Are you a climate change hypocrite? Here’s why you shouldn’t worry

Bennet Francis, University of Reading

Standing on the deck of Berta Cáceres, the now-iconic pink boat, Emma Thompson addressed a sprawling crowd of protestors and gave a slew of media interviews. It was April 2019, Extinction Rebellion had occupied Oxford Circus in London, and the actress was eager to lend her headline-generating celebrity status to the group’s cause.

As it turned out, however, the tabloids told a different story. “Dame Emma Jets 5,400 Miles to Show How Green She Is!”, the Daily Mail crowed. In subsequent months, it went on to gloat “Emma Thompson Admits She is a Hypocrite for Flying Round the World While Protesting Climate Change”, as if to confirm its initial cod-outrage had been vindicated.

The charge of hypocrisy is slippery. It tends to get thrown around in a moralistic tone, but does it really have anything to do with morality at all? Did Emma Thompson really do anything worse than the millions of others who take long-haul flights each year and don’t receive the same criticism?

As the philosopher Judith Shklar argued, hypocrisy is more like an exposed flank on the battlefield of ideas than a genuinely blameworthy character trait. The charge of hypocrisy is used against political opponents to generate what she called “psychic annihilation”: it can force them to lose faith in their deeply held political beliefs and convictions, without having to offer alternatives.

Criticising someone on the basis of moral principles usually implies you endorse those principles. By mocking Thompson’s hypocrisy, however, the Mail succeeded in making her cause appear less worthy, without having to pretend to be particularly virtuous itself.

So when climate activists are accused of hypocrisy, it is less a problem for the hypocrites themselves than a problem for the cause of climate advocacy. Anti-hypocritical discourse can be more pernicious than the hypocrisy it attacks – the sight of our well-meaning but imperfect neighbours in the pillory is often enough to convince us that striving to better ourselves isn’t worth the social risk.

Such arguments descend, in Cambridge professor David Runciman’s words, into “second-order hypocrisy”, or hypocrisy about how hypocritical we must necessarily be. A puritanical obsession with casting out insincerity can actually undermine public standards. If people become convinced that only saintly true believers pass muster, the rules-based order can start to break down.

Hypocrisy you should be worried about

Is it high time we stopped moralising about hypocrisy completely, then? The story isn’t over, because in certain contexts, hypocrisy can take on a more worrying aspect. The next major UN climate summit, known as COP26 and currently scheduled to be held in Glasgow in November, has been leveraged by the UK government for a ready supply of chauvinistic rhetoric, treated as a platform for the country to claim “world leader” status. There is even speculation that the “Festival of Brexit” originally planned by previous prime minister Theresa May is set to morph into an “eco-jamboree” of climate-themed boosterism for “Global Britain”.

The current UK government’s eagerness to signal its moral authority on the world stage is, however, at odds with its actual policy. While COP26 president Alok Sharma has been attempting to get other countries to sign up to phasing out coal power and combustion-powered vehicles, at home the government has declined to overrule plans to open a new coal mine for the first time in 30 years.

As it stands, the decision will now be put to a public inquiry, and therefore likely delayed until after COP26. The failure to nix the project went against the advice of the government’s own Climate Change Committee.

Here we see a different face of hypocrisy: hypocrisy as an abuse of power. Making a special case of yourself involves treating similar cases differently, a type of unfairness. But the problem is more than that. There is something distinctly objectionable about using your authority to influence the behaviour of others, while refusing to submit yourself to the same principles.

This is embodied in the old republican idea that we should strive for an “empire of laws and not of men”, where political leaders and private citizens alike should expect to be subject to the same standards.

We can, and should, treat the hypocrisy in a case like Emma Thompson’s differently from the hypocrisy of the UK government. Unless politically powerful agents apply the same standards to themselves, attempts to control or influence the behaviour of others must be seen as illegitimate. They are instances of arbitrary power, and therefore oppressive and illiberal.

While the average activist needn’t lose sleep about their own hypocrisy, then, the hypocrisy of those with real power – governments, their agencies and representatives – should be a cause for genuine concern. In an ideal world, it is here the tabloids would be focusing their attack.

