxic positivity. For me, spirituality is mostly a practice, an act of doing (sometimes alone and also with community). This brings along a positive attitude that is not skewed by false optimism.
Nov 25, 2023·edited Nov 27, 2023Liked by Gen Dread
Love your thoughts here Thorsten. Rebecca Solnit talks about the confusion we often make between our emotions and our prognosis of the situation: "I don’t know why so many people seem to think it’s their job to spread discouragement, but it seems to be a muddle about the relationship between facts and feelings. I keep saying I respect despair as an emotion, but not as an analysis. You can feel absolutely devastated about the situation and not assume this predicts outcome; you can have your feelings and can still chase down facts from reliable sources, and the facts tell us that the general public is not the problem; the fossil fuel industry and other vested interests are; that we have the solutions, that we know what to do, and that the obstacles are political; that when we fight we sometimes win; and that we are deciding the future now."
The world needs care and tending - I like that succinct idea in the article.
I like this post. Good reminder that we can feel despair and hope at once, inside us. We contain multitudes
I leaflet for JSO and have seen the violence from police & public and heard much verbal abuse too.
I wish everyone would just understand that if the politicians did listen to the UN, scientists & academics & act like we are in a real climate & biodiversity emergency, JSO wouldn’t be disrupting anyone at all!!
Man-made climate change is a globalist lie.
Why do you think "climate change" even exists, never mind that it has to be "solved"? The UN, the WEF etc are plainly lying to us. It's just incessant propaganda.
Can I prove they are lying? Of course.
Their hockey stick graph shows that the temperature of the world never did anything strange until the Industrial Revolution. Just a steady decline until then. So it follows that any increase since then must indeed be down to us.
But this is the ACTUAL graph showing the changes in the world's temperature since 900 AD:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8364a449-efa6-48c2-b63d-1f84ee53d690_360x179.png
Notice the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ace Age.
If their most important "proof" is a blatant lie, then why believe them on "climate change" at all? Indeed, why believe them on anything?
It's all about GROWTH. Wanting growth (nationally or worldwide) causes demand for new oil & gas. But what happens when we DO get growth? A lion's share of it gets hoovered up by the RICH and POWERFUL. We mustn't let them have it when they have too much already
We must LEARN and TEACH that TRUE HAPPINESS comes from FRUGALITY, HUMILITY and EMPATHY
I loved this article. It articulated ways I have been feeling lately.
Thank you!
Thanks for reading.
I believe that false optimism is one of the biggest threats to the climate movement - we cannot be both "optimist" and "science-based". Optimism is a skewed view of reality, whereas a science-based perspective requires a dedication to objectivity.
I am personally struggling with a climate movement that is "optimist" - Optimism means that, if I roll my "climate dice", I expect that the dice will show a number 5 or higher. Any real scientist knows that the most likely value of the dice is 3.5, and that any 'higher' expectation is unscientific. Yet, the climate movement claims to be scientific, but many are "unscientifically optimistic" - a paradox and a breaking point. Because, once we allow ourselves to be "unscientific climate activists", how can we expect others to believe the objectivity of the "science of climate" that we promote?
Yet, being unbiased and realistic is tough and leads into other paradoxes: we have to acknowledge the shit that we are in. The first tipping point of the climate, the melting of the Arctic, is in full shift already. It will inevitably trigger the second tipping point, the melting of permafrost along with the release of massive amounts of methane that makes our burping cows look like a funny joke. The Earth System is readjusting, and we cannot do anything about that. Those who will live through the 2050s will learn a lot about 'transformation' - like it or not. Many people will die, and humans will vote in brutal governments to defend their privileges. Accepting this new reality is tough and requires deep spiritual work - on acceptance, trauma, and hope. Most "science-based" researchers and educators have a problem with this spiritual stuff because spirituality is non-scientific - even if we allow ourselves some scientifically unfounded optimism because we need it for our survival.
But once we have become "optimist" scientists, we are no longer scientists but we are believers of selective facts, we choose the facts that we believe in. By then, we are no different than climate deniers - they also just chose different facts that help them keep their mental health. Once we don't permit us to see the reality as it is, we become just one more splinter group with our own reality, our own conspiracy, our own echo bubble. We become irrelevant in a cacophony of conspiracies.
Facts and objectivity don't work so well with the masses. That is the reason that all the science has failed to get the climate repaired in the past 50 years. You can quibble with words, should we call it optimism or not? Should we be upbeat or glum? But scientists have to acknowledge the range of human experience and realize that some people need optimism, some need anger, some need hope, some need fear to get moving and do something. Arguing about which approach is best is like saying there is only one type of renewable energy that is needed. We need all of the above.
