Nutty Academics Demand We Must Cut Our Standard Of Living
By Paul Homewood
Why does The Conversation always feature extreme climate alarmists, but never put the other side of the story? (Apparently, this is what they call “academic rigour”!)
Without changes to people’s behaviour and lifestyles, it will be impossible for the UK to reach net zero emissions by 2050. But the government is failing to put in place the conditions that would enable this to happen – or even recognise its relevance in cutting emissions and meeting climate targets. Its laissez-faire approach of simply “going with the grain of consumer choice”, according to a recent report, has no chance of bringing about the urgent changes needed.
A House of Lords inquiry assessed the role of public behaviour in meeting climate and environmental goals. The report drew on evidence from leading experts on behavioural science and social change, as well as submissions from a wide range of organisations, including Tesco, Natural England and Cycling UK.
Among the criticisms levelled at the government were accusations that it places too much faith in unproven technologies to fix the climate, and is reluctant to communicate to the public the scale of social change needed to create a low-carbon society. The varying remits of different government departments charged with helping the public change their polluting behaviour were characterised as a “muddle” and “inadequate” to the task. In some instances, government actions have pushed people away from low-carbon choices, like offering a tax cut for domestic flights just before 2021’s UN climate summit in Glasgow.
Perhaps most uncomfortable for a government that has elevated economic growth as its foremost priority, the report stresses the need for absolute reductions in many of the commonplace activities that are driving the climate crisis. This includes people buying less of the things with sizeable environmental impacts, like long-haul flights, beef and products that use a lot of resources, such as fast-fashion clothing and electronics.
The article is written by a couple of nutty academics:
I am not quite sure why they are just attacking the UK government, given that no other country in the world, as far as I know, is doing what they propose.
And, if it has not occurred to them, we live in a democracy, where the public are supposed to decide how they live their lives. Not have decisions imposed on them by either psychology academics or politicians.
So let me offer the potty duo a piece of advice. As soon as any government starts to drastically curtail people’s liberties in the way they suggest, it will quickly get voted out at the earliest opportunity.
Still, I suppose I should thank them for reminding us of all the luxuries they want to take away from us. I was particularly intrigued by this bit:
Well, yes, that’s the whole point of affluence. You work and save hard in order improve your standards of living for you and your family. It is hardly surprising that wealthier people have a larger carbon footprint.
Dum and Dummer seem to believe that we will all accept enforced poverty, just because there is somebody poorer than us elsewhere in Europe. I would imagine that millions of us in Britain would fall into that 10% band, and many more close to it. But I doubt if any of us would regard ourselves as obscenely rich.
Yet they make no criticism of the top 1%, who won’t be affected by any of the researchers’ recommendations.
The fact that they can make such overtly political statements as these shows that this has nothing to do with the climate- it never did. If it was, they would be telling China, India and the rest of the world to make the same sacrifices.
No, what they really want, along with the rest of the climate establishment, is control over our lives.
Dum and Dummer are both being paid with taxpayer money for doing non-jobs:
May I suggest that they lead the fight against climate change by resigning their positions, and setting us all a good example by living in a yurt and knitting yoghurt!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Welcome to the Great Reserf.
I suggest the first cut to our standard of living be any public funds allocated to people and departments like these. Of course we would miss them dearly but, needs must!
Don’t think we are going to have to work too hard to cut our standard of living given the state of the economy right now. Candle anyone?
“The Conversation”
By megaphone, with brain disengaged and earplugs firmly inserted.
Those working in Higher Education with tenure are unaffected by the ups and downs of the economy. The “green” stuff is all well and good for well off people who can afford electric cars, heat pumps, organic food, and even electric bicycles (well over £1000 compared to a second hand push bike £30-£100). If they tried to live on £25,000 p.a. with no perks (jetting off here and there to conferences, receiving royalties from books and patents, plus speaking fees with travel and accommodation on top of their stipends/salaries/bursaries, they might see that reduced living standards they espouse are rather dreary and would condemn them to not being able to venture out further than they could cycle and using expensive public transport if they wanted to get away further.
That’s exactly what I would have said, thank you.
I’m really fed with people much wealthier than me telling me how to live.