Bennet Francis, Leverhulme Doctoral Scholar in Climate Justice, University of Reading

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

2.6 14 votes
Article Rating
80 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dk_
May 6, 2021 10:11 am

Quickly links opposing moral, ecological, and political views with “real” hypocrisy.
“Doctoral school of climate justice?” What a hypocrite!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  dk_
May 6, 2021 7:49 pm

Consider the source — The Conversation

Gerry, England
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 7, 2021 6:14 am

And the woke University of Reading.

PaulH
May 6, 2021 10:20 am

Hypocrite celebrities are one thing, hypocrite governments are another.

China’s emissions now exceed all the developed world’s combined

n.n
Reply to  PaulH
May 6, 2021 10:26 am

Shared/shifted responsibility with “benefits”.

Reply to  PaulH
May 6, 2021 11:23 am

Biden has no clue about China — but Trump does … https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/kf3DIEm

Craig from Oz
Reply to  John Shewchuk
May 6, 2021 10:46 pm

You do know you can safely edit your post down to four words?

Reply to  PaulH
May 6, 2021 11:33 am

But, bro’ (say bra), of course China emits; they have things called factories, where all the stuff you buy, get made. Go ask your grampa about the time, long, long ago, when General Electric was not a financial vehicle.

Last edited 5 months ago by paranoid goy
Richard Page
Reply to  PaulH
May 6, 2021 12:09 pm

It’s much the same thing – celebrities and those in power all have a sense of entitlement that is unshakeable. It’s always the ‘little people’ that will make any needed sacrifices.

Lrp
Reply to  Richard Page
May 6, 2021 6:35 pm

Lots of little people just follow blindly trusting “the science”, so they deserve what’s coming to the

Dave
Reply to  PaulH
May 6, 2021 1:17 pm

Yet China emits about 7 tons per capita while the combined OECD countries are about 9 tons per capita. China has a little “hypocrite” wiggle room before joining the ranks of the OECD.

RicDre
Reply to  Dave
May 6, 2021 2:04 pm

“Yet China emits about 7 tons per capita…”

If CO2 really is the “Control Knob” for <del>Global Warming</del> <del>Climate Change</del> Climate Catastrophe then per capita is meaningless, only the total amount of CO2 emitted matters.

May 6, 2021 10:27 am

An alternative to charges of hypocrisy would be to point out that the principles espoused are stupid and counterproductive, and no one should follow them.
There is a probably apocryphal story about a certain third world dictator who went to the Soviet Union on a state visit, and was provided female entertainment. Back in his home country, the KGB showed him the salacious photos, and his response was to ask for more copies, and whether they had more shots. He said he was old, and wanted his people to know how virile he still was.
Besides, the actual standard of the green blob is that peasants should live the “simple life”, while the elite get to do what they want.

gringojay
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 6, 2021 10:51 am

Leonid Brezhnev was once the supreme leader of the U.S.S.R. Soviet Union. With his driver he picked up his old mother and together they drove to his country dacha estate. As they entered the driveway and passed through the extensive grounds he showed them to his mother. Once they arrived at the residence and went inside the foyer they stood together, still in their coats by the dual winding staircases. His mother looked around – left, right, up at the second story hanging chandelier and slowly turned to face her son. Brezhnev was serenely beaming at his mother’s wide eyed countenance awaiting his mother’s words. The first thing she said was: “What if the communists come back?”

Pariah Dog
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 6, 2021 10:55 am

Was that Robert Mugabe by any chance?

Reply to  Pariah Dog
May 6, 2021 11:17 am

No, I saw it told about Sukarno of Indonesia

n.n
May 6, 2021 10:30 am

Bigotry or sanctimonious hypocrisy. Although, perhaps not technically true under state-established Progresive Churches/Synagogues/Universities/Corporations/Clinics with the Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic (“ethical”) religion. Twilight faith. Semantic games. Fluid concepts. Can they abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too? Yes, they can.

