To a large extent our friends from the “climate movement” are a perfect example of a triumph of faith over reason. They keep turning up to events like thsi and their Profits keep preaching precisely the same liturgy that they have been chanting for ages as one Adelaide climate activist blogger describes it:
We have been doing rallies like this – on various issues be it (pro-peace, pro-tolerance, pro-planet) – for a long time. If they worked to build a movement that grew, learned, organised and won, then, well, we would Be “There” by now. But we’re not. (Footnote 1)
The rally followed an entirely predictable format. After some music, there was an entirely competent introduction, followed by three speeches of variable audibility and interest. Nobody said anything that the people attending didn’t already know or agree with. People had no opportunity to communicate what they didn’t know, what they thought could be done, what they wanted to happen next with the campaign for a climate safe Australia (which is a much bigger issue than just a carbon tax/emissions trading scheme)
The climate movement are suffering precisely the same sort of issues as any other religious movement, namely they are having trouble convincing a sceptical public that they can do what they claim or that the tenets of their faith are a real and a valid underpinning for life as we progress through the coming century. What is certainly clear in any survey of what the public thinks on this issue is that the deeply pious climate fanatics are going backwards and I think that it is only people being reluctant to give up the sort of “motherhood ” (Well we all think the planet is worth saving don’t we?) positions that they have announced to friends and family that has stopped a total collapse of the Warminista faith.
Anyway lets spend a couple of minutes considering the questions posed by that same Adelaide activist rally attendee shall we?
I will try to unpack the problem with the cold hard light of truth and reality
Why gather 2000 people who have knowledge, ideas, passion and commitment and have them listen to 30 minutes of music and 30 minutes of speeches telling them what they already know
Because the faithful have to be prevented from backsliding into doubt and the best way to do that is to regularly recite the catechism of the faith in an environment where the truth of the doctrine can be reinforced by the congregation.
Why gather 2000 people and disempower them by having them listen for an hour, as if they are simply empty vessels to be filled? Or sheep to be shepherded? I am sure that the organisers don’t think that, but their actions create that impression. I looked at the faces of people during the speeches, and they were bored and irritated. That’s not the way to enthuse and engage and encourage
Because the Profits of the faith want a compliant congregation who will act in a sheep like manner, blindly following where they are lead.
How many of those who attended the rally will be able to tell a mildly skeptical friend or neighbour “yeah, it was exciting and inspiring, you should come next time.” (That, to me, is a key definition of success.)
All of them, because they know that the faith is not based upon facts or objective truth it requires nothing more than a belief in the liturgy and the catechism.
Why not give permission to people to mingle and meet with those stood around them. How else are we to create the loose networks of people across the city?
This one has to be answered with a question: Who needs permission to chat and mingle?
Why not structure some of the hour so that all the people who are teachers, or health care professionals or students could gather in different parts of the park, just to exchange names and details.
Oh I love this one , and I bet some burglars would too! Just image what a resource would be for the criminal underclass, the location of good targets guaranteed plenty of up-to-date electro toys to steal b and the knowledge that they would be out of the house when ever a revival meeting/rally was on
Why not structure some of the hour so that people from different parts of the city could mingle based on where they live. For example, when I was walking down my street about to start putting the “conversation” letters in post-boxes, I met someone who had also been at the rally, and we had a really useful conversation. That was a happy accident. The organisers of the rally could have created many more of those happy accidents.
Because it just adds to the amount of Junk mail put into people’s letter boxes which is actually bad for the environment.
Why not have a a space after the rally where people who have questions about the science of climate change could talk with experts face to face, and get impromptu lessons. It would make people feel more confident in their (inevitable) dealings with the small number of vocal denialists. It would give the experts valuable experience.
Because no matter what the “experts” tell you you can’t sell a faulty product to a public who can tell when they are being lied to.
Why not have a “suggestions box” so that people can submit their contact details and ideas for what the movement could be doing to improve its power?”
Because it is unnecessary as there already exists enough on-line resources that do precisely this (and I thought taht “activists were right up there and across the WWWeb thing….
Why not have an agreed post-rally meeting place for those who want to talk more over a coffee or a sandwich?
Since when did a latte sipper need permission to partake in their drugs of choice?
Why not have a “video booth” where people can record brief comments that could then be posted on youtube, showing just how many people outside the “latte-drinking inner-city professionals” demographic want action.
Because anyone with a Camera could do this but it would make for very dull You tube viewing, akin to the innumerable “funny kitty” vids there already.
All quotes above from this source
OK that is enough of me taking the piss out of the climate change Missionary types. The grim reality for anyone who believes in AGW is that they have to get over a couple of rather significant hurdles, in the first instance there is the not insignificant matter of actually testing the AGW hypothesis, and secondly demonstrating that the proposed panacea can be made to happen or more importantly actually do anything for towards addressing the “problem” without all three aspects of this trinity being addressed activists like our friend from Adelaide is pissing in their own pockets in the rather deluded belief that they are doing something for the planet. Then again it has always been the tragedy of millenarian cults that so many of the followers are sincere and acting form the best of intentions as their Profits grow fat on the efforts of the believers .