Sins of Emission, with the misanthropic idea that humanity is a plague upon Gaia, has captured the imagination of the climate religion. As you point out Quico, this is poor theology, lacking concepts of forgiveness and redemption, in favour of an all-consuming obsession with justice, suggesting a wrathful atonement inflicted by Gaia as deserved planetary retribution for human pride. This climate dogma suppresses dialogue about the future through its monomaniacal focus on the sins of greenhouse gas emission. Rather than focus on the alleged sins of emission, it would help for the climate movement to think about its own sins of omission, notably its refusal to discuss practical ways to slow climate change by reflecting sunlight. Follow ALL the science. Emission reduction is not enough.
Let’s not forget that this very same religious movement brought us the demonization and defeat of the nuclear industry beginning in the 1960s, and the billions of tons of CO2 needlessly deposited in the atmosphere since then.
An outstanding and accurate diagnosis of the evangelical fervor that defines the climate catastrophists, with one exception: while they may not be mad, neither are they in even the same solar system as “perfectly rational”. In fact, your entire post makes this very point.
Oh here we disagree. Religious people are perfectly rational within the logic of their dogma. Religious reasoning is deeply ingrained in the human psyche. I'm not at all comfortable calling catastrophism irrational. It just fails to understatnd the mechanisms of its own rationality.
Quico, thanks for this very helpful discussion. “ Too dangerous compared to what? ”
Will you also be dealing with those who believe they have rational reasons for SAI skepticism or resistance? For example, more research needed first, as the first commenter mentioned . Or, those who say we should oppose SAI because it takes away urgency from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? And I suppose there is the question of to what degree it is the mystical convictions that are motivating those who give rational reasons??
As some of your references point out, there are consequences of SAI More study is needed. But your point is well taken. One hopes that work on this strategy is continuing.
Sins of Emission, with the misanthropic idea that humanity is a plague upon Gaia, has captured the imagination of the climate religion. As you point out Quico, this is poor theology, lacking concepts of forgiveness and redemption, in favour of an all-consuming obsession with justice, suggesting a wrathful atonement inflicted by Gaia as deserved planetary retribution for human pride. This climate dogma suppresses dialogue about the future through its monomaniacal focus on the sins of greenhouse gas emission. Rather than focus on the alleged sins of emission, it would help for the climate movement to think about its own sins of omission, notably its refusal to discuss practical ways to slow climate change by reflecting sunlight. Follow ALL the science. Emission reduction is not enough.
OOoooh, there's a bunch of stuff here I'm a gonna steal...
Better to borrow than steal 😜🙏🌷
Sins of Emission is a turn of phrase I'll never stop kicking myself for not having thought of first...
The Economist beat us both to it back in 2006 - https://www.economist.com/leaders/2006/08/03/sins-of-emission
Let’s not forget that this very same religious movement brought us the demonization and defeat of the nuclear industry beginning in the 1960s, and the billions of tons of CO2 needlessly deposited in the atmosphere since then.
An outstanding and accurate diagnosis of the evangelical fervor that defines the climate catastrophists, with one exception: while they may not be mad, neither are they in even the same solar system as “perfectly rational”. In fact, your entire post makes this very point.
Oh here we disagree. Religious people are perfectly rational within the logic of their dogma. Religious reasoning is deeply ingrained in the human psyche. I'm not at all comfortable calling catastrophism irrational. It just fails to understatnd the mechanisms of its own rationality.
Quico, thanks for this very helpful discussion. “ Too dangerous compared to what? ”
Will you also be dealing with those who believe they have rational reasons for SAI skepticism or resistance? For example, more research needed first, as the first commenter mentioned . Or, those who say we should oppose SAI because it takes away urgency from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? And I suppose there is the question of to what degree it is the mystical convictions that are motivating those who give rational reasons??
As some of your references point out, there are consequences of SAI More study is needed. But your point is well taken. One hopes that work on this strategy is continuing.
“Fodder for Substacks nobody reads.” Hey, who are you calling nobody!?! 😉
😉 👋