Death spiral of American academia

by Patrick J Michaels

Earlier this year, Eric Kaufmann of the University of London published a remarkably detailed and comprehensive study of bias in academia, “Academic Freedom in Crisis: Punishment, Political Discrimination, and Self-Censorship.” Kaufmann’s writing is a product of California’s Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, a small think-tank set up to do research that is forbidden in today’s academy. His finding of rampant left-sided political bias in publication, employment, and promotion in the Academy — and discrimination against anyone right-of-center — qualifies as forbidden scholarship.

What follows below is (I think) a generalization of the process that Judith described with regard to the Wuhan Coronavirus.  I hope readers will come away with the notion that the process of institutionalizing, and then defending, bad, politicized science is fractal—the internal geometry is very similar for most all such instances.  The reason is because mainstream practitioners of science have a demonstrable political bias and discredit or reject the work of anyone whose beliefs are inconsistent with that bias.  Been there.

In the academy the free interchange of competing ideas creates knowledge through cooperation, disagreement, debate, and dissent. Kaufmann’s landmark study proves that the last three in that list are severely suppressed and punished. The pervasiveness of such repression may be a death sentence for science, free inquiry, and the advancement of knowledge in our universities.

I am led to that dire conclusion because the universities appear to have no way to prevent this fate. No solution can arise from within the academy because it selects its own lifetime faculty, which  is largely left wing—increasingly so—and makes the promotion of dissenters highly unlikely. Kaufmann demonstrates profoundly systemic discrimination by leftist faculty against colleagues they find disagreeable.

It is important to note that Kaufmann concentrates primarily (but not exclusively) on the social sciences and humanities, in part because that’s where most previous research on bias applies. Data for STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) are not as common. However, there is no a priori reason to believe that these fields are unaffected by systemic biases influencing entire institutions. Sure, one can make the argument that math is apolitical, but one can’t say the same for the many branches of science that now have considerable and controversial policy implications. Even a casual reading of both the academic and popular literature on environmental science and climatology reveals rampant politicization.

Kaufmann’s study is shocking in its depth, even to academics (like me) who experienced for decades what he describes. He documents all aspects of an academic career, from advanced graduate study to landing a faculty position, research funding, publication, and promotion. That normal career progression is all but derailed if a person expresses a scintilla of non-left views in casual conversations, faculty meetings, public discourse, teaching, grant applications, submitted publications, or the promotion process.

He surveys the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada using different markers for liberal and conservative views. Among others, in the U.S. he used Trump-versus-Biden support, while for the U.K. he centered upon “leave” or “remain” in the controversy over membership in the European Union.

Kaufmann starts by distinguishing between “hard” and “soft” discrimination. The former includes the direct use of university disciplinary procedures against dissenting academics, internally generated campaigns for ouster, or simply making life so uncomfortable that a scholar feels compelled to leave. More specifically, he defines it as “being fired or threatened for one’s views,” while the “soft” version includes “not being hired, promoted, awarded a grant, or published in a journal.”

There is some good news here, but the past tense may be more appropriate. Kaufmann found that “most academics reject the “hard” version,” though he also found an alarming order-of- magnitude increase in the number of reported cases in recent years.

It is the soft version that has been more prevalent.

Promotion is largely determined by a record of academic publication summarized by outside reviewers, who may number up to a dozen or so. This decision on promotion is especially critical in the sixth year of an academic appointment, when a candidate is either promoted from assistant to associate professor, the latter carrying an appointment without term (i.e., tenure), or is terminated within a year. This review is an “up or out,” which means that denial of promotion ends employment not only at the candidate’s institution but at its peer institutions. For candidates denied by top-shelf schools, the opportunity to play ball at a lower level usually remains. But who wants to be damaged goods playing for the Tennessee Smokies after six years in Wrigley Field?

One critical letter among the large number submitted is often sufficient to result in a denial. And in highly politicized fields like my own (climate change) unsolicited letters from a big power in the field can appear out of the blue. (“I heard you are considering Dr. Blow for tenure. Might I offer some commentary?”) If the writer is of sufficient status, that’s a death sentence for the candidate and his heterodox views (pronoun and adjective explicitly chosen as matters of probability).

Kaufmann writes that “there will be, on average, 2-5 voices in the room [i.e., fellow faculty or review letters] discriminating against a right-wing candidate.” With regard to all-important

academic publications, he finds that a “paper is unlikely to be judged strictly on its merits since most journals require at least two referees plus an editor to take a look. This means there is a 60-90% chance of a right-wing paper being rated lower” (i.e., rejected), lowering the chances for promotion.

There is already a tremendous numerical disparity between left- and right-leaning faculty; approximately 14 to 1 in the U.S., as shown in Table 4 in Kaufmann’s paper. This is for the social sciences and the humanities; Kaufmann (personal communication) indicates the number for STEM is 5.7 to 1, still an outrageous imbalance.

Kaufmann did find that discrimination by the right against the left occurs at about the same rate, but since there are so few on the right, the disparity in favor of the left will continue to grow as the papers, promotions, and grant applications of right-leaning faculty are rejected by the ever-increasing proportion on the left. Interestingly, the percentages for conservative discrimination against left-leaning faculty are the same with regard to hiring, but the left discriminates slightly more than the right in reviews of academic papers and grant applications and in promotion decisions. Because hiring decisions largely rest with the faculty members themselves, discrimination against conservatives is only going to continue increasing.

Maybe academic discrimination is an inherent human quality, but having it entirely on one side of the political spectrum is a result of institutional hiring and retention choices.

What’s happening is a naked threat against the diversification of knowledge, with a future that looks even worse: Kaufmann finds that the youngest cohort on the academic ladder, Ph.D. students, are the most intolerant of the few faculty who are right-of-center. Eighty-two percent of these students say they would discriminate against right-leaning faculty in hiring, promotions, and grant applications. Kaufmann writes that in “North America, 24% of all PhD students would [downrate] a right-leaning paper…. 30% would mark a right-leaning promotion application lower, and 33% would rank a right-leaning grant application down.”

But that’s only the “admitted” bias. Kaufman designed his surveys to also reveal hidden bias, which, he notes, approximately doubles the figures for admitted prejudice. Discrimination against conservatives by Ph.D. students then becomes 48 percent, 60 percent, and 66 percent, respectively — this from the next generation of faculty.

This is an ominous sign, predicting that discrimination against the few remaining right-leaning teachers will become even worse. Universities might as well start to advertise positions with the caveat that “right-of-center candidates expecting promotion need not apply.”

Kaufmann concludes, “There is a climate of political discrimination inside the contemporary university” and adds that “findings accumulated over a decade convincingly show that a majority of conservative academics experience a hostile environment for their beliefs…. This is a rational appraisal of the significant structural discrimination against them in the higher education sector.”

This climate is eroding free speech, with overt censorship by rejecting publication of results with real (or simply apparent) connection to right-of-center policies, as well as tremendous self- censorship both in the classroom and in published academic papers. Scientists (including me) rationally submit papers that will not ruffle feathers, which itself has the obvious effect of reducing the disagreement often required for scientific progress.

The result is a systematic poisoning of the peer-reviewed literature, which society accepts as its canon of knowledge. Fewer trends in the world of ideas could be more dangerous. This is the Frankfurt School on steroids.

The scientific literature is the basis for the development of paradigms in the disciplines. As Thomas Kuhn repeatedly demonstrated in his famous 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (which continues to be republished!), paradigms are highly resistant to change. It took 100 years for mainstream geology to accept continental drift, even though most observant five-year-olds see that many of the world’s continents fit together like jigsaw pieces.

Publication of results showing anomalies in a paradigm (such as drifting continents in a paradigm of stationarity) is difficult enough. In today’s highly politicized arenas (gender, diversity, and climate change, for example), results that may indicate that a paradigm is inaccurate will be systemically suppressed, and their authors harassed, cancelled, or worse.

For instance, it is somewhat easy to download upper-atmospheric data from the climate models that serve as the (only) basis for assessment of future climate in the literature. These data reveal massive systematic overprediction of warming in the last 40 years for the entire four-dimensional global tropics. Yet publishing that fact in the scientific literature has proven nearly impossible. For whatever reason, it is viewed as a right-of-center finding and is treated as such.

The increasing systemic bias against such findings makes paradigms even more resistant to change than they were. To belabor the point, the reigning paradigm is that these climate models supply reliable guidance for the future, but the implication of the global tropical error is that they don’t. Nonetheless, the literature either doesn’t note this or downplays its meaning. It’s hard not to see how politically consequential this is. Why viewing the planet as existentially imperiled is “left”, and seeing the climate as a modestly warming metastable system is “right” is a mystery, but the ensuing discrimination is a reality.

Climate Science: Self-Censorship?

In my experience climate science is as systemically fraught with bias as the social sciences and the humanities; indeed, Mitchell Langbert in 2018 found that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was 25:1 among environmental scientists and 27:1 in the geosciences. His results were based upon voter registration.

Despite its obvious political prominence, in Kaufmann’s entire 195-page (single-spaced) document, the word “climate” (used 195 times) only describes the social milieu that academics experience. Only once does the subject of global warming come up — and in a pejorative way:

“…[T]hose who refuse to recognize the reality of political discrimination and chilling effects are not dissimilar to those who initially denied the leftist makeup of the professoriate (up to the 1990s), or who say that the earth is no warmer today than it was a century ago.”

To be clear, the average surface temperature is certainly warmer now than it was around 1900. But there were two warming periods in the 20th century, and the first, from 1910-45, is unlikely to have been largely because of carbon dioxide, as atmospheric concentrations at its initiation were barely—only a few parts per million—above where they were when global temperature records begin in 1850. If that teeny change could kick off the half-degree (C) of warming that ensued, current temperatures would be so hot that there would be little debate about imminent disaster.

But there is a legitimate discussion about long-term climate records. Almost all of the warming in U.S. history (which contains the best-maintained and most dense stations) is a result of “adjustments” and “homogenization.” (I love that word applied to ostensibly independent data records.) So the true warming is actually unknown. While it is certainly a stretch to say the earth’s temperature is the same as it was a century ago, it is not one to say that surface temperature records have been molested to overestimate that warming, which is easily confirmable by examining independent records from ascending weather balloons and orbiting satellites.

I speculate that Kaufmann knows these problems beset the “environmental issue of our time,” but chose to avoid conflict by conflating skeptics of an imminent apocalypse with those who deny left-wing bias in the academy. He may have sensed that touching the rather prominent electrified rail of climate change would have fried his credibility, no matter how well-grounded his work is. Kaufmann often speaks of “self-censorship” among academics. Did he do the same on climate to protect his work from the type of attacks he so thoroughly documents? For whatever reason, in Academic Freedom in Crisis, mum’s the word on climate change.

A practical example of the consequences of this intolerance is instructive. For whatever reason, scientists who view modern warming as modest, harmless or even beneficial are viewed as right-wing. If they let their sympathy for this so-called “lukewarm” hypothesis be known in graduate school, it’s unlikely they would ever gain an academic job. If hired, and they express this view at faculty meetings, they will be stigmatized, greatly diminishing their chances for promotion.

Further, revealing a “lukewarm” perspective in a research-grant application would be extremely risky. Kaufmann’s results “suggest close to two-thirds likelihood that each reviewer of a right- leaning grant application will engage in political discrimination [emphasis in original].”

Given that there will be at least three reviewers of a grant application to, say, the National Science Foundation and that one bad review will spell death, anyone not espousing the establishment view (established, that is, by the enormous disproportion of left-leaning faculty who view climate change as deadly) had better self-censor.

