I have become frustrated at the unthinking repetition of parrot fashion dogma. For people who wish to implement radical policy changes based on empirical and proveable data then make sure the data supports your argument. Where one is acting on Faith then say so. My contention is that the CO2 belief dogma of climatism and AGW Climate Change Alarmism is damaging the environmental movement. The Green Party will, as the data increasingly shows AGW CO2 conjecture to be unsupported, be lead into disrepute by its political leadership being exposed as indulging in Dog Whistle hysteria. This reputational damage will actually damage the valid arguments against extraction damage. The problem is not the CO2 already this is clearly shown by data now, there are many porblems with Tar sands and Fracking also Oil spills and the like. The CO2 alarmism opens the question as to how trustworthy or knowledgeable are so called experts on those other issues, with CO2 being so comprehensively discredited who will be iopen to looking at valid evidence on environmental damage?
This discussion I think proves the point it applies very well to the EMO type teenaged angst that seems to have lived into middle age in many politicians and agit/prop operatives for ´´Pseudo Environmentalism´´.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Tolstoy, from the Wikipedia article of Confirmation Bias.