Agreed. It's important to avoid reductionistic approches. Keep a nimble mind that recognizes complexity and many ways of moving forward.
You people are morons. Read my post above and grow up.
Ok, Ur in denial… Ur choice… Good luck with that.
Man-made climate change is a globalist lie.
Why do you think "climate change" even exists, never mind that it has to be "solved"? The UN, the WEF etc are plainly lying to us. It's just incessant propaganda.
Can I prove they are lying? Of course.
Their hockey stick graph shows that the temperature of the world never did anything strange until the Industrial Revolution. Just a steady decline until then. So it follows that any increase since then must indeed be down to us.
But this is the ACTUAL graph showing the changes in the world's temperature since 900 AD:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8364a449-efa6-48c2-b63d-1f84ee53d690_360x179.png
Notice the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ace Age.
If their most important "proof" is a blatant lie, then why believe them on "climate change" at all? Indeed, why believe them on anything?
Just Stop Oil is supported by Climate Emergency Fund, which was founded by Aileen Getty -- the billionaire heiress to Getty Oil.
Your point?
I agree with the premise of this article but I disagree with the means.
Throwing paint onto a painting is a turn off and has nothing to do with why oil continues to profit off of our complacency. We need to vote as consumers, as activists engaged in education and political change. Yes- it’s the long view. Look up organizations like For Freedoms, for example: buy billboards along main roadways to activate action. We ALL need to participate and I believe we are out there wanting to engage. BUT I’m not willing to let oil company’s and politicians off the hook through vandalism that doesn’t connect to THEIR actions. Just sayin’.
Hi Nancy. Félix, the author, here. There are many of targeting the actions of FF companies. And in general, there are many ways of enacting change in complex systems. The history of successful social movements shows that 1) we often don't know what strategies will work and 2) the ones that work are often incredible unpopular and successful and inconvenient at first, and 3) you need to be loud. Billboards have some advantages but lack the "inconvenience" factor that I think is often importent in causing public dialogue.
I totally disagree with the premise of the article. What in the world is wrong with feeling good? I got tired of feeling depressed. It made me apathetic. And people don't want to be around you. So I don't agree with labeling positivity as toxic. Now some may be more effective in the climate movement being angry and glum, but that is just not working for others. Finding joy can be a good motivator for many and it gives them a reason to get out of bed and do something. That works for me. So acknowledge that some prefer a different mood to do their climate work in than others and stop labeling one side or the other as bad.
I get your point that different people have different emotional needs, and that context matters. Thanks for that point!
Yet, "Feeling good" is not the same as "being optimist". And "feeling pessimist" is not the same as "being depressed". We may differ in language. My point is how the "dictate to be optimist" can make it impossible to be critical, and leaves us susceptible to conspiracy/misinformation. An objective scientist does not skew her assessment of likelihoods, which an optimist (or pessimist) usually does. I believe we are mixing the realm of rationality (how we assess risk) with the realm of spirituality (how we seek meaning and hope and joy). There can be toxic spirituality that embraces false optimism (e.g. "Jesus will come in time and protect all true believers!"). There can be toxic rationality that selectively interpreting facts in order to meet my spiritual needs ("Corn ethanol is a GREAT solution for bringing down GHG emissions and makes me feel good!").
We can also be objective and have a positive emotional and spiritual grounding - based on true acceptance of reality as it is, not on tainted perception. I regret that we are struggling with the very concept of spirituality - either we embrace religious dogma, or we feel "above it" because we are too scientific to be spiritual. In both cases, one outcome is toxic positivity. For me, spirituality is mostly a practice, an act of doing (sometimes alone and also with community). This brings along a positive attitude that is not skewed by false optimism.
Love your thoughts here Thorsten. Rebecca Solnit talks about the confusion we often make between our emotions and our prognosis of the situation: "I don’t know why so many people seem to think it’s their job to spread discouragement, but it seems to be a muddle about the relationship between facts and feelings. I keep saying I respect despair as an emotion, but not as an analysis. You can feel absolutely devastated about the situation and not assume this predicts outcome; you can have your feelings and can still chase down facts from reliable sources, and the facts tell us that the general public is not the problem; the fossil fuel industry and other vested interests are; that we have the solutions, that we know what to do, and that the obstacles are political; that when we fight we sometimes win; and that we are deciding the future now."
Well, Thorsten, I need optimism too, or I would never do anything. I would just give up.