Better to avoid hot-button issues and concentrate on nugatory research. I did that during my first decade in the academy. The dean told me it was a great work, but I thought it was terrible. Kaufmann predicts that this kind of self-censorship, or research dilution, must be common among those who dissent from left-wing orthodoxy.

This is perhaps most obvious in studies of gender/sexuality and, of course, the unholy trinity of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

There is surely research in the publication stream today demonstrating the benefits of increasing permutations of the gender tree and the obvious salutary effects of asserting white fragility. Conversely. rest assured that anyone foolish enough to have submitted an academic counterargument has already had that manuscript rejected and is likely under academic suspicion.

Self-censorship applies to what one says to colleagues as well as to what research is applied for or written. According to Kaufmann, “70% [of the non-left] in the U.S. say there is a hostile climate for their beliefs in their departments and a similar number report self-censoring in teaching and research.”

Kaufmann concludes:

Discrimination leads to self-censorship, curbing the freedom to investigate and debate ideas that is the lifeblood of a properly functioning academy. With just 10-20% of Trump- and Leave-supporting academics in the social sciences and humanities willing to air their political beliefs, the views of half the electorate are effectively being silenced, limiting the kinds of conversations that are needed for mutual understanding.

The erosion of the academy is obvious. The implications are clear. The opportunity costs to society of handicapping, slowing, or preventing publication of new knowledge can only be staggering, prompting the obvious question: “What is to be done?”

Kaufmann details two approaches.

One, I fear, is wishful thinking: good ideas—tolerance, academic freedom, and a true ideological diversity with real impact on the future composition of the faculty–will prevail. They will drive out the bad ones.

Why is it wishful thinking? University faculty members, after six- years during which the right- of-center teachers leave or are fired after the promotion review, are permanent lifetime employees who choose the new hires, whether tenured or not. Kaufmann shows whom they do

not choose, which implies whom they do. Like begets like, and people don’t often move philosophically from left to right, when the left is preferentially rewarded.

Kaufmann’s other approach is what he calls “interventionist”. He gives an example in which a U.S. president or a governor, backed by the legislature, mandates that universities prioritize academic freedom, with all other goals and programs subservient to that. On the insightful British video podcast Triggernometry he noted that the U.K. government under Boris Johnson has instituted reforms that could help break the ideological uniformity of the academy.

But that’s the U.K. In the U.S. no president or governor could successfully order universities to hire and promote more right-leaning teachers. Nor could he or she order faculty members to affirmatively review right-of-center journal submissions, grant proposals or applications for promotion.

Surely, one might argue, that is similar to what occurs now with affirmative action and “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” But no one promoting these, from lobbyists to legislators to university administrators, is pushing anything that the existing faculty don’t believe in already.

A university administrator would get no further than a president or governor. The easiest way for a university president to be deposed is for him or her to incur mass disapproval of the faculty. Further, faculty members directly vote on whom to offer academic positions. While deans, provosts, and presidents can overrule faculty votes, they simply can’t cram an alternative appointment down a noncompliant faculty’s throat without a major giveback. The most they can usually do is offer a department a “free” position (one that doesn’t cost a department a designated “slot”) in addition to the hire that the dean wants.

That might slightly dilute the hegemony of the left-of-center faculty, but the math is clear. It will not replace it.

This is depressing, for it seems that the death spiral of American academia is inevitable. Our problems are structural and intractable. Because the university faculty is empowered to dictate who its members are and what is permitted in the canon of knowledge, it will retain that corrupt absolute power. Self-selection by the faculty ensures an increasingly leftward tilt, not just in the social sciences and humanities; as the infection has now reached STEM. Political intolerance will increase, as will de facto and direct suppression of academic free speech. It encourages heinous self-censorship that silences teachers who might dissent—until they can no longer speak.

About the author. Patrick J. Michaels is the author of Scientocracy: The Tangled Web of Public Science and Public Policy (Cato books, 2019) and was a Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for thirty years.

359 responses to “Death spiral of American academia

  1. Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, Camille Paglia, and recently Rima Azar; it isn’t only “conservative” political voices being intimidated and ousted, just anyone who speaks out against the message of the moment.
    But it isn’t just academia, either. Many of the above listed have exposed recent treatment and attitudes at Universities in U.S. and Canada that have existed in corporate and government human resources departments for many years.
    Well, done. But perhaps past time to look beyond stereotype labels and attitudes, we may be missing some valuable allies.

    • MY COMMENT ON THIS EXCELLENT ARTICLE ON ANOTHER THREAD:

      The process is called “The Long March of the Institutions” – it started in the 1930’s and is still going strong.

      Here is an interview that year with ex-KGB officer and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov, who described their long-term program to ideologically undermine the western democracies. Note especially Bezmenov’s discussion of “ideological subversion”. It is all about manipulating the “useful idiots” – the pro-Soviet leftists within the democracies.

      It’s ALL a leftist scam – false enviro-hysteria including the Climate and Green-Energy frauds, the full lockdown for Covid-19, the illogical linking of these frauds (“to solve Covid we have to solve Climate Change”), paid-and-planned terrorism by Antifa and BLM, and the mail-in ballot USA election scam – it’s all false and fraudulent.

      The Climate-and-Covid scares are false crises, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep.

      The wolves, proponents of both the very-scary Global Warming / Climate Change scam and the Covid-19 Lockdown scam, know they are lying. Note also how many global “leaders” quickly linked the two scams, stating ”to solve Covid we have to solve Climate Change” – utter nonsense, not even plausible enough to be specious.

      Regarding the sheep, especially those who inhabit our universities and governments:
      The sheep are well-described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of the landmark text “The Black Swan”, as “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot” or IYI – IYI’s hold the warmist views as absolute truths, without ever having spent sufficient effort to investigate them. The false warmist narrative fitted their negative worldview, and they never seriously questioned it by examining the contrary evidence.

      References:

      SCIENCE’S UNTOLD SCANDAL: THE LOCKSTEP MARCH OF PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES TO PROMOTE CLIMATE CHANGE
      By Tom Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr, May 24, 2019
      wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/25/sciences-untold-scandal-the-lockstep-march-of-professional-societies-to-promote-the-climate-change-scare/

      CLIMATE CHANGE, COVID-19, AND THE GREAT RESET
      A CLIMATE, ENERGY AND COVID PRIMER FOR POLITICIANS AND MEDIA
      By Allan M.R. MacRae, May 8, 2021 UPDATE 1e
      Download the WORD file
      https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/climate-change-covid-19-and-the-great-reset-update-1e-readonly.docx

    • I wrote this paper in 2019 – there is a good reason we published it on the 4th of July. If the USA falls, there is nowhere left to run to.

      THE COST TO SOCIETY OF RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM
      By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., July 4, 2019
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/04/the-cost-to-society-of-radical-environmentalism/
      _______________

      The first three responses to the above article are prescient:
      It is all happening now. Our economy, our society and our rights were destroyed by total lockdowns, based on a mild illness that in 2020 killed only ~13 people under-65 years of age in a population of 4 million. NOT justified.

      Petit_Barde
      July 4, 2019 11:48 pm
      “Radical green extremists have cost society trillions of dollars and many millions of lives.”
      This is perfectly true, but it is not by chance that they act like this:
      – their main purpose (or the goal of those who advance behind these useful idiots) is to destroy Western civilization and reduce the world’s population.
      All this tragedy is related to Malthusians (as was Hitler, Paul Ehrlich and his disciples, Holdren (Obama’s science advisor), most of the politicians who push the CO2 scam, organizations, as the UN, WWF, etc., billionaires as Ted Turner, etc.).
      Radical greens are the useful idiots, the henchmen of an actually powerful and terrifying Malthusian movement which is spreading all over the planet, based on junk science falsified decades ago.
      After the 3 days of a tiny heat wave in France (with fake records as at Gallargues le Montueux), one of the dumbest French greens declared : “This is a war … !”.
      We will very soon hear from those same pychopaths that “The end justifies any means”.

      Robertvd
      Reply to Petit_Barde
      July 5, 2019 2:58 am
      A Final Solution

      Malcolm Carter
      Reply to Petit_Barde
      July 5, 2019 4:33 pm
      Had a recent conversation with a relative that worked on a committee last year advising the Trudeau government on how the world must restructure in the next 30 to 40 years. Many of the ‘good’ ideas the group discussed sounded like they came from Maurice Strong, Naomi Klein or the Club of Rome. It seems that economic man is the enemy and we have to have a strong global government to redistribute the wealth. He thought that this would entail a revolution in expectations of how one would live and would require strong controls on business, environment and people.
      I’m afraid that it isn’t just the ecolunes anymore.

    • I gave now listened to Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Bret Weinstein. Heather Heying, Camille Paglia and Rima Azar. Unfair as it is – and who said life or politics is fair – they are all capable of defending themselves. Jordan Peterson is a one man support group – and there should be more of it. There is evidently a free speech issue – and weak kneed academic and civil administrations – but this is as far as it goes. There is no decades long organised conspiracy – and it is quite obvious that you don’t need to have an advanced degree to be an idiot. Nor are ‘infectious ideas’ restricted to the extreme left as Gad Saad says. The comment above has a number of them – all ill founded speculation and conspiracy ideation from the extreme right. All serving to alienate the moderate middle ground.

  2. This intolerance is spreading throughout society. But it does pose a special threat to science, as science without dispute is science without required negative feedback.

    STEM is not immune. I’m a practitioner in the field (not an academic). I see it in our journals. I see it in the action of big “woke” corporations. And some of it is amazingly absurd.

    Consider: in computing, since the early days, “master” and “slave” have been part of technical terminology. The first computer I did operating system work in had “master mode” for the OS, and “slave mode” for the user programs. Intel and other companies are going through their documentation and probably their code changing those words, because somehow they are offensive! Likewise, “server” is being changed to something else.

    In math – which is logic based, if not physical reality based, “wokeness” has problems. But… when I re-entered college after a military stint, a few months after leaving Vietnam, my class in Complex Variables was informed that military were not allowed – ROTC would be kicked out. As a service reservist (“weekend warrior”) at the time, I simply never told the instructor my status. But I remember it still, it stings, 52 years later!

    STEM does have one advantage – it involves real world experiments. If engineers have some “woke” idea about how to build something, it will fail, and that will be obvious. So practice in the field is at least somewhat tethered to reality.

    But the humanities, and even the “sciences” that study people – psychology, economics and sociology – are terribly corrupted – because “reality” is very hard to measure in those fields, and good experiments too hard to do. I pretty much discount results that come from those fields, because of their lack of rigor, and the poisonous ideological contamination.

    Climate science suffers the problems of the humanities because, unable to do experiments with physical reality – at least, not in the time frames demanded, it too can become untethered. Furthermore, even the measurements of “reality” can be corrupted… the “adjustments” of paleoclimate instrumentation data is suspicious to me, simply because these adjustments always make warming appear and cooling disappear, and because the field has such a powerful institutional bias towards getting the “right” results, always.

    Simply put, people have gone crazy. It is like the Chinese Cultural Revolution, where everything is offensive, and everyone has to demonstrate their goodness by confessing their mistakes and changing their ideas and writings and sayings to make up for it.

    The purpose behind all of this is to destroy our system, by destroying our common values. That is clear from the speech and writings of the ideologues and activists. And, it is clear from some in academia – the west is rotten, white people are racist, the only solution is to tear it all down.

    ul institutional bias to only get the “right” (alarmist AGW) answer.