M Courtney
May 6, 2021 10:35 am

Surely the point about Emma Thompson’s flight was that it wouldn’t have happened if she didn’t want to tell others not to take unnecessary flights.
She could act as she said she believes other should act. Or she could treat others as lesser beings with less rights than herself..
She chose the latter.
Hypocrisy.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  M Courtney
May 6, 2021 11:02 pm

Doctor’s daughter, privately educated, privileged upbringing, not knocking the talent, but just the rank hypocrisy of actions that’s all! DAISNAID! Do As I Say, Not As I Do!!!! The conceited arrogance is beyond belief, but she is so superior to a mere minion such as me!!!! I guess I’ll have to grow my hair a tad longer (it’s in Summer mode now) so that I actually have a forelock to tug in due deference!!!! DAISNAID also applies to one or two of you Virginian colonists, Messrs Gore & Obama with their $4M sea front retirement properties, clearly dropping in value as I type due to their promised sea-level rises!!!!

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 6, 2021 11:55 pm

Correction! Thought I better fact check Thompson, her father was a “luvvie”/actor also, an engineer colleague told me the incorrect data many years ago when in my 20s & it stuck! Apologies, however, the general comments I made stand!!!

May 6, 2021 10:37 am

“There is something distinctly objectionable about using your authority to influence the behaviour of others, while refusing to submit yourself to the same principles.”

Absolutely right, and I gave the post 5 stars for that statement. However, the author seems to think that those who don’t have political power don’t have to do the same.

But isn’t hypocrisy – failing to practice what you preach – just wrong? Wrong, wrong, wrong under any circumstances?

Randy Stubbings
May 6, 2021 10:40 am

This article is right up there in quality with the one on feminist glaciology. From Feminist glaciology study published| University of Oregon (uoregon.edu) we have the following gem of a paper.

Glacier Lab members Mark Carey, M Jackson, Alessandro Antonello, and former Lab member Jaclyn Rushing recently published a study on “Glaciers, Gender, and Science” in the peer-reviewed journal Progress in Human Geography. The journal Science recently profiled this article in an interview with Carey.

The concept of “feminist glaciology” is new to many people. It addresses the fact that, while women are more likely to be harmed or negatively affected by glacial melt than men, women’s voices are also less often heard in the context of glacier knowledge. Furthermore, the study shows that glaciology has been imbued historically (and up to the present) not only with many more men than women, but also with masculinist cultures of exploration, geopolitics, and domination. Credibility when it comes to glacier knowledge today is often still based on these masculinist undertones.

The article provides an overview of these issues, calling for a new approach to global environmental change research– a framework that considers gender dynamics in environmental (climate, glaciology, hydrology) knowledge as well as one that integrates the social sciences and humanities with natural sciences. The production of a more comprehensive knowledge base is critical to addressing changing environmental conditions worldwide, with the goal of more just and equitable adaptation to global change.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Randy Stubbings
May 6, 2021 10:50 am

“… one that integrates the social sciences and humanities with natural sciences.” Worldwide Lysenkoism.

Reply to  Randy Stubbings
May 6, 2021 11:19 am

I remember the discussion on this site when it covered that paper. It was a total snarkfest.

Reply to  Randy Stubbings
May 6, 2021 11:20 am

Sandy is probably one of them … https://newtube.app/TonyHeller/JnaTzlS

John Garrett
Reply to  Randy Stubbings
May 6, 2021 12:18 pm

Well played Mr.Stubbings!

Bravo !

Martin
Reply to  Randy Stubbings
May 6, 2021 12:41 pm

Women in subsaharan Africa have a much better quality of life living in abject poverty than their sisters living in the advanced developed countries – so our ecozealot friends just want to level things up for the sisters in the West ….sarc

May 6, 2021 11:01 am

“The government has declined to overrule plans to open a new coal mine for the first time in 30 years”

That is because the coal in question is metallurgical coal, a valuable source of coking carbon, a critical chemical used in steel manufacturing. You don’t burn metallurgical coal in coal-fired power stations any more than you burn graphite or diamonds, (both of which happen to be valuable allotropes of carbon).

