Climapocalypse is unimportant for day to day civilian life, even for climate scientists

Dear Amanda Porter (Univ of Nottingham ‘climate communicaton specialist’)

I just received your message that you do not want to come to Langweer, to make your inquiry on how to communicate to my denialist brain. While last week you wanted to investigate why I do not accept the ‘overwhelming evidence’of ‘climate change’. Which must be caused by my Denial Disorder. Because your Nutterham-sociology group and other ‘experts’ believe it is ‘critical’ to communicate this problem that seems to make daily life impossible.

Scientists are civilians making the same cost-benefit calculations as anyone
Without knowing, your choice demonstrated the main point of my last blog: that people – even academics- make cost-benefit-calculations on a daily basis to evaluate (dis)advantages an arrange priorities. They then find that ‘climate change’ is a non-issue in their daily agenda compared to ‘not having money’ or ‘wasting time’ etc.

You made a cost benefit-calculation based on travel time by public transport. And the personal advantage that this amount of time from and to Langweer (7 hours) would bring to you in the here and now. And decided the traveltime is too long: and thus the results from your interview are no longer important for the outcome of your research. When you fly by Easyjet from Luton, it only takes half an hour to Amsterdam. Absurd it is. You’d run the risk to ruin your agenda with other priorities.

My worse case of Denial Disorder leads me to believe this ‘public transport’-thing is a bad excuse: Your travel would be funded by Dutch taxpayers. And for 25 euro’s you rent a car in Amsterdam, and then you’re here within an hour. Unless you believe you cannot come, because the ‘critical’ problem of ‘climate change’ is making your journey to the north impossible.

A ridiculous point isn’t it? Gotcha! If you don’t tackle THIS critical problem in your work- the absurdity of climate change being a daily problem and priority- you are left with 2 communication possibilities: (verbal) violence and government-authorized theft.

Saving the world from climapocalyps is not important in daily life.
Let me sketch my last point in more detail by starting off with common sense. THis is the main culprit of the climate industry in ‘communicating the problem’ to cure the unwilling. For me, there is no problem, I am very comfortable here. One should be a real, real good expert to experience anything of a biodiversity or climateproblem in daily life.

While getting up, brushing your teeth, feeding your children, going to work etc. This to my view is one reason why 99,999 percent of Dutch people are not talking on a daily basis about climatepolicy and drastically changing their lifes. Since every new product or concept that is sold in Europe is first marketproofed in Holland, I bet the Dutch don’t stand alone here. We are no denialists of a special kind.

‘Climate Change’ is non-existant in daily human affairs. Unless someone through mass media desperately tries to make it. Mostly with appeal to authority or violence. The juvenile intellect is also inclined to refer to authority like ‘my dad says so’, case closed. Both appeals- autority and violence- have the same military root in the history of human affairs. And government authorized ‘mass communication’strategies -like your NWO/Dutch taxpayer-financed research is destined to be used for- have had some unfortunate outcomes in history..

So again, I am very comfortable here
I doubt Amanda, that you suffered from ‘climate change’ driving to office or flying from Britain to Amsterdam. All this is not because of denier disorder, but by daily experience and evaluating costs and benefits in ones actions. My priority now is earning money and improving skills to do so, which drives most people to work. This is motivated by a form of risk perception. Not having money is a real risk to loose your position in society. As a freelance writer it is never too late to fail, with many competitors aiming for the same space in magazines. Whereas the risk of Climate Change for my life now, exists only in the realm of ‘experts’.

The ‘experts’don’t see any risk from climate change as well
These experts have such a hard time in daily life detecting the problem caused by the phenomenon they study in professional life. So none of them considers a drastic change of lifestyle. If I was a mycologist studying poisonous fungus, I would not serve large doses to my loved ones. This is because of overwhelming evidence, that they would be harmed in the here and now. Apparantly the term ‘overwhelming evidence’ in climate science thus must be of a different kind. All of them live rich and cosmopolitan lives with abundant CO2-production.

Climate Change has improved the lives of many in most pleasurable ways
Just take a look at your mentor Pier Vellinga, our national climate alarmist. If anyone claims to be convinced of the climapocalypse to come and it’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ and claims to have superior knowledge on climate issues: it is him. Did all ’the overwhelming evidence’ make him drastically alter his lifestyle in the here and now for ’the climate’?
It did improve his life in the most pleasurable ways, like having a lot of young female students and postdocs around him. It gave him access to 10’s of millions of euro’s of research money and social standing. For him it must be ‘critical’ that we communicate the severity of his problem.