    • The purpose behind all of this is to destroy our system, by destroying our common values.

      I’d say they’re convinced that we have the wrong common values. Perhaps that’s because common values were shared by mere commoners, and they want to be elite. They’re eaten up with self-righteousness and moral conviction, and lack the self-awareness and historical depth to know that such stringent purity spirals lead a society into dark and disastrous periods of dogmatism, hostility, and group think.

      As one popular meme goes, “They think free speech means hearing their words coming out of your mouth.” Forcing people to say the sky is green is a way to force others to submit to their dictates, indicating their power and status. It’s an extremely abusive and tyrannical behavior.

    • Mezocyclone,
      If you can spare the time you might enjoy this new film series (Feb. 2021) by Adam Curtis;
      https://thoughtmaybe.com/cant-get-you-out-of-my-head/
      Adam Curtis is the British(BBC) version of Ken Burns(PBS) and has done some amazing research on the evolution of western culture juxtaposed with Asian, African and Latin societies. Mr. Curtis comes across a bit pessimistic for my taste but the wide angle POV and parallel timelines technique he paints with his story lines are a cleaver way to tie events and people to a grand narrative. You will either be educated or enlightened but I hope your time is well spent.

    • joe - the non climate scientist

      Meso makes some very good points regarding intolerance.

      A good example is activist trend to diagnose a large segment of the mentally ill as ” transgender” accompanied with the gender transition treatment. (Very similar to the repressed memory diagnosis trend 30 years ago). Virtually nothing in medical science supports the concept of transgender, yet mentioning bogus diagnosis is met with hostility and accusations of bigitory and intolerance .

    • joe - the non climate scientist

      Meso makes another valid point – “Furthermore, even the measurements of “reality” can be corrupted… the “adjustments” of paleoclimate instrumentation data is suspicious to me, simply because these adjustments always make warming appear and cooling disappear, and because the field has such a powerful institutional bias towards getting the “right” results, always.”

      A good example – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/27/climate-crisis-world-now-at-its-hottest-for-12000-years

      See this qoute “Combining these insights showed that the apparent cooling after the warm peak 6,000 years ago, revealed by shell data, was misleading. The shells were in fact only recording a decline in summer temperatures, but the average annual temperatures were still rising slowly, as indicated by the models.”
      Note the comment that annual temps were rising – according to the models.

      Yet – the climate reconstruction models still fail to reconcile to proxies such has higher tree line elevations or retreating glaciers uncovering forests dating from earlier holcene periods. Some how, the peer reviewed reconstructions show the world was colder during those periods

    • It is all in the human character. Contrast the two historical perspectives from a) the Agora and the Library of Alexandria, where new ideas were welcomed to be heard and debated,
      and b) the fortress monastery in Umberto Eco’s ‘The name of the rose’ where anything that did not fit the dogma was hidden and poisoned.

    • Meso: I’m from the same generation and back then was grateful and lucky to not be called on to serve. However, much later I married into a military family and have now seen a generation of heroes going off the fight after 9/11. FWIW, my memory of my ignorance fifty years ago still stings when I think about the past.

      When considering politicians to vote for, those in either party who have served start miles ahead because they understand what it means to sacrifice together for the good of the country. I remember one candidate who was a veteran saying “the other party isn’t the enemy. I fought in Iraq and I know what an enemy is. The other party are people we have disagreements about policy and with whom we must sometimes compromise for the good of the country,

  3. I was already aware of this, but it is horrifying. And the left seized the political power of D.C., so there will be no pushback from the feds; rather, encouragement. Even Putin understands this, saying recently that the U.S. is heading down the path the U.S.S.R. travelled (meaning centralized control); we know what a train wreck that turned into. I was once a reliable Democrat, until I realized about 2015 that they have taken over the mantle from the Republicans of the corporate party. I don’t have a political home now, and don’t like either party, but am fortunate to have good-quality Republican representatives on both the state and federal level, so I still vote. I can think of no solution to the corruption of academia, of professional journals, of government, short of secession of a sufficient number of states, and the breaking up of corporate monopoly power.

    • Curious George

      I am afraid that we are re-living the experience of Germany in 1930s. As an implant from the Eastern Europe, it is a real pain to see whatever values I came for to be replaced by the “values” I escaped from.

      • George –

        > I am afraid that we are re-living the experience of Germany in 1930s.

        Kind of surprised to see you going Godwin…

      • A week or so ago Jordan Peterson published a two hour interview with Yeonmi Park, a girl who escaped from North Korea and eventually wrote a book about her experiences. At about 1:44:00 into the Youtube interview comes the segment about her four years at Columbia University. She was horrified to find that the level of thought control, censorship, fear, and political indoctrination at Columbia was pretty much the same as in North Korea, and she went into quite some detail about it. Jordan was horrified, and reassured her that American universities weren’t like that just a few decades ago. She was frightened because if the West becomes like North Korea, there won’t be anywhere on Earth where people can speak freely.

        I’d recommend the whole interview. It is very moving, and titled “Tyranny, Slavery and Columbia U Yeonmi Park”

        “Are you better than North Korea?” is a pretty low bar, but one that much of academia seems unable to clear.

      • > Are you better than North Korea?” is a pretty low bar, but one that much of academia seems unable to clear.

        Got to say. That leaves Godwin in the dust!

      • horrified at indoctrination….Columbia etc

        Sixty years ago I paid $150 per semester to be quasi indoctrinated. Now, Mom and Pop have the privilege to spend $30,000-$50,000 to have their kids get the Full Monty. I clearly got a better bargain, especially since the North Korean like brainwashing wore off in less than a decade.
        If there is a correlation between price paid and efficacy of thought control, these kids today have been lost forever.

      • Joshua,
        Not surprised to see you proving Dr. Michaels point.

      • DCA –

        > Joshua,
        Not surprised to see you proving Dr. Michaels point.

        Yes, pointing out the absurdity and overwrought-ness of comparing the US in the 2020s to Germany in the 1930s, or to North Korea, does prove the conclusions of analyses conducted by right-wingers that show conservatives are victims of bias from left-wingers

      • Joshua, it wasn’t American conservatives comparing Columbia to North Korea, it was a refugee who escaped from North Korea and went to Columbia. She found them to be much the same.

      • “Got to say. That leaves Godwin in the dust!”

        The Wall Street Journal reported this week that excess suicide deaths among teens in California in 2020 (26) exceeded teen Covid deaths (23). Emergency psychiatric admissions for children skyrocketed everywhere, but highly pronounced in the blue cities that locked down the hardest. Over 3 million children in the US received no schooling at all for the last year.
        In the last few months we learned the entire “science” establishment lied about the source of Covid, the value of masks and lockdowns, the performance of various governors (hello Cuomo), hydroxychloroquine, vaccination rates- my newspaper keeps telling me Republicans won’t get vaccinated and keeps linking tracking sites showing that deep blue cities have 7-10 point lower vaccination rates than red suburbs – and the vaccine (do people who had covid need it, both shots, what’s the story on teen heart inflamation? Don’t ask troglodyte, who cares if we kill a bunch of teens with a vaccine they don’t need!?!?)
        This was done intentionally. For political reasons. And then suppressed on social media to delay the discovery of the lies.

        But…. Godwin!
        And squirrels!
        Let’s play bingo while you bury the kids.

    • We see hope in that we see committed liberals like Alan Dershowitz, Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald coming to see their friends become dangerously misguided with groupthink and consensus enforcement. Jonathan Turley, witnessing the Obama administration abusing its constitutional authority, was the first liberal academic I saw who valued freedom over party. From his articles and blog it’s hard to imagine that he voted Democrat in 2020 or will again for some time.

      Bari Weiss, who was garden variety woke liberal reporter for the NYT, made the mistake of asking too many questions and was forced out like others. She now is an active crusader against the crowd she was in with. In her podcast today Weiss says, “The NYT active journalists treat the paper like a high school cafeteria, where those they deem as problematic just can’t sit here.” https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415

      The comparisons to the Cultural Revolution and 1930s Germany are not an exaggeration. A movement predicated on quashing whites as a moral imperative is absolutely analogous to 80 years ago Germany quashing Jewish influence from the science and intellectual class. They called them the racists, pointing to their cohesive social enclaves and presence in international banking and trade. They distorted a kernel of truth into an imagined conspiracy of existential importance in order to meet out a monstrous response.

      The answer is not only to open up debate and respect opposing views but to remember that wishing for the power to cancel others means that you you can be canceled as well. Talk to Bari.

      • Ron Graf: Thanks. Good analysis. I am hopeful, though, not for academia or for science, but for the American public, who are now much more aware of the lies they’ve been told. All because the vast overreach of the pharmaceutical industry in driving an exceedingly damaging response by government to a cold virus which mainly takes the unhealthy elderly. The most recent Gallup poll reports that 33% of Americans do not trust the CDC at all (up ten points), and in my interactions with neighbors, friends, and strangers I see the same resilience and joy in living I’ve always seen. The only real difference is that they all have more money in their pockets. The question is, when will we need a wheelbarrow to carry it when we shop? We are lucky to live here, rather than the UK, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, all of whose governments have their boots on the necks of the public.

      • Ron –

        > The comparisons to the Cultural Revolution and 1930s Germany are not an exaggeration

        Indeed. As we can see above, comparing librul to Naz*s actually doesn’t go nearly far enough. Perhaps even comparisons to North Korea don’t capture the true dangers we face.

      • Joshua,
        Don’t get all victim-y on me. We should be free to analyze the slope that led to the genocide without implying that result was inevitable. In fact, historians agree that if Germany stopped its expansionism after the Munich Agreement Hitler would be lauded today as Germany’s greatest leader. The Jewish persecution pre-1940s would be but a footnote.

      • This is not to say that almost all dictators go too far. Power corrupts, everywhere and always. Democrats crave it like vampires, unfortunately.

      • > In fact, historians agree that if Germany stopped its expansionism after the Munich Agreement Hitler would be lauded today as Germany’s greatest leader.

        A citation would be nice, Ron.

      • Ron –

        I get that you feel that modern day US is comparable to Germany in the 1930s, but your comparison is completely devoid of any kind of quantified or even carefully defined metrics.

        Funny you should mention “victim.”

        One can always feel and thus assert that they’re perched at the tip of a spear of totalitarianism, about to be skewered. But for my money, such emotional venting isn’t worth much from an analytical standpoint even if it does make the emoger somehow feel better and more fully aligned with comrades against perceived enemies. I have to wish to deny you some measure of comfort, but thst doesn’t mean I have to agree that Chicken Little hand-wringing has to be taken seriously.

        I thknk here is some overreach by “the left” in arcademia but that (1) it’s essentially noise in the dog al of more people gaining more agency over their life course over time and (2) it eassemtislly pales in comparison to long-standing inequities thst have been tilted against those doing the overreach for decades. So in some ways I see it as a kind of course correction in the big picture, long term trajectory of our society.

        That’s not meant as an excuse for the overreach that died happen and to the extent it does happen correcting for it is important, IMO. But I would guess for every carefully defined and quantified similarity you could draw between the US in 2021 and Germany in the 1930s, (as opposed to drawing vague emotional parallels) I could find 10 very significant similarities.

        I would say the same to anyone on the left who would equate the US under Trump to something like Spain under Franco or any other totalitarian state. It’s upsetting to see people take for granted our enormous freedoms and agency in comparison to the majority of the people on the planet and virtually any human who has ever lived. The sense of entitlement required is striking to take them for granted is striking.