Came across this today – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViY2J3LPgN4
It demonstrates everything that is corrupt in the Climate Science
Uruguay. That is their aim for the UK and Europe in general. Green energy ( mainly), modest income levels, modest ambitions. Not 3rd world but not exactly 1st world either. But not the beef of course!
The Conversation is certainly good at knitting yoghurt these days. Perhaps it is in more tune with the higher authorities than I am; for that is what the government seems to be doing with this mysterious thing called Climate Change judging by the yoghurty mess they are making of it.
As for these two authors- words fail me; for they both seem hellbent on the destruction of Academic Reputation.
O/T but I notice an increase in sales of yurts in Hungary.
Less costly and quickly constructed and well insulated so easier (and cheaper) to keep warm in winter.
Not that I would want these prats to be warm in the coming winter.
The Yurts I’ve been in are far too luxurious for them. How about a cave?
I note their useless Uni depts are funded by The Economic and Social Research Council. Since this Council is a total waste of taxpayers money can we please scrap it.
Of course Truss can balance her budget by also scrapping the Climate Change Committee, the Arts Council, The Environment agency and 100 other useless and wasteful Quangos. With the money saved she can cut Corp tax which will encourage growth and energy production.
There Lizzie, fixed it for you.
She could sack the useless zealot Energy staff at BEIS and replace them with s couple of engineers supplied by Net Zero Watch.
I think we must cut their grants.
Our government even gives grants to Client Earth so that they can sue the government if it does anything sensible.
OT
But news has leaked that following Jeremy (isaak) Hunt’s appointment as Chancellor, it is now lined up that Greta Thunberg is to be the next head of Ofgem, whilst Neil Ferguson is to head up the ONS and Susan Michie will be the Director General of the BBC. They are trying to find an easy by-election so that Jeremy Farrar can get into parliament and be Minister of Health.
Not to worry, I can’t see it being any more preposterous than it already is.
They’re just getting warmed up, as long as net zero is on the table.
Psychologist! Sais it all doesn’t it
Let’s cut THEIR standard of living.
Nowhere near severe enough. Anyone who believes in net zero must stop exhaling CO2, right now.
‘Without changes to people’s behaviour and lifestyles, it will be impossible for the UK to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
‘has no chance of bringing about the urgent changes needed’
I saw this movie. Everyone will report to the Carrousel (sic) on their 30th birthday.
You will reach Net Zero when UK has a population of 2 million. Age for the Carrousel might be down to 22.
Of course, UK will have been invaded way before any of this happens. It would be wise of UK people to decide whether they want to be Norwegian, Danish, Irish, French, or Bolivian, then approach that country to take over. Net Zero is suicide. The rest of the world isn’t going to sit idly by waiting for it. They will INVADE.
‘This includes people buying less of the things with sizeable environmental impacts, like long-haul flights, beef and products that use a lot of resources, such as fast-fashion clothing and electronics.’
Just think, when you are Danish, you can go back to long-haul flights, beef and products that use a lot of resources, such as fast-fashion clothing and electronics.
Why on Earth would anyone in their right minds want to invade Britain?
It’s a good piece of land. The invader will restore industry and agriculture. Eventually, the population will rebound.
The sceptured isle will be gone.
Perhaps they’ll change London back to Londinium.
And their qualification in Climate Science is Psychology? Meaning that they know as much about climate science as the bloke next to you in the pub
This isn’t even climate science, its essentially economics. The CCC isn’t doing science.
It is Sovietized political advocacy ” nudge psychology “
The key word is “submission “. Not that the submission of actual facts to the powers that be so they can realize they need to change their crazy net zero policies but that we show proper submission to their demands without question
Deconsumption and the end if consumerism has always been the logical goal of the Climate Change/Extreme Environmental movement. I argued it was and have been put down as a right wing conspiracist as a result. He finally says this outright. But it’s still not tge end.
Depolulation, mandatory birth control, including widespread and limitless abortion is The Final Goal. Again, it’s only logical: there are too many people on the planet to have a 1st world lifestyle. The energy needed would require fusion, which ain’t coming soon. But enough energy would then support extractive industries. Which is not sustainable. And support even more people. A viscous circle if energy, people and unsustainable population growth and consumption.