    So i’m not talking about morality here or ‘hypocrisy’, but the relevance of ‘overwhelming evidence’ of a ‘critical’climate problem. I never met an alarmist who led a more sobre life than me with my denialist brain: to the contrary. Which leads me to the following conclusion: No climate scientist in the world does consider climate change as a real risk for their daily lives.
    So the ‘overwhelming evidence’ of this ‘critical’ problem must be of an other order than from medical biology, engineering or fields of toxicology. I also never met a toxicologist who fed his children with cyanide in large doses. Apparantly he must be convinced of the importance of some overwhelming evidence from his field of expertise, to the life of here and now.

Neither does ’the critical’ problem convince you Amanda.
Talking about Climate Change did in fact give you a better life as a ‘communication scientist’, I bet. It pays your bills. I too enjoy lecturing others, and it gives me money to lead a more comfortable life and as a form of expression of thought. Which- as I described- is my first priority on a daily basis. So, unless threatened at gunpoint or punishment by government, daily experience does not motivate for ‘drastic change of lifestyle’ to prevent a climapocalypse envisioned in the computer of ‘experts’. Or have you sold everything and given it to the poor?

Now let me translate vague entities like climate and biodiversity to the civilosphere.
We do experience physical characteristics of a climate on daily basis: the weather. And enjoy ‘biodiversity’: a bird singing on the rooftop. The Dutch and Britons do complain about the weather since ancient times. Because of our cold, windy and foggy climate. The last centuries of weather in our area, have given Britons and Dutchies sufficient reason for lament. We thus have a high tendency for holidays in warmer and sunnier countries like Spain and Southern France, And British adolescents for Amsterdam but for other, warmer reasons then Climate.

Last week I bought an umbrella. I consider going back to warm Sierra Nevada enjoying a mountain trip for photography, nature study and a boccadillo Catalana. So I act now to enjoy now, also on nature and climate. I’m a long term seeker for the more pleasurable things in life. I will not voluntarily consider giving up this free and comfortable life for preventing 0,8 degrees of warming over 150 years. Or for saving a theoretical amount of species in an expert’s computer. It is unimportant to my life. Most people won’t I bet, my neighbours won’t, my friends won’t. Even you.

So welcome into the world of the overwhelming amount of people suffering denial disorder.
Or wait, consider now the fact that this is a healthy rational form of behaviour. Where people weigh costs and benefits of their actions, and evaluate risks, just like you did by deciding not to spend traveltime. Apparantly it is irrational to kill your lifestyle or daily agenda with it’s own priorities to prevent a hardly detectable environmental change in daily practice: after all ‘the environment’is just one of many risks that might not be such a risk after all compared to ‘not having money’.

Climate Change Communication is critical for climate communicators
The importance of ‘communicating climate change’ ís economical irrational in daily practice: but to my view only if this robs you of your academic position. Now thén you have serious reasons to worry on a now-basis. So start worrying if you want.

Maybe now – if you are able to think for yourself- you accept that scientists are also civilians. They take their daily cost-benefit calculations with them to their professional lives. Just like you did, when deciding travellingtime to Langweer made me less important as a research-object. Most current academics do work that helps them avoid their greatest risk in Western society: not having money and social standing. This is common sense reasoning, and again: not very original. Everyone with an IQ over 100 can come to this conclusion.

The IPCC has 1000’s of academic facebookfriends, so what?
The Scientist is not some infallible form of human life in touch with ‘the higher wisdom of Nature’. Do please note the difference between the scientific METHOD- the best way so far to gain reliable knowledge- and the all too human affair of daily academic practice. Also there are different fields with different capacities of making predictions, with their own error bars. The engineering that made your Easyjet fly from Nutterham to Amsterdam is of a different order in predicting outcomes, than sociology or ‘climate science’

Thus being labled as ‘a climatescientist’- gives no position to make infallible predictions of ‘overwhelming evidence’ in trade for our sacrifices. While the 99,99999 percent of people – basing their judgment on daily experience and the experience of years and billions of others before them- must be stupid.

    So if the IPCC claims they have ‘1000s of academic facebookfriends who like them, so that we all must accept radical lifestylechanges’: why should this be more convincing than our day to day experience that climate change- narrowed down to a little warming- is a nonissue. And does not urge us to stop enjoying life?

Dear Amanda, trie Eugenics instead.
This public judgement is the main enemy of climatists, who rely so desperately on mass media to make their problem to be noticed in daily life: and need even ‘communication experts’to convert our denialist brains. So if you want to convince me of your problem that has economic benefits to you, you should resort to violence or government-authorized theft of things I hold dear.

Or if I wanted to push denialist degenerates in my desired direction, i’d trie Eugenics.