      • Make the emoter somehow feel…

        Noise in the signal…

        I have no wish to deny you…

        I think there is overreach…

        Essentially pales.

      • “I think here is some overreach by “the left” in academia but that (1) it’s essentially noise in the signal of more people gaining more agency over their life course over time and (2) it essentially pales in comparison to long-standing inequities that have been tilted against those doing the overreach for decades. So in some ways I see it as a kind of course correction in the big picture, long term trajectory of our society.”

        Your course correction is I surmise is forgiveness for looting and arson by anyone of color in addition to setting up a formula for monetary reparations according to skin tone value and family tree. I suppose 50 years of legal (and post legal) “affirmative action” was just noise. And, if we allow direct transfers of real wealth to those with oppressed ancestors to be taken by force of legal writ from those who are the same race as historical oppressors there will be equity. And, there is no danger of overreach, fraud, abuse or backlash.

        So if I understand you correctly, Joshua, you would favor twisting arms of Senators Manchin and Sinema into abolishing the 3/5 rule and Dems could pass all your dreamed of equity into law. Do you think that would improve the country and raise up the poor people of color? Explain how you envision it all to work out. Also, which Democrat is going to be the first to step into the mob’s way to break the 50/50 and tell them they are going too far? And if you don’t see cancel culture as a problem what is your proposal to set up limits for how far equity can go over the line to where you think it is too much equity? What is your check?

        I know that we should still be thankful that being cancelled or discriminated against by race is nothing like the fear of being disappeared in China or NK. But what exactly stops us from going there once the most angry and extreme voice sets the line? Are angry extremists ever satisfied? I won’t go back to the 1930s again but I trust you know.

      • What Joshua is doing here is excuse making and playing the victim card. Exactly analogous to saying that Jim Crow was just Southerners taking back agency they lost during reconstruction. It was just a mid-course correction. Hey others lost agency but its all a power game anyway.

        The most important question (which Joshie spends hundreds of words avoiding) is what is just and makes for a color blind society.

  4. Patrick –

    > Among others, in the U.S. he used Trump-versus-Biden support,…

    The organizing construct of equating Trump support with being a “conservative” is fundamentally flawed. Hard to imagine how such a fundamental flaw wouldn’t be fatal to the overall analysis, but I suppose it wouldn’t necessarily have to be….rather notable that you’d write such a long post w/o any recognition of that flaw.

    • Curious George

      I still vaguely remember the 2020 elections. Wasn’t it Trump versus Biden? Why is accepting that fact a “fundamental flaw”? Can you offer a better metrics? I agree that Trump is not a gentleman, and that Biden as a person is more likeable – but what does it prove?

      • George –

        There are plenty of people who have identified as conservatives, or on “the right,” for decades who didn’t support Trump.

        That flawed construct could conceivably be orthogonal to the analysis, but it’s hard (for me) to imagine how it isn’t fundamentally corrupting to the analysis.

      • I agree with Joshua. Only any matter of economic policy I am conservative in my views. The same is true on many social policies. My views are not welcomed by people with left wing views yet I despise Trump and want to see him sitting in the jail cell which he so richly deserves. The same feelings are held by many of my colleagues.

        IMO, support for Trump is not a suitable proxy for conservative views in academia. It is correlated with other traits, such the willingness to prioritize blind loyalty to a man over ethics.

      • mesocyclone

        I somewhat agree. I’m a long time conservative. I voted for Trump in the 2016 general (but not the primary) only because I knew how horrible the alternative would be (any Democrat, as we are now seeing). I voted again for him in the 2020 because he had done a generally very good job (with the main exception being his messaging later on in the COVID epidemic). Overall, I rate him as the best or second best president of my lifetime, in terms of policy, not in terms of personality.

        But I am first an American, a Christian and a conservative, then a Republican. I am very thankful for what Trump did to awaken the Republican Party. But I am very much against his “stop the steal” rhetoric, and the harm it is causing conservatism.

        So I am for Trumpism, but no longer for Trump. I wish he’d fade away, but he won’t.

      • This comment thread betrays an ignorance of the conservative movement in the US that is not surprising in someone who draws his information from the mainstream biased and lying media.

        Almost all social conservatives eventually supported Trump because his policies were more conservative than any president with the possible exception of Reagan. Optics such as style and personality didn’t matter because 80% of conservatives were sick and tired of bullying by leftists, lying by the media, and dysfunctional elites. These conservatives share with Greenwald a deep suspicion of the modern intelligence surveillence state. It was a really good match.

        The so-called conservatives in the never Trump camp are few and basically the losers from the last 30 years that saw conservatism routed on every major social and policy issue except perhaps taxes. Tax policy doesn’t matter to social conservatives. David French-ism is dead precisely because it is the Vichy conservatism of the past. Losing every battle while virtue signaling that you are “civil” and virtuous.

      • Rarely do I agree with DPY, but he is absolutely right about conservative support for Trump. Trump in practice was more conservative than any president since Reagan, and arguably, more conservative in results than Reagan.

        His personality is a different issue, and should not be conflated with the policies he adopted. His narcissism was indeed a flaw – most politicians have their strong narcissism under better control, because they have a long history of political activity which conditioned it.

      • Yet another example of the media smear against Trump driven by personal dislike. Most media narratives about Trump are either outright lies or half truths. And those who rely on this media are going to have a very biased view.

        https://greenwald.substack.com/p/yet-another-media-tale-trump-tear?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMDk5ODQ2OSwicG9zdF9pZCI6Mzc0MDMwMTYsIl8iOiJvOS9qNiIsImlhdCI6MTYyMzI5NjQxMCwiZXhwIjoxNjIzMzAwMDEwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTI4NjYyIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.9LO6Xyh6Z996HKKDo9T0qua8Alcj63-U4nuBEwrK4WE

      • mesocyclone,

        “But I am very much against his “stop the steal” rhetoric, and the harm it is causing conservatism.”

        It would argue that the outcome was inevitable when the GOP selected a narcissistic con man as a presidential candidate that cares for nothing other than his ego and lining his own pockets.

      • A lot of these comments read like JP Morgan’s thoughts on Teddy Roosevelt or the conservative Chicago newspapers thoughts on Franklin Roosevelt. They lack perspective and are based on a pervasive media campaign of lies and misrepresentation.

        ”https://greenwald.substack.com/p/yet-another-media-tale-trump-tear?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMDk5ODQ2OSwicG9zdF9pZCI6Mzc0MDMwMTYsIl8iOiJvOS9qNiIsImlhdCI6MTYyMzI5NjQxMCwiZXhwIjoxNjIzMzAwMDEwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTI4NjYyIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.9LO6Xyh6Z996HKKDo9T0qua8Alcj63-U4nuBEwrK4WE

      • dougbadgero

        One of Trump’s few redeeming characteristics is his irreverence for the liberal elite, e.g. the MSM. It was good to see someone call out “fake news” when it occurred and stand up to the asymmetry of how conservative issues are reported on versus progressive issues. Unfortunately that irreverence wasn’t accompanied with a respect for individual rights or much knowledge of the economic impacts of his isolationist policies. He is no more likely to defend the individual rights of someone on the far left than AOC is to defend them for someone on the far right.

        I am not sure why conservatives think Donald Trump is a conservative. It makes little sense to believe he suddenly changed his views when he ran for office after 70 years swinging in the political breeze. All of his life he has been a political opportunist and has changed his party affiliation a half a dozen times. Seeming to align with whatever party benefited him the most.

        I did not vote for him in 2016, but he possibly could have gotten my vote in 2020 had he only defended the limits on government power outlined in the Constitution in the midst of the pandemic.

      • joe - the realist

        TimG’s comment – “My views are not welcomed by people with left wing views yet I despise Trump and want to see him sitting in the jail cell which he so richly deserves.”

        Without opining on whether trump should be in jail, does anyone find it odd that those who want to see Trump in jail are many of the same people who think Hillary , biden etc should be elevated to saint hood.

        Hillary with her email and pay for play corruption
        Biden family corruption with Bursima/ukraine/china, etc.

        Lets be intellectually consistent.

      • Joe –

        Without opining on whether Trump Clinton should be in jail, does anyone find it odd that those who want to see Clinton in jail are many of the same people who think Clinton Trump, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, etc. should be elevated to saint hood?

        The nature of identify-based cognition is that ideological orientation “motivates” how people absorb (filter) and process information.

        Pasr of that mechanism is that people routinely reverse engineer from other people’s ideological identity to attribute to them reaoning processes for which they exonerate people who share their own ideological identity.

        In actuality, those biased reasoning processes are pretty much just a basic function of human psychology and cognition. As to whether one can control for them is an interesting question – but the first step in that direction would be to acknowledge their universality and ubiquity.

      • Doug –

        > I am not sure why conservatives think Donald Trump is a conservative.

        I’m not sure that “conservatives” (as a group) do that – so much as that supporters of Trump reason about Trump in ways that reinforce their support for Trump, and thus since they identify as conservatives they twist Trump’s actions and past history so as to confirm to some notion of conservatism.

        There are many people who have long identified as conservative who flatly reject the notion that Trump has ever been or is now a conservative.

        Take evangelicals who prior to Trump widely said that a political candidate’s behaviors in his/her personal life are directly relevant to their suitability for office, only to later change their minds about that after Trump ascended in the political arena.

        We can see similar reversals say, in how an individual mandate for health insurance switched from a basic tenet of personal responsibility prior to Obama to the epitome of government overreach and tyranny once Obama supported one. Or we can see it in how many on the other side of the ideological fence went from thinking Russia presented little threat to the US under Obama to considering it an existential threat under Trump.

        The key that unlocks these seemingly irrational belief patterns is, imo, to understand that how the reasoning relates to the specific issues is actually only superficially relevant or explanatory. The direction of cauality is not that values or beliefs drive ideological identification on polarizing topics, but that ideological identification drives how people integrate and process information related to the topics.

      • “…Vichy conservatism. Losing every battle while virtue signaling that you are “civil” and virtuous.”

        David, while I strongly agree with you that Trump’s policies were correct for the country and he expanded the Republican party, I disagree that his style. I think we all agree that his yearly addresses to the joint houses of congress were superb. He was very good at delivering a prepared speech. He just needed to write and deliver more of them. His use of Twitter could have been masterful had it had been prepared and reflected on. We all know this here from crafting out comments. It takes reflection.

        Presidents need to have the discipline to show respect even to those who despise them. The job of leadership is to persuade people to follow. One has to be resolute as well as transparent and humble. It’s an art.

        I voted for Trump twice and would do so again but I am hoping that he will use his earned status to support a new representative of the GOP.

        Also, I wouldn’t worry too much about losing battles. George Washington and Abe Lincoln lost many more than they won. So did Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Good slowly conquers bad. Young Americans think Marxism is new and untried.

      • “David, while I strongly agree with you that Trump’s policies were correct for the country and he expanded the Republican party, I disagree that his style. ”

        Well said.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        If you want to label Trump it may be best to stay with opportunist and pragmatist. He saw the effects of globalism not only on the economy but on the culture. Populism is more apt than conservatism to describe him and this explains the Never Trumpers, conservatives all who are globalists. It also explains Trump’s expansion of the Republican party by the appeal to the working class which was marginalized by the Democrats, and the appeal to Main Street.
        Globalism tends towards elitism, as it requires a technocracy to serve a massive bureaucratic structure. Populism obviously tends to move in the other direction, nationalistic and local culture.
        The article’s main point hasn’t suffered too much from a political shorthand. Are there liberals who defend free speech and open debate? Of course. Are there conservatives who stifle free speech and debate? Of course. Whichever group is over-reprsented in academia is responsible for the state of affairs is a tough argument to refute.