Here’s the rub: the envonmental movement has an existential crisis coming. The population will be needed to be reduced over a short time frame, the ideoligical activists will North. But who are we talking about? We are talking about brown and black and indigenous people.
If you look at the demographic changes, you’ll see the White populations in Nirh America, Europe have been in decline for years. The Vatican even pointed this out. Cultural suicide, they called it. But the population is continuing to rise in nonWhite, countries, many of which are not traditionally Christian. Hungary said so and was vilified for saying the truth. So when you hear about population degrowth (!), the quiet part is the goal is the underdeveloped BIPOC group.
This is tge end, the death if the Save the Planet movement. As long as the problem is the industrialized West, the movement lives well. Once the obvious end is explored, it will kill itself.
The best way to reduce population growth (as opposed to absolute population) is to provide cheap, plentiful, reliable and easily available energy. Energy to do the work of the many offspring which in some countries is necessary to get work done.
Here’s a thought-question.
I know that first world countries have been reducing having children as their wealth rises. But I think it’s relatively recently. Maybe last 40 years. And as they became wealthier, their debt load has been rising. It rises because they buy more, consume more, build bigger and more expensive houses and cars and gadgets. Their energy usage rises. The US has the highest per capita. So as the rest of the world becomes better, won’t it do the same?
A negative childbirth rate is claimed by China, Biden, Canada and Europeans as the justification for immigration. The economy, wellbeing of the people will drop without immigrants to keep the population up or growing. It strikes me that more energy is NOT reducing the need for more labor, just moving the additional around. And increasing the physical demands on the planet of more people as they can do more and want more.
I also argue against the mantra of automation and AI reducing the need for workers. We automate expensive stuff, not stoop labor but don’t want to do physical labor as we get more wealthy. So the demand for more low skill people goes up and consumption rises also.
I think theory and practice on energy, technology and human work is out of whack.
Douglas. My comment was based on lack of available, cheap energy – which is patently not in place in much of the third world – not about the extended argument about AI etc. That’s a whole new ball-game. No? And I certainly don’t argue for China’s population control: that’s just totalitarianism for the sake of it.
But your comment was interesting. Thanks.
Yeah. We wrote at cross purposes. I agree totally the world needs cheap and abundant energy for everyone. The radical environmentalists fight cheap energy and abundant for everyone. They don’t want nuclear energy because it is limitless and cheap. It will increase consumption even if there is no CO2. Their solutions for the 3rd world are shocking. Just subsistence living. Like no fertilizers.
But I say it’s because they see the bigger problem (in their mind): capitalism and individual freedom to create, consume and explore the world has to go. There isn’t enough of planetary resources to go around.
As Figures said
At a recent news conference in Brussels, Costa Rican Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “….is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Should have added. in the 70’s the Club of Rome. which morphed into the WEF mutual admiration society, said at that time that both population growth and climate change were problematic” Since that time population growth has been prolific and climate has barely changed, but it has been weaponized to change society especially the deplorables as Hillary said in the 2018 US Presidential election won by Trump. Trump had the right attitude to the Climate hoax.
Its not a conspiracy theory when they admit
to and boast of it .. Why not add the words of Extinction Rebellion co -founder Stuart Bateson to the list : ” XR isn’t about the climate …..The climates breakdown is a symptom of a toxic system that has infected the ways we relate to each other as humans and to all life ..This was exacerbated when European civilization was spread around the globe ….although the roots of the infections go way back ” …..There is that misanthropic perception of civilization that has extended
lifespans , reduced infant mortality and lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty , as an infectious disease again …The American crank psychologist Steve Salmony whom I have sparred with on Pauls blog, compared his breeding fellow human beings to a ‘bacillus ” .. [ Must be a legacy of his empathy training ]…For Sam Knights, co editor of ” This is Not a Drill ‘ : An Extinction Rebellion Handbook ” the mythical climate crisis is an intersectional miscellany : ” The challenge we now face …the problem …is not just the climate . The problem is ecology …the environment … ..biodiversity . The problem is capitalism …colonialism ….inequality …greed and corruption ” ….Which brings me to aticle 5 of Rachel Sharmans ” five over-arching themes’ pertaining to ” how people explain their scepticism ” – ” ulterior motives of interested parties ” ….Ulterior motives ?…Who would think such a thing ?….Its not as if the UK Met Offices Peter Thorne lamented ” the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it “
It goes on and on.