Last edited 5 months ago by Philip Mulholland
B Clarke
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
May 6, 2021 11:15 am

Don’t worry some bright boffin is trying to use wood again instead of coking coal, yes we did it before in the early days of iron manufacture, lots of trees went up in smoke to produce the coke,
And it really does not give a good grade of iron,

Reply to  B Clarke
May 6, 2021 11:34 am

trying to use wood again

I looked into that too. The key attribute appears to be the physical strength of the coke in bearing the load of the ion ore and limestone in the blast furnace.
Charcoal production from coppicing is one reason why the native oak and hazel woodlands of Cumbria survived.

B Clarke
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
May 6, 2021 11:43 am

Wood coke ( charcoal)is less dense and less calorific , in other words you use a lot more wood to produce a given amount of iron , wood also produces more carbon in the furnace environment which ends up in the iron ,so you need a high heat blast furnace. Its much easier to use coking coal

Rusty
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
May 6, 2021 3:40 pm

You are correct. It also has to be low in sulphur and phosphorus.

Mr.
Reply to  B Clarke
May 6, 2021 12:15 pm

Couldn’t a good supply of coke be harvested from Hunter’s nostrils?

MarkH
Reply to  Mr.
May 6, 2021 2:00 pm

Probably too high of a cheese content.

B Clarke
Reply to  Mr.
May 6, 2021 2:50 pm

If you can get it out of the trough .

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
May 6, 2021 1:25 pm

There you go again with facts. But truth is that it is a coal mine. /sarc

Absolutely correct, of course. But, how many people do you know, outside of this website, who even know the difference between coal and coke?

B Clarke
May 6, 2021 11:07 am

I don’t think Emma Thompson turned up at the climate gig for the better good, heres why, she was talking about trees if I remember rightly, its a little known fact lots of celebrities, businesses buy forestry in the UK, because of the tax breaks,which are a 100% after 3 years, it is alleged ms T owns forestry in the uk , if that be the case she was promoting forestry things for selfish reasons and deceiving the mob, would it also be hypocritical?

Mr.
Reply to  B Clarke
May 6, 2021 12:19 pm

No, not hypocritical for the climate carpetbaggers.

Al Gore provided the template for making big $$$$$$s from climate carpetbagging, and many have followed in his footsteps.

B Clarke
Reply to  Mr.
May 6, 2021 2:47 pm

Yes agreed carpet bagger, the latest twist is to turn farming land into forestry, with all the benefits as before plus a yearly grant ,( a wage) so my bragging neighbours inform me, their going for it.

dk_
May 6, 2021 11:28 am

Someone who speaks as if “climate justice” is not nonsense, yet has the cynical gall to quote Judith Shklar, who was outspoken against real injustice as well as a victim of Marxist/Leninist persecution, out of context to support the writer’s ideological hysteria, deserves contempt. If this drivel from the self-serving fool, Bennett Francis, is an example of the malicious propaganda published by “The Conversation,” then no rational human should pay any attention to anything from that source.

“In an ideal world, it is here the tabloids would be focusing their attack.”

Last edited 5 months ago by dk_
Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2021 11:56 am

We are all Climate Sinners. The thing is to acknowledge one’s own climate sins, and atone for them. If we confess our climate sins to St. Greta, or Father Gore, we can become absolved of said sins as long as we take the appropriate punishments for them, mostly in the form of repeated prayers to Gaia.

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2021 12:47 pm

Or repeated payments to Father Gore.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2021 8:08 pm

Bruce
Where do we buy our (climate) indulgences [so we can keep sinning]?

The eco-theology scene reminds of a quote for which don’t know the author:
Dupes go along with the scam ’cause they don’t know any better;
Knaves know it is a scam but profit from it .
But since most fanatics are dupes we should not be too hard on them.
[but we should never agree to their lies by being silent!]

paul courtney
Reply to  Bill Zipperer
May 7, 2021 12:06 pm

Mr. Zipperer: “Where do we buy our climate indulgences” you ask. By strange coincidence, it’s the same place you go to pay reparations.

