iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Open on Bluesky →

paul hauntsel 👻 🎃 @paulhansel.com · 26/06/2026

"Refusing technical adaptation when it can save lives is not a denial of reality; it is a religious choice masquerading as a scientific position." x.com/TanguiLeDant...

This climatologist asserts: "The problem is that if you use air conditioning, you’ll tell yourself we can keep living just as before—meaning nothing needs to change."

When lives are directly threatened by extreme heatwaves, this line of reasoning becomes not only unacceptable but DANGEROUS. It is no longer a matter of scientific analysis, but of an ideological stance that prioritizes contrition and suffering over the preservation of human life.
By demanding that populations accept lethal heat conditions in order to "gain awareness" and alter their behavior, this rhetoric veers into a form of eschatological religiosity: one must suffer to atone, gain awareness to find redemption, and forgo comfort to earn collective salvation.

Yet, the "living as before" in question is not a consumerist whim. It is about maintaining the thermal conditions necessary for the proper functioning of human physiology. Refusing technical adaptation when it can save lives is not a denial of reality; it is a religious choice masquerading as a scientific position.

The real problem today is no longer just the existence of this type of rhetoric, but its enduring influence within decision-making circles—to the point where it is even rolled out the red carpet on @franceinfo, without a hint of challenge. For over a decade, figures like François Vimieux—along with numerous other experts and commentators in influential positions—have repeated the same logic: that adaptation is suspect because it supposedly delays the profound transformation of lifestyles. This perspective, blending climate analysis with a moral imperative for penance, has deeply permeated public debate and certain policies.

[trimmed]

I myself am a whistleblower regarding global warming and the need for our cities to adapt to this new reality.
For over a decade, I have taken risks for this cause (and believe me, it is not easy).
But the fundamental difference between me and that climatologist—or so many other elected officials who call themselves "environmentalists"—is that I never lost sight of the fact that my primary goal was the preservation of human lives, not the preservation of my own belief system.