All their words, and yet what end goal do they truly have – on a logical basis? By which o mean as a consequence of what they are saying needs to be done?
None of them suggest they, their family or friends return to an idyllic cottage industry, agriculturally based economy where they rise and set with the sun, dress as the weather demands, live in Tiny Houses and travel no further than a horse and buggy can take them. They want the lifestyle of those somewhat above them. Which is not possible with 7+billion.
So they live in the fantasy of their ideals or harbor very dark fundamental desires for most people on the planet, including draconian laws under totalitarian, communist principles of taking from the producers to give to the consumers. Which doesn’t work except for the nasty elites.
I always ask them the question, why do we need to reach netzero and then prove it.
…followed by: and how will you know; and what change to your environment will you notice?
It is not the government’s business to “change behaviour”
A little late for that when we have a state that legislates for where supermarkets can place items of food so that we don’t buy the “wrong” stuff. The state has been trying to change our behaviour since 1945.
One does have to wonder why politicians (particularly European ones) HATE their own populationd
The irony being that 1945 is the year you “defeated fascism.”
You beat the Germans, and adopted fascism. It took the U.S. til the 1960s to get on board.
Remove their funding by the Economic and Social Research Council, and their nonsensical views would wither.
“Dum and Dummer are both being paid with taxpayer money for doing non-jobs:”
Exacty, that is the problem with having no real work to do, it allows the mind to run riot on a subject they know nothing about.
They unthinkingly accept the whole net zero agenda with little understanding of the real world limitations of trying to achieve it nor the wit to wonder if it is required at all?
The irony is that they have virtually worthless jobs that we can only afford because of the wealth we create from the things they despise. Or perhaps it is we that are stupid, labouring to create our own destruction. They are true parasites but ones that stupidly seek to kill their host.
A great deal of this nonsense is driven by envy/power dynamics. Not so long ago, academics were the elite. They had the better things in life and led lives of relative comfort. But then Thatcher (briefly) reversed our doctrine of managed decline and unleashed wealth creation. Academics were left behind and suddenly were not the elite any more. But how that grated! Plebs able to go to Venice, trade having the nice houses, beef for all, not just at High Table for the Fellows! Outrageous! So now we must all have lives like the academics. We must all be as poor as then so that their position as elites can resume.
Says it all.
I would expect anyone with training in psychology to have studied social groups that have separated themselves from the rest of society and understood the drawbacks of what they are asking. The Amish in the US lead an austere existence without some technology (definitely not all – power looms or water mills are not forbidden). However, such groups have a lot of defections, people who cannot tolerate the kind of ‘group control’ that they are subjected to. This is what these academics are trying to promote.
‘Without changes to people’s behaviour and lifestyles, it will be impossible for the UK to reach net zero emissions by 2050.’
A UK goal. Not a people’s goal. This reveals their core belief:
You are not citizens; you are subjects. The government does exist to serve you; you exist – at their pleasure – to serve the government.
In their quest for Net Zero, you are disposable. The goal is more important than you. Seriously, your government thinks their sillyass goal is more important than your life, your family’s life, your country’s life.
A crime against humanity.
The “people’s behaviour and lifestyles” was evolved by sentient beings over millennia. How dare they force a change? It is colonialism writ large.
Gamecock, that’s a very clear analysis and frighteningly true, I think you missed a ‘not’ and it should read ‘The government does NOT exist to serve you’
Oops. Sorry. I’ll just use the comment edit function . . . wait . . . oh!
There was a science fiction joke about Earth being invaded by non-human “do-gooders” whose reference book title was translated as “How to serve Man”. Much later, the book itself was translated – it was a cookbook!