Climate believer
May 6, 2021 12:07 pm

“There is something distinctly objectionable about using your authority to influence the behaviour of others, while refusing to submit yourself to the same principles.”

You should have stopped there.

The Cambridge English Dictionary: HYPOCRITE

someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way that shows these are not sincere:

He’s a hypocrite – he’s always lecturing other people on the environment but he drives around in a huge car.

This is their actual freaking example. Replace “he” with “she”, “drives” with “flys”, and “car” with “aeroplane” it’s uncanny.

Mr Bennet Francis Climate Justice Warrior, might want to look up “Cognitive bias” for his next article.

John Garrett
May 6, 2021 12:16 pm

That’s the funniest damn thing I’ve read all day.

Bennett Francis had to have suffered multiple severe dislocations from the impossible intellectual and logical contortions he attempted.

Even after all that, he still made no sense.

Terry
May 6, 2021 12:34 pm

“…millions of people who take flights and are not crictized like Emma…..” If they are greenies I’ll do it.

DonM
Reply to  Terry
May 6, 2021 3:52 pm

They are not criticized like Emma.

They are criticized BY the likes of Emma.

As such, both Emma & her gang are hypocrites.

H.R.
Reply to  Terry
May 6, 2021 5:03 pm

Millions of us take flights and hope the plants appreciate the extra CO2.

And millions don’t think CO2 is the climate control knob. Their only concern when flying is that the plane takes off and lands safely.

And some fly just because they like getting felt up by the TSA guy, but I think that may be veering a bit off topic.

Randy Stubbings
Reply to  H.R.
May 8, 2021 9:08 am

Those who believe CO2 is the climate-disaster control knob but continue to use fossil fuels in ANY way are not only hypocrites, but hold themselves up as far more valuable than the rest of us. That’s because they must assume, if only subconsciously, that their private marginal benefit from their next tonne of CO2 emissions exceeds the marginal cost of that tonne to all of humanity.

Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2021 12:34 pm

Let he who is without climate sin cast the first Climate Crone.

MarkW
May 6, 2021 12:42 pm

Criticising someone on the basis of moral principles usually implies you endorse those principles.

Since when? Liberals really do believe that they have the right to redefine words as they will.

however, the Mail succeeded in making her cause appear less worthy, without having to pretend to be particularly virtuous itself.

In other words, only those who are perfect are allowed to criticize liberals.

MarkW
May 6, 2021 12:43 pm

Another way to put it would be:

If you aren’t willing to live up to the standards you espouse, why should anyone else?

May 6, 2021 12:55 pm

This is silly. Emma Thompson was no less abusive of her “authority” as a celebrity in her actions.

It is not hypocrisy to “do what everyone else does” until you start preaching to everyone else that what they’re doing is wrong, while continuing to do it yourself. That’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

If I call the police on my neighbors because their grass is half an inch higher than local ordnances permit when mine is the same height, I’m a hypocrite. Even if I don’t call the police, but just complain directly to the neighbor about the height of their grass, I’m a hypocrite. Not for committing the same infraction as my neighbor, but for doing so while proclaiming their actions are wrong.

They’re either wrong for all of us, or they’re wrong for none of us. Period.

As I’ve said many, many times before, I’ll start buying that all those celebrities and government officials really believe we’re destroying the earth with our actions when they start acting like they believe it.

2hotel9
May 6, 2021 1:32 pm

Climate changes, it always has and always will. Humans are not causing it to change and can not stop it from changing. Period. Full Stop. F**k off leftards.

David Wolcott
May 6, 2021 1:40 pm

Pointing out hypocrisy does not, nor should it, involve taking a moral stance. It involves pointing out contradictions in reasoning. Of course not many people care about reasoning any more, and would prefer to shout the loudest and call people names. But if you want to offer reasons for taking some action or implementing some policy, as most climate alarmists do, then you should care about contradicting yourself, and others have a perfect right to criticize your reasoning.

