I’ve written about extinction rebellion before. Although I think they get some of the science wrong, and some of their demands seem unrealistic (we can’t get emissions to zero in 7 years), they are having an impact. We keep getting told that simply providing information is not going to work, so it’s hard then to criticise a group that has at least managed to make this front page news.
They also seem to be riling up the right people. There’s also been a rather remarkable set of Twitter exchanges that included David Rose referring to extinction rebellion as an end of times death cult who are beyond the pale of civilised discussion and Matt Ridley referring to them as lying violent extremists.
Given that both have – in the past – complained of the rhetoric aimed at them, you might find this somewhat ironic. That would require thinking that their previous complaints were based on a genuine desire to improve the dialogue, rather than simply an attempt to control the narrative; calling people climate science deniers is unacceptable, but claiming that climate protestors are a death cult who are lying violent extremists is okay.
Of course, I’m not really surprised by this. It’s just another example of same ol’ same ol’. Probably shouldn’t have even bothered writing a post, but I’m doing dinner, so had a bit of free time while it’s all cooking.