      • > Trump in practice was more conservative than any president since Reagan,

        So running up debt, increasing the deficit, promoting governmental policies to interfere in the “free market, ” and picking winners and losers, advocating for greater government involvement in the justice department, expanding government, withdrawing from free trade agreements, imposing tarrifs, advocating for greater government regulation of free speech, diminishing Russian aggression on the world stage, etc., not to mention insulting everyone who disagrees with him until the cows come home, trying to Overturn the results of a free election (by fabricating evidence of “widespread fraud,” and using governmental power to advance his own polticial fortunes must have been bedrock conservative principles for a long time, and I just somehow missed it.

      • > It also explains Trump’s expansion of the Republican party by the appeal to the working class…

        Trump integrated more WHITE working class into the Republican Party as compared to previous Republican candidates (while shrinking the Republican Party in the sense of losing mamy highly educated and non-working class white, and younger voters). Although he ran better in the presidential election among non-white working class than someone like Romney running against Obama, he still only got a very small slice of support from non-white worming class voters.

        It’s always intersting to me how people – usually Trump supporters as distinguished from conservatives – fail to understand that “the working class” disproportionately includes non-whites.

      • Joshua: In 2020, Trump received 18% of the black male vote and 8% of the black female vote, up from 11% and 4% respectively in 2016, more than any Republican candidate in 60 years. Why is it that his support among blacks increased so dramatically? I cannot answer, but perhaps they knew Biden’s legislative history, which dramatically increased the incarceration rate of young black men during the Clinton years (read “No, Joe! Biden’s Disastrous Legislative Legacy” in the March, 2019 Harper’s Magazine). He was Strom Thurmond’s best bud in the Senate, and gave the eulogy at his funeral.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        >Although he ran better in the presidential election among non-white working class than someone like Romney running against Obama, he still only got a very small slice of support from non-white worming class voters.
        It’s always intersting to me how people – usually Trump supporters as distinguished from conservatives – fail to understand that “the working class” disproportionately includes non-whites.

        When you say … ‘only got a very small slice of support’ … I assume you mean overall support? As you then state …’that “the working class” disproportionately includes non-whites.’

        So, yes we can say he had the support of the working class. What were you trying to say?

      • Bill Fabrizio

        If you see this comment twice, I apologize. It went to moderation, so I tried adjusting it.

        Another point worth considering … globalism favors politics over culture. It doesn’t necessarily exclude culture, but it does render it secondary to the effort of establishing and maintaining bureaucratic control.
        Populism is all about local/national culture.
        As Andrew Breitbart once astutely noted, culture is upstream from politics.
        The crisis in academia in Western Civilization is its attack, or at the least its failure to defend core western values … the culture.
        Defending the culture isn’t the sole province of conservatives. If it is … they apparently aren’t doing a very good job. And if liberals are supposed to be a progressive force for the culture where is the progress in human relations?
        It seems to me that we need to look at which groups/individuals profit from cultural change. And not the change from equal opportunity to live under the established values, but the change from the shared core values. We didn’t arrive at 2021 overnight. That process of (attempted?) cultural change has been going on for decades. I remember in the mid 80s, when I was a Democrat, Mario Cuomo espousing ‘the mosaic’ over ‘the melting pot’. It was the time of multi-culturalism and the rise of the metro-s**ual, at least it was in NYC. Nothing sinister in those developments, but a clear trend to the ‘world citizen’ of today. Politics somehow got way ahead of culture and this is clearly reflected in the academy. The effects on the individual from the cultural change has been intense.

        Here’s a interesting view of what the academic attack on culture may have wrought:

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-stopped-hiring-ivy-league-graduates-11623103004?st=8ugosyjuogkeeai&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

      • @Tim G
        “Trump should be in jail”.

        When someone believes that the conversation is over. Their mind is so far gone its pointless debating them because you know everything they believe is based on lies and propoganda.
        Might as well debate a crazy person in a mental institution who believes they are Napoleon.

      • > So, yes we can say he had the support of the working class.

        He had more support among some white working class voters than previous Republican candidates (over a longer time frame.)

        He had somewhat more support among non-white working class on a shorter time frame, i.e., than other RECENT Republican candidates but not on a longer term time frame.

        He was quite unpopular among non-white working class voters overall. He did well among non-white working class voters only if your bar is set very low.

        There are other ways to look at the demographic shifts among people who voted for Trump – racial/ethnic identity, economic status, educational attainment, ritual versus urban. People prioritize particular criteria for all sorts of reasons, but there is no reason to just assume any one criteria is more important than others.

        IMO, saying he attracted an undifferentiated greater number of “working class voters” may work as a rhetorical device but isn’t particularly meaningful if you aren’t controlling for other more explanatory factors (like race) because it may fail to reflect the importance of racial identity or other factors in his support.

        But if it works for you, Bill, knock yourself out.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        >IMO, saying he attracted an undifferentiated greater number of “working class voters” may work as a rhetorical device but isn’t particularly meaningful if you aren’t controlling for other more explanatory factors (like race) because it may fail to reflect the importance of racial identity or other factors in his support.

        Well that’s clearer than your other statements. However, it’s not a rhetorical device. And it is meaningful as the Democrats were the party of ‘the working class’ not so long ago, so to lose substantial numbers of the working class, particularly non-white working class however marginal, is very significant. It’s indicative of the make-up of the Democratic party, and the Republican.

        I had a comment moderated. In it I spoke of populism vs globalism. Yes, there are liberals and conservatives in each, which may go to your earlier point about the article. But I would caution to not stop at the superficial. Populism is more about culture whereas globalism is more about the political. The working classes lean toward populism whereas the educated lean towards the global. Yes, there are exceptions. But this is where we are at … a culture war. How so? Globalism is far more bureaucratic and so depends on a technocratic elite. Academia supplies that elite. It would seem the price to supply that elite is the evisceration of Western Culture. And that can only occur with a mono-culture in academia, as the article points out.

        Here is another perspective on the effects of the change in culture in academia:

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-stopped-hiring-ivy-league-graduates-11623103004?st=4lf1dqomlmr0rwj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

      • Bill –

        > Democrats were the party of ‘the working class’ not so long ago,

        OK, I’ll do this dance once more.

        They still are overwhelmingly the party of non-white workimg class voters – not the least because there are hardly any non-white republican legislators. You can continue to ignore that distinction if you so wish.

        > particularly non-white working class…

        Just as you can continue to ignore that is only true in a very short term sense, and basically compared to when a unique candidate in Obama was running, and even beyond that is only true if you set the bar so low as to find a marginal increase for Trump while Democrats still being overwhelmingly the choise of non-white working class voters is “significant.”

      • joe - the realist

        josh ‘s comment – Without opining on whether Trump Clinton should be in jail, does anyone find it odd that those who want to see Clinton in jail are many of the same people who think Clinton Trump, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, etc. should be elevated to saint hood?”

        Josh – try to be intellectually consistent and objective

        Trump may have done many things to deserve jail time, However, at this point all there is a lot of innuendo, but not publicly available facts that would support accusations of criminal activity.

        Re Hillary – There is significant amounts of publicly information detailing specific crimes. From the pay for play with the clinton foundation, the email scandal, etc.
        Same with Hunter Biden with china and bursima and Ukraine.

        Flynn – there is significant amounts of publically available information demonstrating that he was framed.

      • Bill –

        If you want to attribute Trump’s popularity with “the working class” to his populist rhetoric or as some people claim, to his appeal to relieving a sense of economic anxiety among working class voters then it would stand to reason that he’d be popular among working class voters across all kinds of demographic variation.

        Except that’s not the case. In fact, he was overwhelmingly unpopular among non-white working class voters.

        Now of course, it’s entirely possible that he was more appealing to some working class voters than a candidate like Romney was, but if you’re looking for an explanation for his electoral success there are good reasons to look beyond just his populist rhetoric to factors like his harvesting benefits from fear-mongering and overt exploitation of hatred of libz, or leveraging anti-immigrant sentiments or the resentment of people who have more or less stagnated in their economic status (some who, it should be noted receive government benefits) seeing other people receive government benefits.

        I’m not trying to suggest that there’s only one explanation – only that people who focus on or prioritize only one explanation may be fooling themselves. And you do know what Feynman said about fooling yourself, right?

      • Bill Fabrizio

        > OK, I’ll do this dance once more.
        They still are overwhelmingly the party of non-white workimg class voters – not the least because there are hardly any non-white republican legislators. You can continue to ignore that distinction if you so wish.

        Did anyone tell you that you have two left feet. Oooo, bad pun.

        You made a statement to the effect that Trump’s support of the working class didn’t bear close examination. Not only does he have the overwhelming support of what you say is the white working class, which is the majority of the working class, and you admit this, he also has made substantial gains, as you said more than any other Republican, in the non-white working class. Succinctly, the Dems have shed the mantle of the party of the working class. And that’s because they seek to be the party of the elites, which interestingly enough was once the mantle of the Republicans.

        But by all means, do dance on. I’m from the 60s/70s so I really don’t care if you free style. I’m sitting down on this one, I’ve said enough.

        Oh, I do hope you read the article I enclosed above. I think it’s interesting and lends support to the main article here.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        I just saw your second post.

        > If you want to attribute Trump’s popularity with “the working class” to his populist rhetoric or as some people claim, to his appeal to relieving a sense of economic anxiety among working class voters then it would stand to reason that he’d be popular among working class voters across all kinds of demographic variation.

        Yes, his populist position is what has endeared him to the working class. To say non-white working class members aren’t attracted to Trump’s message is, quite frankly racist. By that I mean, for example auto workers who are well represented in the non-white working class, know where their economic interests lay. They don’t strictly vote by color. So I hope you’re not saying that. The evidence is the incredible turning, albeit still a ways to go, of the non-white working class’s support for Trump. Certainly in 2016. They know they’ve been abandoned by the Dems, white and non-white.

        How do I know? I worked with them, side by side, for the better part of three decades. I was part of the culture. And as Andrew Breitbart once said … culture is upstream of politics.

      • > To say non-white working class members aren’t attracted to Trump’s message is, quite frankly racist.

        Check for yourself, Bill:

        Source: https://www.brookings.edu/research/2020-exit-polls-show-a-scrambling-of-democrats-and-republicans-traditional-bases/

        I mean, it’s not even close.

        You can also look over there:

        https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/08/13/the-2020-trump-biden-matchup/screen-shot-2020-08-31-at-3-31-48-pm/

        White nationalism can still appeal to non-whites. Take Mother Night.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        Thanks for the time you spent on the info, Willard.

        Your graph doesn’t mention working class. It’s broken down by education with college and non-college being the categories. I’m not sure how that applies to the discussion about working class? No matter, I wasn’t saying the majority of the non-white working class voted for Trump. I was saying that the non-white working class is capable of making decisions regarding their economic interests, as any of us are, rich or poor, educated or uneducated, and that a substantial number have questioned whether the Democratic party now represents those interests. And in fact, they don’t represent their interests, as Never Trumpers don’t either. Nor does anyone who supports globalism. The working class has had to fight long and hard for their gains. They have no leverage when it comes to open borders for free movement of capital and labor. That’s why they gravitate to a populist nationalism.