The pandemic started the supposed need to create a Nanny State and the perceived need to control the citizens. Western governments, with the exception of Sweden created giant national petri dishes for so called “experts” to play with social engineering and in the UK the leftwing SAGE played a leading role. Offshoots of this new social engineering industry come the tenured troughers of the leftwing academia, such as these two F,,kwits. This is just the beginning of a pent-up avalanche “learned hypotheses” to descend on us. China is way ahead and the EU with its biometric endeavors for border control is on the way. The safeguard against this with respect to NetZero is people are naturally inclined to reject becoming poorer and this will never be put to a vote. The Global Climate change hypothesis is a house of cards which will fail in the coming winter.
New sun-driven cooling period of Earth ‘not far off’ – YouTube
Not just any nutty professors Paul ..Green left academic psychologists … They seem to be curiously and disturbingly over – represented in the climate catastrophist movement and the Extinction Rebellion cult . I wonder what the attraction might be ?…..A titillated fascination with totalitarian control over the lives of others ? A search for surrogate religious meaning in their lives ?
The British Psychological Society Division of Clinical Psychology recommended ” a Citizens Assembly to direct …necessary changes and ensure fairness in all activities . You may recognize these as the aims of Extinction Rebellion – we consider these very reasonable ambitions that deserve our support ” …..The inevitable outcome of a Citizens Assembly is the subversion of democracy and the annulment of the ballot quite aside from the ruination of the economy and the BPS Division of Clinical Psychology are enthusiastic about the idea .. Where has the goal of collectivist equity gone wrong under other vanguard politburo’s ? These green junk psychologists are not fit and proper professionals to make judgements of anyone .
Yet some see climate skepticism as a type of mental disorder and have pathologized ‘higher analytical abilities ” as a symptom of skepticism However your ” thought processes may be open to targeted public messaging ” . Paul . If they can just get inside your mind you may be pleased to know you could be more susceptible to conversion and curable although your status as an ‘ageing male ” may be an impediment .. Despite my sarcasm , I’m not making this up . The Conversation published a terrible confused paper co authored by academic psychologist Rachael Sharman [ it could have been written by a shaman ] titled : ” Inside the Mind Of a Sceptic : The Mental Gymnastics of Climate Change Denial ” …..Miss Sharman it turns out, performs some mental gymnastics – or devious sophistry – of her own . In the text she [ unless the geography professor or editor Misha Ketchell had the final say ] conflates ” humans causing climate change ” with ” human enhanced climate change ” Quite how enhancement is causation is anyones guess In article 4 of the section ” How People Explain Their Scepticism ” Sharman rationalizes the decades of failed climate predictions as a “misunderstanding of model based climate predictions ” . Problems of perception you see . Thats all they were . In article 2 she characterizes the indisputable fact that the “climate changes naturally and cyclically ” as a “belief ” . This is not a belief ” – it happens to be true . In article 1 Sharman equates ‘real science concerning solar activity ” with “faith in alternative science ” and an explanatory ” rejection of climate science ” This must be news to NASA who understand the Sun is the force majeure of the Earths climate system [ a page deleted in 2011 ] and the 2013 IPCC report that mentioned solar irradiance as a factor in ‘The Pause ” Thats quite a series of muddled “mental contortions” ! Good thing she is not another nutty Green academic psychologist affected by a mental disorder . It must be the low value she and her co author place on “higher analytical abilities ”
” Psychologist diagnoses climate change deniers with mental condition ” https://youtube.com/watch?v=31KKUTXVKXg https://theconversation.com/inside-the-mind-of-a-sceptic-the-mental-gymnastics-of-climate-change-denial/
Dr Lifshits will see you now ………….
The concept of a Citizens Assembly is passe. The UK’s elected Parliament is theoretically there to represent the people, but in reality, represents the vested interests of the Parties. China’s Assembly of elite party members recently met to pledge homage to Xi. The EU Commission of unelected, unaccountable leaders and bureaucrats oversees the EU; and the democratically elected EU Parliament is a toothless body with no power. and merely rubber stamps the Commissions decisions. The UK Assembly, courtesy of the Beeb is a complete farce.