Peta of Newark
May 6, 2021 1:44 pm

From the very start of Covid here in the UK,,,,,

UK Members of Parliament (MPs) and Government crowed about the supposed fact that folks working from home were saving money.
They weren’t commuting, they were saving time to do other things and generally, were saving the environment. Nice. All very lovely.
But mostly that they didn’t need as much pay or furlough money.

Yet just before the MPs went home to (haha) work, they found it necessary to give themselves a £10,000 added allowance.

Because of their extra costs involved in ‘working from home’.

Nice work if you can get it eh – and just as crazy, illogical & surreal as Climate Change Science.
Is there any fate too horrible for these slime-balls, any fate at all?

H.R.
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 6, 2021 5:23 pm

[…] any fate too horrible? Any fate at all?

Start with Viking Blood Eagle, Peta. That may check the box as “too horrible.” The Death Walk isn’t particularly pleasant, either.

Inside The Vikings’ Tortuous Blood Eagle Execution Ritual (allthatsinteresting.com)

Me? I just wish they’d cut it out (doing things for my own good using my money) and leave me alone, but I know that’s asking too much.

Coeur de Lion
May 6, 2021 2:18 pm

Didn’t anyone brief Boris on the previous failed 25 COPs? Bad mistake to get so heavily involved in failure.

leitmotif
May 6, 2021 2:35 pm

Unemployed For Life by the look of it.

Editor
May 6, 2021 2:43 pm

As I was reading the article, I was thinking – this reads like it’s from ‘The Conversation’, it’s a weaselly attempt to justify hypocrisy by saying that some hypocrisy (individual) is not as bad as other hypocrisy (government) so it’s OK. And then I find that it really is from “The Conversation”. It should be called “The Hypocrisy”.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 7, 2021 7:03 am

Some have suggested “The Monologue.” Fits perfectly.

littlepeaks
May 6, 2021 2:56 pm

My wife gets free airline miles for using her credit card. Should the green hypocrisy ban credit-card that offer free miles (unless they stipulate the miles are for battery-powered airplanes only)?

griff
Reply to  littlepeaks
May 7, 2021 7:23 am

good idea.

Chris Hanley
May 6, 2021 3:02 pm

The term ‘climate justice’ implies a moral or ethical element and that is how the author frames his article but that assumes a system of values that everyone adheres to, I don’t.
For instance trying to deny two thirds of the world’s population access to the lifestyle that say Bennet Francis enjoys is profoundly unjust IMO.

n.n
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 6, 2021 3:21 pm

Climate justice in the same vein as social justice, which is an ethical religion (i.e. moral philosophy’s relativistic sibling), sometimes selective, often opportunistic, always politically congruent.

Last edited 5 months ago by n.n
Alan the Brit
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 7, 2021 12:18 am

But that is precisely the whole point! These wealthy ruling intellectual elites simply don’t want to sit on a West Indian sun drenched beach, being able to here the sounds of the uneducated, unwashed, peasants enjoying the luxuries they feel should be the preserve of said elites!!! Hence the campaign against cheap flights, only the wealthy elites should be able to fly to exotic destinations, any peasants encountered are merely there carrying a tray of very expensive cocktails!!!! Just a guess!!!! 😉

Russell Johnson
May 6, 2021 3:03 pm

You are a climate change hypocrite if you believe human CO2 causes CC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Abolition Man
Reply to  Russell Johnson
May 6, 2021 5:42 pm

Russell,
Only if you exhale!

n.n
May 6, 2021 4:33 pm

Rebel for Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Who could… who would disagree? Think of the grandmas. Close Planned Parent/hood.

Craig from Oz
May 6, 2021 10:53 pm

Did Emma Thompson really do anything worse than the millions of others who take long-haul flights each year and don’t receive the same criticism?

Yes.

The vast majority of those millions have absolutely no problem with millions of other people traveling internationally if they want to.

Emma made claims that EVERYONE (except her apparently) needs to change their habits in order to save the world.