        Also, political affiliation doesn’t change overnight. It runs in families for generations. Small movements can tell us much. And surveys have been known to be wrong, as they were in the 2016 election. I rely on my personal experiences with people and reading sources about the ‘non-white’ from such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, even Larry Elder, amongst many others. It’s not 1960 anymore, bro. The times they are a changing … and it doesn’t look good for the working class, no matter one’s color.

      • > I’m not sure how that applies to the discussion about working class?

        Looking at the graphs about non-college and non-white voters should be enough. Joshua probly has more resources on this than me. It’s been a while since I’ve looked at that.

        What’s quite clear is that white workers were key to teh Donald’s election, even if there is no universal definition of a white worker:

        Whites without a college degree in America are often referred to as the “white working-class”. In truth, this label is used rather loosely.

        The “working class” has long been thought of as “blue-collar” factory, trades and construction workers.

        But according to US political scientists, the working class today is defined by both education and income levels:

        those who do not hold a college degree and report annual household incomes below the median, as reported by the Census Bureau (in 2016, for instance, the median annual household income was nearly US$60,000).

        Under this definition, small business owners and various “white collar” workers (those in service jobs) and “pink collar” (jobs traditionally held by women such as caregiving roles) are also considered part of the American working class.

        https://theconversation.com/who-exactly-is-trumps-base-why-white-working-class-voters-could-be-key-to-the-us-election-147267

      • Bill –

        > You made a statement to the effect that Trump’s support of the working class didn’t bear close examination.

        Hmmm. My point was that a blanket statement that Trump enjoyed substantial support from “the” working class is problematic because it doesn’t differentiate non-white working class voters from white working class voters. Because, he was overwhelmingly not supported by non-white working class voters.

        Not only does he have the overwhelming support of what you say is the white working class, which is the majority of the working class,

        They are the majority of the working class but nonetheless the working class is disproportionately comprised of non-white people. Meaning, they are a larger proportion of the working class than they are of the overall population. Perhaps you thought I was saying that non-white comprise a majority of the working class?

        > he also has made substantial gains, as you said more than any other Republican, in the non-white working class.

        No, not more than any other Republican. More than a Republican like Romney. As I said, more than once.\:

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/11/09/no-trump-didnt-win-the-largest-share-of-non-white-voters-of-any-republican-in-60-years/?sh=81803974a09b

        Since non-white voters are predominantly working class, we can reasonably assume that a GOP candidate who got a substantially lager % of the non-white vote also got a larger % of the non-white working class vote.

        > Succinctly, the Dems have shed the mantle of the party of the working class. And that’s because they seek to be the party of the elites, which interestingly enough was once the mantle of the Republicans.

        This is facile. There are multiple factors in play in the dynamics of voting trends. You boil all those factors down into one politically expedient rhetoric convenient to your political views. You are conflating reality with your opinions. For example how is it a fact that Democrats “seek to be the party of elites?” I’d say that Democrats “seek” to be the party of as many non-elites as they can attract. And they do attract the majority of non-college educated, non-white voters.

        It’s interesting to note that Biden received more votes from non-college educated voters (not differentiating by race) than did Clinton.

        > Yes, his populist position is what has endeared him to the working class.

        So you say. Again, the interesting conflation of opinion with fact. His populist rhetoric is probably one factor in his popularity with white working class voters. But I’d say there are other factors there as well – there is certainly a lot of carefully considered evidence to that effect – and you just act as if they conveniently just don’t exist.

        > To say non-white working class members aren’t attracted to Trump’s message is, quite frankly racist.

        Lol. Trump was overwhelmingly unpopular among non-white voters. The majority of non-white voters are working class. But to point out simple logic based on those facts – that he as unpopular among non-white working class voters – is racist. I gotta love that.

        > By that I mean, for example auto workers who are well represented in the non-white working class, know where their economic interests lay. They don’t strictly vote by color. So I hope you’re not saying that.

        No, I”m not saying that. I’m saying that like all voters, they vote for what they see in their best interests. And overwhelmingly, non-white voters (and by extension non-white working class voters) rejected Trump.

        > The evidence is the incredible turning, albeit still a ways to go, of the non-white working class’s support for Trump. Certainly in 2016. They know they’ve been abandoned by the Dems, white and non-white.

        So they’ve been “abandoned” by Dems, yet they continue to reject Republicans. They also make up a much larger % of the Democratic Party, both as voting members and as elected representatives. But I guess your argument is that they’re too stupid to know that they’ve been abandoned, and still overwhelmingly reject the Republican Party because they don’t realize what has happened? Fortunately, folks like you are around to ‘splain it to them!

        > How do I know? I worked with them, side by side, for the better part of three decades. I was part of the culture. And as Andrew Breitbart once said … culture is upstream of politics.

        One of the biggest mistakes you can make, Bill, when analyzing these trends is to over evaluate the generalizability of your own experiences. Despite your appeal to your own authority, facts prove you wrong. You should know that I also worked alongside white and non-white working class people for years, and lived in predominantly black (and some mixed) working class neighborhoods for decades. My own experiences tell me that while white working class voters have always leaned towards the rhetoric of Republicans (even as some voted Democratic because of union politics), non-white working class voters have always aligned with Democratic rhetoric as well as overwhelmingly voted for Democratic candidates. Now my own anecdotal experiences are no more generalizable (by me) than yours (are by you). In fact, my own are tied into specifics of context (my experiences differed in Philly from the Boston and New Hampshires areas, and North Carolina), but I also happen to have some basic facts about demographics and voting trends on my side.

      • Willard –

        > …even if there is no universal definition of a white worker:

        Yes, I will admit to engaging in this discussion despite violating a cardinal rule – using and responding to use of a key term that is woefully undefined in the conversational context. Bad Joshua.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        Willard …
        > Under this definition, small business owners and various “white collar” workers (those in service jobs) and “pink collar” (jobs traditionally held by women such as caregiving roles) are also considered part of the American working class.

        I’m sorry, but I just have a problem with that. Maybe it’s the old Marxist in me (very long time ago) but when sociologists start to conflate their categories based on income it’s usually to support a narrative. There are distinct differences in a care giver, an auto worker, a construction worker, a small bodega owner, a bank teller … is a graduate student who teaches, which is now unionized in many schools, part of the working class? I had young electricians, high school educated, who had years where they made six figures. Does that mean they were upper middle class? At the time, late 1990s/early2000s they were in the top 5%. Maybe we could say upper class? I don’t think so. And they wouldn’t have said so.
        Class is an amalgam of income, education, sub-culture, residence, association, a host of things … call me old fashioned but just using income doesn’t even begin to describe the human experience, which is what sociology is about.

        Joshua …
        >Perhaps you thought I was saying that non-white comprise a majority of the working class?

        No. I didn’t think you said that. I thought you’re mentioning that Trump only had the support of a minority of the non-white working class ignored the point that the percentage is growing and will continue to grow as the non-white working class will come/is seeing that it’s economic interests are not with the Dems or Never Trumpers or globalists. You wish to discount that trend but it is there and will grow. As I mentioned to Willard, political affiliations tend to change slowly, at all class levels.

        > Since non-white voters are predominantly working class …

        If you’re using income solely as a determinant of working class, see my comment above to Willard.

        > > Succinctly, the Dems have shed the mantle of the party of the working class. And that’s because they seek to be the party of the elites, which interestingly enough was once the mantle of the Republicans.

        >This is facile.

        Well, it’s not just my opinion. Anb it’s not just the Dems that have removed the working class as a centerpiece in their platform. The left has done so as well.

        >> Yes, his populist position is what has endeared him to the working class.

        >So you say.
        I never said it was the only reason. I’ve never said politics or culture can be reduced to simple memes.

        >> To say non-white working class members aren’t attracted to Trump’s message is, quite frankly racist.

        >Lol.
        What you seem to have missed was that you are the one who reduced non-white working class to some simple formula that doesn’t seem to acknowledge that the non-white working class is somehow incapable of understanding their own economic interests, which is definitely not globalism. That is racist, or at the least, elitist.

        >One of the biggest mistakes you can make, Bill, when analyzing these trends is to over evaluate the generalizability of your own experiences.

        As I said to Willard, my personal experiences are not the only means with which I make sense of what’s around me. One means is not sufficient. And my personal experience with the working class, as defined above, unless you can convince me otherwise is a far, far richer source than yours. Statistical analysis can only take you so far. You speak of numbers but I don’t hear anything about people.

        Thank you both for your time in answering my comments.

      • > Class is an amalgam of income, education, sub-culture, residence, association, a host of things

        It sure is, Bill. Social scientists still need variables we can observe. Adding too many constraints runs the risk of excluding workers from their class. Using too few constraints can add non-workers into the class. This is not an easy problem.

        The best way is to look at many studies to get a fuller picture.

        I liked this essay, in which we can read:

        The terminology here can be confusing. When progressives talk about the working class, typically they mean the poor. But the poor, in the bottom 30% of American families, are very different from Americans who are literally in the middle: the middle 50% of families whose median income was $64,000 in 2008. That is the true “middle class,” and they call themselves either “middle class” or “working class.”

        “The thing that really gets me is that Democrats try to offer policies (paid sick leave! minimum wage!) that would help the working class,” a friend just wrote me. A few days’ paid leave ain’t gonna support a family. Neither is minimum wage. WWC men aren’t interested in working at McDonald’s for $15 per hour instead of $9.50. What they want is what my father-in-law had: steady, stable, full-time jobs that deliver a solid middle-class life to the 75% of Americans who don’t have a college degree. [Teh Donald] promises that. I doubt he’ll deliver, but at least he understands what they need.

        https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class

        Here’s how I see it. The working class is indeed getting poorer. This increases resentment, both over the poor and the foreigner. In turn we get more in-fighting. Hence why minorities can be against immigration, or workers can look down on the poor.

        Conservativism is a fairly simple idea: to conserve what (every) one has. Progressivism is also a fairly simple idea: to progress as a society. I would tend to be to self-identify as a conservative, but the anglosphere has completely perverted the political parties. And I also believe that social-democracy is the only conservative project that is coherent. So make that what you will.

      • Maybe the working class knows that median family income increased in a single year (2019) by $7,400 under Trump which was more than what increased ($5,400) during the first 6 years under Obama.

        But perhaps they wouldn’t know that given the media never report these kinds of facts.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        Willard … Really nice piece! Thank you. Aside from the fluff she had to include to get it published, there’s some good sociology there. An example:

        “The dream is not to become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable — just with more money. “The main thing is to be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont. Owning one’s own business — that’s the goal.”

        Statistics are valuable to sociology, indeed. It supports the ‘science’ in the term social science. Yet it is not the basis of the discipline. While ethnography is usually associated with anthropology, and deservedly so, the principles apply to sociology, as well. Good sociology can never dispense with the interview, and not just an interview geared to garner data. The above passage speaks of dreams. This goes to understanding of human behavior, human dignity.

        I don’t have a problem with anything you’ve said. I would only add that we need labels to have any decent discourse. Yet, and I’m sure you’ll agree, Daniel Patrick Moynihan might be a good example of a conservative progressive. Or should we say progressive conservative? :-) I live in Arizona and while I didn’t vote for Kyrsten Sinema I’m pleased to see she has shown an independent mind. If she keeps it up, I might just vote for her next time. And this goes back to your article. People want to be represented by those who understand their lives, the lives they live, and the lives they want to live.