Academic psychologist Rachael Sharman’s and her co author professor Patrick D Nunn’s apocalyptic fever dream conclusion : ” In the end , reality bites . Multi year droughts and successive never before seen floods will struggle to fit a sceptic narrative of yet another one in 100 year event …Climate change is upon us and scepticism is rapidly becoming a topic for historians not futurists ”
Sharman and Nunn appear to be hopelessly ignornant of the historical and scientific literature namely the IPCC’s assessments and their pathologization of skepticism is weird and sinister . Skepticism and ” alternative science ” have been with the history of science and paradigm shifts for centuries It is not unusual for droughts to occur in successive years . The worst drought since British settlement was the 1895 – 1902 Federation Drought and paleoclimatological studies have shown the record sequential year protracted drought affecting eastern Australia spanned 1174 – 1212 while an estimated 70% of the 12th century AD was drought stricken ..No prolonged droughts comparable to the multi decadal and centennial Medieval Warm Period droughts in Australia or North America have been experienced since the First Fleet arrived . As for the hysterical nonsense concerning floods they could easily consult the IPCC WG1 findings [ updated in 2021 ] that have not changed since 2013 : ” Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence …..In summary there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale ” . The climate skeptic narrative is not floundering or struggling – these two and the climate alarmist movement are struggling to comprehend empirical evidence and reality .
To understand Sharman’s , and the British Psychological Society Division of Clinical Psychology’s bizarre thought processes and millenarian delusions and the obsession many social and cognitive psychologists have with controlling people, it is important to read this essay : ” The Climate Change Cult : Ten Warning Signs ” particularly trait number 2 : ” No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry ” and 10 : ” The group /leader is the exclusive means of knowing ‘truth’ or receiving validation , no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible ” ..And this timeless tome [ with a special consideration for Demski and Capstick ] authored by Robert J Lifton : ” Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism : A Study of Brainwashing in China ” Hang your heads in shame
Wheres ‘ Catweazle ” ?
One thing I MUST ask – just WHY is it so urgently necessary to reach ‘net Zero”. The concept doesn’t have anything real to contribute to cooling the Earth, which is supposed to be its purpose. Along with the whole scam of “globull worming” for which there is NO evidence, it is seeming more and more as yet another attempt by the Globalists to take complete control of society. I still believe the Russian scientists who say “it’s gonna be cold” – after all, you HAVE to believe a country that’s built so many nuclear-powered icebreakers!
For many years I have believed that the majority of those who call themselves academics earn their title through simply having the good fortune to be able to memorise facts across any subject better than the average person, and as such find passing exams on what they have been taught relatively easy. but have no lateral thinking ability to apply what they have learned in university to any useful purpose other than passing on what they have learned to school children and college students. The average person has a far greater ability to apply common sense in life than most academics, many of whom are unable to make their way in life as they are unable to apply what they have learned to any useful purpose I looked at the literal meaning of the word ‘academic’ in the dictionary, I was amused to find the following two descriptions: ‘scholarly as opposed to technical or practical’ and ‘not of practical relevance’
Reblogged this on Calculus of Decay .
My conspiracy theory is that the current climate alarmism is part of a long-term Russian KGB (yes, I know they don’t officially exist anymore) and Putin orchestrated campaign designed to destabilise and demoralise the Western economies……
Why would we need Putin’s help?
” The Worst Trolls On The Internet Are Actually British Spies ” – Daily Dot https://dailydot.com/debug/gchq-biggest-trolls-nsa-edward-snowden-jtrig/
As I saw to all those that say humans are causing climate change. You first.
‘Conversations’ within The Conversation are limited to those who agree with climate alarmism. I tried making comments there some years ago but was quickly banned.
As the UK endured record high temperatures of 40C this summer
For ‘UK’ read ‘parts of central and southern England’ – for a day or two. No more.
If you think these academics are nutty try this one: https://theconversation.com/three-arguments-why-just-stop-oil-was-right-to-target-van-goghs-sunflowers-192661. However, contrary to its usual practice these days, The Conversation allowed comments on this article.
Forced behavioral change people do not want that renders them worse off will inevitably result in the forced removal of the elected officials and other elites at the top pushing the change.
France did it to their king in 1789, and it should be noted that history repeats itself.