Roger Hallam, founder member of Extinction Rebellion wants the scientists to follow him! Well, when I say scientists, I mean doctors of music, socio-spatial planning, social and cultural anthropology, sociology, clinical psychology and education, etc. 

From Climate Scepticism

BY JOHN RIDGWAY

It doesn’t seem that long ago that I was on here pouring scorn upon the efforts of two psychology professors who were claiming to know how hapless folk such as you and I could fall into the trap of disbelieving the scientists. Theirs was a counsel that supposedly had two major benefits: By following their advice others could avoid the same ‘anti-science’ trap and, even better, they would be ready and prepared to deal with those who had. Like bedbugs, the anti-scientific are deemed a growing problem, but these two psychologists also have a serious pesticide. Or so they say.

Such academics can only think that way because they presume for themselves an understanding of the science that is superior to the sceptic. As far as they are concerned, sceptics had the option of thinking things through carefully, but chose instead to reject scientific authority and replace it with their own sloppy version of thinking. Trust in science is very much seen as the hallmark of the critical thinker; they see no room in the critical thinker’s armoury for re-evaluating the significance of scientific consensus.

And why does all of this matter? It’s because such ‘anti-scientism’ can lead to all sorts of dangerous perspectives, such as those held by people who insist on vaccines being properly tested, or that the risks of net zero should be properly thought through. Or maybe you are one of those people who even doubt the need for a precipitous transition to net zero. Perhaps you can’t see the urgency. How anti-scientist is that?

Not very, according to Roger Hallam, founder member of Extinction Rebellion. In a recent proclamation he explained that failing to see the urgency has nothing at all to do with anti-scientism – in fact it is quite the opposite. If you want to be a critical thinker, like he is, he says the very last thing you should be doing is listening to the scientists. ‘But how come?’, I hear you ask. Surely organisations such as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil have been claiming scientific endorsement for their eschatology from the very outset. So Hallam, of all people, must surely be the first to condemn anyone who disbelieves a scientist. Well he might have done in bygone days, but no longer. This is how he puts it now:

Some of us have attempted over the years to responsibly communicate the extreme and cascading risks, and the severe consequences of not taking emergency action. Despite founding the movement on the precautionary principle we found ourselves being ground down. For years we were moderated, and moodsplained by experts from narrow disciplines who demanded we change our press releases, our lectures, and play down the reality and potential speed of catastrophic consequences.

So if one cannot trust ‘experts from narrow disciplines’, who should you trust? Why, Hallam, of course:

The rapid heating and extreme events of the last year demonstrate that overall predictions of institutionalised climate science were less accurate than the conclusions of generalist scholars and leading climate activists, who better saw the frightening signals through the noise produced from siloes, hierarchies, and privilege.

You see, it’s the generalists and activists that we should have been listening to all along, not ‘institutionalised climate science’. But how was it that institutionalised climate science got away with so many years of ‘moodsplaining’?

Because these people carry an identity associated with ‘authority’ they were not challenged enough by journalists, lay people, or activists.

It turns out that there is little difference between a climate change sceptic and your average doomsplaining cult leader. Both dislike the idea of authorised facts and both wish that journalists and laypeople would do more to challenge it. The only difference is that, whereas we are wracked with uncertainty and worry about practicalities, the doomsplainer general is on a moral crusade and lives by a truth known only unto him and his followers. As Hallam puts it:

We committed five years ago in October 2018 to live in truth. Our movements need to look directly at that truth and act according to reality. That means being in resistance, standing for peace, justice and freedom.

I have no reason to believe that Hallam is being insincere here. I suspect that he has created for himself the persona of the repressed messiah who is, nevertheless, only too willing to forgive the blasphemers just as long as they are prepared to repent. Why else would he say this?

Understanding how this repression happened is important. We would welcome any career climatologists, academics and journalists who undermined our communications in public to make amends, especially as they have influenced attitudes amongst those who judge us.

Far from encouraging others to follow the scientists, Hallam wants the scientists to follow him! And before you dismiss his megalomania too readily, you should reflect upon the fact that his amnesty has already resulted in a degree of success. Only seven days after his sermon on the mount, a massive 70 scientists responded by plighting their troth to the activists. Well, when I say scientists, I mean doctors of music, socio-spatial planning, social and cultural anthropology, sociology, clinical psychology and education, etc. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention the founding member of the Research Collective for Decolonizing Fashion.

So it was really just another bunch of generalists and laypeople, rather than the mass conversion he must have hoped for.

I may mock, but it’s a start. Hallam is a man in resistence and he stands for peace, justice and freedom. Previous messiahs have achieved a great deal more with far less scientific support, and never forget that there are grandmas prepared to climb gantries for this guy.