        To go one step further, if we engage in good sociology I’m confident we will find that the WWC is not so different from the N-WWC. Yes, there are interesting differences due to race and color, and that should be studied, but that aside we share much more as humans, our dreams. That focus is now lacking.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        CKid …

        > But perhaps they wouldn’t know that given the media never report these kinds of facts.

        So true. The power they have is enormous. Someone earlier, I can’t remember who and am too lazy to look it up, referenced a story about a North Korean woman and how shocked she was at the elements of propaganda in our society. That should be a wake up call … yet it isn’t.

      • Thanks, Bill.

        You know, my biggest beef over the concept of working class is how it assumes that white collars do better than blue ones. That’s simply not the case anymore. At least not always.

        One of the electricians I know is a multi-millionaire. He decided early to go for commercial contracts, and he built himself a small empire. Everyday he asks himself how he can make more money, and he succeeds.

        Many plumbers make more than college professors. They retire earlier, but they also earn earlier. And they have less debt when young, which means they buy their first house earlier.

        These two cases have little in common with fruit pickers or waiters. The poor isn’t poor because of some cultural deficiency. I appeal to your inner Marxist to consider that our place in life is mostly due to luck, and that the poorer you are the tougher the bad lucks.

        There are other contingencies, like having to live in the Bay area and making 100K a year and being only able to afford a bed. And by that I mean not a room, but a bed. Anyway.

        Perhaps the problem lies in the concept of middle class. Perhaps it’s just that we can’t properly stratify that many different realities with a few classes.

      • Bill –

        > No. I didn’t think you said that. I thought you’re mentioning that Trump only had the support of a minority of the non-white working class ignored the point that the percentage is growing

        It has grown from a very, very small amount to a small amount. And there are all kinds of causal factors behind that growth. You focused on one and ignored the others, and you also basically made up your attribution in focusing on that one. You justified it by self-referencing your own authority – which is not a particularly good thing to do, because I can reference my own authority which tells a very different story.

        > and will continue to grow…

        This assumes a stasis of mechanisms, and one which seems unlikely. As I mentioned earlier, even within the period of the Trump presidency we saw a change in the trend were a diminishment of working class votes (undistinguished by race) slowed – and BIden got more working class votes than Clinton (a very small difference, but the point is that a trend of diminishment stopped). Much depends on such things as the current state of the economy during the election, or other macro-level factors that actually have little to do with the president in office. Or obviously, the persona and tactics of the candidates running. Yet you ignore all those factors because you’re trying to cram these complicated mechanics into a narrative you like – one that as you have stated is shaped by your own personal experiences

        > as the non-white working class will come/is seeing that it’s economic interests are not with the Dems or Never Trumpers or globalists.

        Looking aside your facile causal determination of extremely complicated mechanics to pin responsibility on “globalism,” you’re also determining that you know what non-white working class people are going to “come to see” – which in itself rests on your assumption that you see something that they don’t yet see and will become obvious to them once they gain your insight. That is problematic at all sorts of levels. But the basic problem is that you’re ignoring that overwhelmingly, non-white working class voters see the dynamics differently than you do.

        > You wish to discount that trend but it is there and will grow.

        Well, perhaps you truly are gifted with foresight – but for my money this is all extremely difficult to predict going forward as the relevant factors are extremely complicated.

        > If you’re using income solely as a determinant of working class, see my comment above to Willard.

        I don’t think of income as the sole determinant of working class – but we both have elided the necessity of defining terms in this convo.

        > Well, it’s not just my opinion. Anb it’s not just the Dems that have removed the working class as a centerpiece in their platform. The left has done so as well.

        Sorry, but I think that those kinds of broad and un-nuanced assertions are facile. Categorizations such as “Dems” and “The left” used as you just did there are, imo, so broad and unqualified as to be useless. Plenty of people on “the left” are lasers focused on working class as a centerpiece of their platform. Some Dems have long focused in other directions. Many have in the past, and continue to focus on the “working class”. IMO, you’re just running with popularized rhetoric here.

        i’m certainly open to nuanced discussion. I’m one who has long argued against the “triangulation” of the Bill Clinton/”neo-liberal” wing of the Dem party, and one who has argued for a long time that Dems should focus energies on differentiated from Republicans through their economic platform rather than targeting swing voters my effectively going Republican-lite. So I have no particular desire to defend the Dem Party against criticism that it runs too much with the corporatists. But that doesn’t mean that I’m willing to go along with facile rhetoric on these issues. They’re complicated issues. Even something like NAFTA is complicated. The impact of “globalism” is complicated. As to what factors have propelled “globalism” is complicated. Even the definition of “globalism” (and “neo-liberal”) is complicated in the same way as is the definition of “working class” and to have a meaningful discussion that would need elaboration.

        > I never said it was the only reason. I’ve never said politics or culture can be reduced to simple memes.

        Well, good. My point all along was that you seemed to be attributing an extremely complicated set of dynamics to, basically, a sound bite – that Trump was convincing “the” working class to abandon the Dem Party because he was demonstrating that he’s the one who really cares about them – or something to that effect. That, it seems to me, is a simplistic take and that was my point all long.

        > What you seem to have missed was that you are the one who reduced non-white working class to some simple formula that doesn’t seem to acknowledge that the non-white working class is somehow incapable of understanding their own economic interests, which is definitely not globalism.

        ? No. I’m questioning two things. The first is whether a view towards “globalism” is what has driven a (rather small) trend in voting among non-white working class. The 2nd is your assumption that “globalism” is what’s affecting their economic interests.

        > That is racist, or at the least, elitist.

        It’s neither racist or elitist to question YOUR assumptions – opinions which you turn into facts merely because you believe the to be true and foist them on other people in contravention to simple numerical facts.

        > As I said to Willard, my personal experiences are not the only means with which I make sense of what’s around me. One means is not sufficient. And my personal experience with the working class, as defined above, unless you can convince me otherwise is a far, far richer source than yours.

        Please tell me how your anecdotal experiences with “the” working class, and in particular non-white members of the working class are a far richer source than my experiences with the same types of people.

        > Statistical analysis can only take you so far. You speak of numbers but I don’t hear anything about people.

        Sorry, Bill – but that seems to me to be because you aren’t listening to what I’ve been saying.

      • “One of the electricians I know is a multi-millionaire. He decided early to go for commercial contracts, and he built himself a small empire. ”

        One of the landscapers I know did this too. He laughs heartily every time a Democrat claims that open borders has no impact on wages or job availability for blue collar American citizens. And he says it’s worse in construction. He could sort of understand if there was some thought put into some sort of actual argument based in reality. Instead he was called a bigot if he said out loud what is plainly true. He still has the Trump stickers on his trucks and couldn’t care less that all of academia hates him.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        Willard …

        >These two cases have little in common with fruit pickers or waiters. The poor isn’t poor because of some cultural deficiency. I appeal to your inner Marxist to consider that our place in life is mostly due to luck, and that the poorer you are the tougher the bad lucks.

        I’m not sure, although there’s much to say about luck, there’s something to say about ‘making your luck’. I don’t want to go into my own life, as I’ve been castigated about personal experiences :-). But I’ve seen in others how determination and sheer force of will can overcome enormous odds. Is that luck? Maybe.
        I absolutely agree that bad luck for the poor is devastating. We should have a conversation sometime about charity. Not the foundation type, but the personal type. The word comes from love. In a socialist state there is no charity, as aid is dispensed from a state bureaucracy. The human to human element is missing. When I look back on the small acts of charity that were given to my family (here I go again) I truly marvel at the humanity, and wonder why it isn’t encouraged more.

        >There are other contingencies, like having to live in the Bay area and making 100K a year and being only able to afford a bed. And by that I mean not a room, but a bed. Anyway.

        LOL!!!

        >Perhaps the problem lies in the concept of middle class. Perhaps it’s just that we can’t properly stratify that many different realities with a few classes.

        This has been THE problem in sociology since the beginning. Not only different realities, but changing realities. Although there are underlying threads.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        Joshua …

        >You justified it by self-referencing your own authority – which is not a particularly good thing to do, because I can reference my own authority which tells a very different story.

        Actually I would love to hear your personal experiences. As you say, I value them highly. But not solely as you keep saying …

        >But the basic problem is that you’re ignoring that overwhelmingly, non-white working class voters see the dynamics differently than you do.

        I think we disagree on the word overwhelmingly. Are you using it to site the statistics or the perspective? Through association I’ve seen that there is no overwhelming difference in how we see the dynamics, as individuals. This leads me to believe that the statistics on voting are the result of other factors.

        As for the rest … we have our differences. And that’s not a bad thing, as I enjoy your criticism. And as I said above would love to hear your story. All of us are far more wonderfully complex than this medium allows.

        Enjoy your day.

      • > But perhaps they wouldn’t know that given the media never report these kinds of facts.

        You made me look, Kid:

        Middle-class incomes grew at a rate of 2.7 percent from 2016 through 2018, compared to a 5.8 percent growth rate from 2014 through 2016 when accounting for inflation.

        https://www.newsweek.com/income-growth-slowed-across-us-under-donald-trump-1488871

        Seems that the red states were hit the most. Which reminds me of the cartoon:

      • W

        I learned 2 things from your reply. 1)Why I don’t read that lying leftwing rag and 2) you must have a reading comprehension problem. My data was about 2019 for Trump and you ineffectively tried to counter with 2017 and 2018 data. But since you brought up the other years here are the facts from the Census Bureau. In 3 years, 2017-2019 Real Median Family income went up 11.1%. In 8 years under Obama Real Median Family Income increased 7.1%.

        I’ll let you compute the annual real growth rate for both periods but it appears that Newsweek conned you. Doesn’t it make you furious to have leftist propaganda organs perpetually try to brainwash you?

      • Kid,

        There are three things I have not learned from your comment.

        First, that you do not read. The newsie reported a report by the Economic Policy Institute:

        https://www.epi.org/chart/scott-blog-2020-figure-b-trump-has-left-the-middle-class-behind-and-delivered-the-vast-bulk-of-real-wage-gains-to-the-top-20-of-workers-2016-19/

        This should lead you to a report:

        https://www.epi.org/blog/trumps-blue-collar-boom-state-of-the-union/

        Second, that you do not link to your sources. And third that you fail to disclose that the family median income has increased each year since 2012, and that it won’t tell you how well the working class does. For that you’d need to look at the real wages for ordinary workers.

        So you’re not worth the effort.

        I’m just writing this for Bill, who should look at this section:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Social_class

      • None of which invalidates what I said. Census Bureau was the source. Look it up.

      • It actually does, Kid, but you have to have the proper notion of validity. Since median family income moves at macro-economic and generational scales, to use it to say anything about teh Donald policies (by taking one year to boot) is less than optimal.

        Nevertheless, the point I was making was more to counter what you’re trying to suggest.

      • W

        I’m not trying to suggest anything. I provided facts from the Census Bureau. If your leftwing, Marxist brainwashing propaganda doesn’t comport with the Census Bureau facts that doesn’t make them non-facts.

    • >….while for the U.K. he centered upon “leave” or “remain” in the controversy over membership in the European Union.

      The construct of equating support for stay/leave with ledt/right ideology might be more straight-forward. It’s an intersting question. Analyses I’ve seen show somewhat surprising correlates with the Brexit vote – at least in contrast to conventional wisdom. For example, IIRC (it has been a while since I looked at the analyses), there’s wasn’t a direct correlation between a “leave” vote and unploymwnt as a result of immigration although there was a correlation with attitudes towards immigration (and things like views on the death penalty) .