Ergo, Emma is a hypocrite.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Craig from Oz
May 7, 2021 12:21 am

“Did Emma Thompson really do anything worse than the millions of others who take long-haul flights each year and don’t receive the same criticism?”

AND all done in the same day, LA to London & back first class, oh what a privilege!!!!!

Craig from Oz
May 6, 2021 11:05 pm

As the philosopher Judith Shklar argued, hypocrisy is more like an exposed flank on the battlefield of ideas than a genuinely blameworthy character trait.

Wow.

I would be more inclined to say that Judith is a word salad in the smorgasbord of all expenses paid conferences.

What is she actually saying?

Exposed flanks can cause your entire battle to collapse, but only if your opponent has the means and awareness to act on the opportunity. In other situations flanks are only exposed for as long as your opponents can catch them, leading to mantra of mobile warfare in which speed is protection. (basically – if you are successfully advancing, keep advancing as they can only attack your flank(s) if they can catch you. Stay inside your opponent’s decision cycle and they will be reacting to you, not acting against you.)

(or exposed flanks are bad… right up until you can ignore them)

(also see “over extended”. Battlefields are complex and dynamic places)

Also remember, the Moral High Ground is a great place to deploy your artillery. 😀

Vincent Causey
May 6, 2021 11:39 pm

So, according to this article, Emma Thompson’s hypocrisy of allowing herself to lead a life that she would deny others is not a bad thing, whereas the governments hypocrisy in providing cheap and reliable energy to their own people is a bad thing and tantamount to tyranny. Hmm, somewhere along the way the argument has gone horribly wrong.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Vincent Causey
May 7, 2021 7:14 am

Logical fallacies, anyone?!

But then I guess we can’t expect any logic or reason from someone pimping “climate justice.” Maybe we should interview the bats and birds being killed by wind turbine blades and the people in sub-Saharan Africa who still don’t have clean water or electricity, and see how they are enjoying all the “climate justice.” :-O

Ian Coleman
May 7, 2021 2:41 am

Well, if Charles Manson had condemned mass murder the condemnation of mass murder would still have been valid.

On the other hand, Emma Thompson gets to enjoy the luxuries that she can buy while at the same time advocating for policies that will cause economic contractions that will sabotage other people’s freedom to also get rich. So that kind of stings.

You don’t really see that many climate change enthusiasts who are not at least upper middle class. They’ve got theirs but you can’t have it too. Tough luck, pal.

Andy Wilkins
May 7, 2021 6:07 am

I live near Emma Thompson in NW London. She lives in a very large and expensive house. Whilst there’s nothing wrong with living in a large and expensive house, what it costs to heat will have a large “carbon footprint”. Why isn’t she living in a small flat if she wants to save the world?
She’s the definition of hypocrisy.

Andy Wilkins
May 7, 2021 6:17 am

I went to that stupid XR demo at Oxford Circus in the the centre of London, just so I could laugh at the hippies. What amused me most was that the pink boat was made of…. plastic. The signs the daft hippies were waving were made of ….. plastic. Their jackets, shoes, and tents were all made of …. plastic. And the record decks the DJ was playing awful music on was made of… you guessed it… plastic.
Oh, and the boat was towed there by a truck that used, um, fossil fuels. Bunch of hippie hypocrites.

(NB One of the eco-zealots tried to thrust a leaflet in my hand. I asked her if she knew about the science behind climate change and she replied, “Yes, I know all about it!”. I asked her for her thoughts on the logarithmic heating effect of CO2 compared to atmospheric concentration. She replied that she didn’t know what I was talking about. I smiled and she stomped off.)

Old Cocky
May 7, 2021 4:03 pm

The last conversation involving similar reasoning which I was engaged in may have owed a little to the carton of Coopers Pale Ale

yirgach
May 8, 2021 3:12 pm

So now we have Berta Cáceres joining the list of modern day martyrs and saints. At least she did not bring the ugly baggage of that thug Michael Brown or the drug addict George Floyd.

But they will figure out a way to incite violence and burning regardless.
They just have to. Because Climate and Humans.

%d bloggers like this: