Socrates and Net Zero

Powerful responses to the apocalyptic climate narrative are not only found in the flaky science, they are also found in human behaviour which hardly ever matches the rhetoric.

The personal behaviour of its proponents almost always shows apocalyptic climate claims to be an imposture. The imposition of increasingly rigorous climate “duties” by media, politicians and celebrities are clues to the imposture. The "duties" are imposed on us, not them.

This method, the Socratic method, consists in accepting any estimation which any man may sincerely make, and in applying dialectic to it, so as to let the man see what he really esteems. What he really esteems is what ought to guide his conduct; for to suggest that a rational being ought to do what he feels to be wrong, or ought to pursue what he genuinely thinks is worthless, would be to impugn that man’s rationality and to discredit one’s own.

With what face could any man or god say to another: Your duty is to do what you cannot know you ought to do; your function is to suffer what you cannot recognise to be worth suffering? Such an attitude amounts to imposture and excludes society; it is the attitude of a detestable tyrant, and any one who mistakes it for moral authority has not yet felt the first heart-throb of philosophy.

George Santayana - The Life of Reason (1905 - 1906)


Telling the general population to do what they cannot know they ought to do and suffer what they cannot know they ought to suffer in the name of climate change - that should not be mistaken for moral authority. It is an imposture.

A large majority of people promoting the climate imposture politically and in the media, cannot know why it ought to be pushed nor why it ought to be endured.

As for people we encounter socially who profess to believe the climate imposture – most of them cannot know why it ought to be pushed nor why it ought to be endured.

Simple, widely observable human behaviour tells us quite clearly that the apocalyptic climate narrative is an imposture. The science may be blatantly flaky, but ignorant behaviour is the bigger clue.