      If someone knows of an (reasonably good quality) analysis of correlations between leave/stay votes and political ideology I’d appreciate a link

      • Yes. Joshua is not sensitive about Trump. It’s not like he has TDS. ;) Nooooh. As a matter of fact he can tell you a hundred thousand things he is not.

        The trick is to gain his trust to tell you what is it that he honestly believes. He will say he is for equity or whatever the day’s marching order is. But good luck having him define what that means in terms of his preferred policy and principles. Instead, be prepared to try to translate a post modern philosophical quote that seems detached anything logical, tangible or falsifiable.

        But I honestly try. Because I believe it is important that we understand each other. I am completely open and straight with my thoughts. Joshua behaves like I am foolish for making myself vulnerable like that. Perhaps the reason he does not value his freedom is because he already not free.

      • You seem awfully sensitive about Trump, Ron.

        Why is that?

        It’s easy to simply conclude that anyone who criticuzes Trump is deranged. If that works for you, have at it, knock yourself out.. Maybe you can even come up with a conspiracy about it.

      • “You seem awfully sensitive about Trump, Ron. Why is that?”

        I criticized Trump for being too personally undisciplined on communication. To be a good national leader one must sacrifice some of one’s freedom to express every frustration in public, especially in a divided country. I agreed with Trump in 2016 that the Dems should have been called out long ago as being insincere about border security and national security. But he didn’t need to belittle Mexico, saying “they are not sending us their best…etc,” and then go further to describe some of the people he imagined illegally crossing. But getting the negative media attention turned out to be a winning strategy since he was correct on the issue and the attack gave him the perch to argue valid points, taking the lead on an important issue above the other candidates.

        This style was repeated on a slew of issues. So, whether he planned it or not, his bellicose rhetoric worked in gaining him the party nomination. Even picking a fight with Mexico, saying they would pay for his wall, worked to softened them into the most cooperative policies we have ever seen on trade and immigration.

        So, was Trump’s style good or bad? In the short run it accomplished good things that have not been accomplished by anyone else. In the larger picture he inflamed the religious left and made himself a much easier target than Reagan had. The MSM had blasted Reagan as senile, superstitious and war-mongering. But TV commentators left it to the far left agitators to say he conspired to kill gays with AIDS by his not responding fast enough. With Trump’s active impoliteness it was much easier to skewer him with Covid-19 while praising the bureaucracy. They could accuse Trump of having aspirations of global domination, being a Hitlerite, and at the same time blast him for not asserting emergency powers to lock down the country for covid. So in the long-run politeness is important. Respect builds trust.

        “It’s easy to simply conclude that anyone who criticuzes Trump is deranged. If that works for you, have at it, knock yourself out.. Maybe you can even come up with a conspiracy about it.”

        Sorry, Joshua. I just wanted you to reflect. You are not deranged in the least. I have no conspiracy about how half the country does not see that the left is turning to Marxism and that it does not improve anything. But even Bill Maher is starting to have enough of it.

      • > To be a good national leader one must sacrifice some of one’s freedom to express every frustration in public

        CONSENSUS ENFORCEMENT!

      • Ron –

        > Even picking a fight with Mexico, saying they would pay for his wall, worked to softened them into the most cooperative policies we have ever seen on trade and immigration.

        This is a convenient post hoc ergo propter hoc logic that is rather typical, imo, of people who are particularly sensitive about Trump. We saw the same sort of rationalization with North Korea, where nonsensical attributions of three dimensional chess mastery by Trump were attributed to Trump l’s great victory with NoKo, without meaningful causal analysis of any depth. Remember the non-existent change of state whereby the threat from North Korea was eliminated by virtue of Trump’s strategic genius?

        It’s like when people in a job interview try to turn an answer to a question about weakness into a description of a strength.

        “So tell us about your biggest weakness.”

        “My biggest weakness is that sometimes I work too hard”

        > You are not deranged in the least.

        You said I am deranged, specifically because I’m critical of Trump. For someone who talks of the importance of dialog (let alone the importance of trust) with people who are in disageement, it seems sub-optimal to me.

      • jungletrunks

        Josh’s reply to Ron: “You said I am deranged”

        Josh, so yea. Many of your arguments filter through either orange, or racism; or both, all very sophisticated stuff for the monolithic hard Left sensibilities these days. As a practical matter it leaves little to discuss when you get right down to it, because neither orange or racism has anything fundamentally to do with your otherwise well rehearsed politically contrived propagandistic arguments. Like so many others on the hard Left; you exemplify the archetype; one immersed within myriad intellectually inbred constructs, and armed with contrived word salads that you surely believe, my god, please at least put some ranch on it to spice it up. There’s many examples of hard Left constructs; for example, the inept political construct of Godwin’s law; a rubbish, nonsensical protectionist based slogan used to shut down criticism about the obvious. In this day and age when so many hard Leftists are indeed fascists, including leading Democratic figures calling for reeducation camps for conservatives; it’s quite illustrative of the Lefts hard wired delusions. You’re tragically misinformed as one guided by “collectivist science”, what’s not to believe! You fall within the hard Lefts intellectually inbred self protectionist, reverse engineered echo chamber crowd just posing ahead unhindered by logic, did I say cult? You manage your self image through many contrivances, the hard Lefts critical racist theory, rivaling na-zi-esque propaganda efforts to cleave societal sensitivities in the building of radical prejudices. Your rabbit hole is well insulated, Josh. How can anyone like you hear anything beyond the politically orchestrated cliches delivered when you’re immersed so deep into that rabbit hole reality of yours. Yes, delusional is apropos.

      • Ron said: “Yes. Joshua is not sensitive about Trump. It’s not like he has TDS. ;) Nooooh. As a matter of fact he can tell you a hundred thousand things he is not.”

        Joshua replied: “It’s easy to simply conclude that anyone who criticuzes Trump is deranged.”

        Ron replied: “Sorry, Joshua. I just wanted you to reflect. You are not deranged in the least.”

        Joshua replied: “You said I am deranged, specifically because I’m critical of Trump.”

        JT said: “Yes, delusional is apropos.”

        Joshua, if you feel you can objectively opine on Trump and his policies and supporters there are many here that I think could objectively argue the opposite. But the conundrum is that you can never know for sure if they are being objective and sincere. You can’t trust them They might all be delusional and deranged about supporting Trump. I suppose this is what you were saying to me when you wrote: “You seem awfully sensitive about Trump, Ron.”

        But the good news, Joshua, is that you are not alone. TDS is recognized as an extremely common phenomenon. So you are not ill, deranged or delusional. But there must be something to the huge contradictory perception. My thought is that it stems from a huge stack of pre-digested assumptions that the left has that are totally different from the ones of the right. The divide is so vast in almost is itself the driver of logic. For example, if Trump says hydroxychloroquine is promising the left assumes that it is not and must be persuaded with overwhelming evidence that it is. This infiltrates science. We saw the two most respected journals trash HCQ using studies backed by data that could not be produced. Once a few people on Twitter started asking a few questions like, “why does the organization’s web site have no history and the CFO is and adult film star?” the papers had to be retracted.

        The answer is that the reviewers liked that HCQ was supposedly killing people. I read many doctors panning HCQ even before the fake studies when the very first ones came out giving HCQ extremely late and only to the worst patients and also without the other vitamins, zinc and antibiotic that were used in the initial promising French study. The doctors were not even curious if HCQ needed to be given early or in combination with zinc. They were noticeable happy that it was squashed.

        The result of all this affects lives of people we love. And we are still not sure even today if HCQ is effective at some stage for some people or in some combination therapy. What to even pay Fauci and Collins for? Real question. So we need to fix this. Perhaps it is a national psychosis.

      • Ron –

        > Joshua, if you feel you can objectively opine on Trump and his policies…

        There’s a difference between being subjective and being deranged. I don’t ever think I can “objectively” opine on just about anything – as indeed I don’t think that pretty much anyone can. It’s funny because the very notion of “objective opining” is in itself nonsensical – an oxymoron. It reminds me of when “strict constructionists” think their personal interpretation of “original intent” – which is always inherently shaped by their individual psychology, cognition, education, and experiences is an “objective” interpretation.

        Just look at all the statements of fact in this thread about the intolerance of “the left” without any apparent sense of the inherent irony

        Anyway, your statement about “objectively opining” highlights exactly my point – that you seem to think that if someone is more or less uniformly critical of Trump they are therfore “deranged.”

        Such an approach is not remotely conducive to the type of dialog you want to have. And the approach is ubiquitous. It could commonly be found among Obama supporters when Obama was in office and some people were uniformly critical of him. They called it Obama Derangement Syndrome – as I’m quite sure you’re aware.

        It’s standard form – for I think what are fairly obvious reasons..

        Of course there’s some merit. Some people are driven beyond reasonable perspective by their dislike of Trump, just as some were driven beyond reason by their dislike of Obama. Trump claiming to have hired private investigators who had proof that Obama wasn’t eligible to be president coming to mind to prove a good illustration. There were more than a few anti-Obama people who fell for that obvious lie just as there are people who believe highly improbable things about Trump or who really think the election was stolen.

        But that some people are driven beyond reason doesn’t support a reaction that someone who’s uniformly critical of Trump is therefore deranged. If you want to offer a belief I’ve stated about Trump that you think is “deranged” pleas feel fee to do so. I would find that I interesting. If you DON’T have any, then maybe consider why you called me deranged. What would that say about your own thinking process?

      • > Joshua, if you feel you can objectively opine on Trump and his policies…

        There’s a difference between being subjective and being deranged. I don’t ever think I can “objectively” opine on just about anything – as indeed I don’t think that pretty much anyone can. It’s funny because the very notion of “objective opining” is in itself nonsensical – an oxymoron. It reminds me of when “strict constructionists” think their personal interpretation of “original intent” – which is always inherently shaped by their individual psychology, cognition, education, and experiences is an “objective” interpretation.

      • Ron –

        My response got caught in moderation. It seems the problem was in the first paragraph. I’ll post the rest and see if I can find the problem there:

        Just look at all the statements of fact in this thread about the intolerance of “the left” without any apparent sense of the inherent irony

        Anyway, your statement about “objectively opining” highlights exactly my point – that you seem to think that if someone is more or less uniformly critical of Trump they are therfore “deranged.”

        Such an approach is not remotely conducive to the type of dialog you want to have. And the approach is ubiquitous. It could commonly be found among Obama supporters when Obama was in office and some people were uniformly critical of him. They called it Obama Derangement Syndrome – as I’m quite sure you’re aware.

        It’s standard form – for I think what are fairly obvious reasons..

        Of course there’s some merit. Some people are driven beyond reasonable perspective by their dislike of Trump, just as some were driven beyond reason by their dislike of Obama. Trump claiming to have hired private investigators who had proof that Obama wasn’t eligible to be president coming to mind to prove a good illustration. There were more than a few anti-Obama people who fell for that obvious lie just as there are people who believe highly improbable things about Trump or who really think the election was stolen.

        But that some people are driven beyond reason doesn’t support a reaction that someone who’s uniformly critical of Trump is therefore deranged. If you want to offer a belief I’ve stated about Trump that you think is “deranged” pleas feel fee to do so. I would find that I interesting. If you DON’T have any, then maybe consider why you called me deranged. What would that say about your own thinking process?

      • Lemme see if I can modify the first paragraph to get it past the filter…

        > Joshua, if you feel you can objectively opine on Trump and his policies…

        There’s a diff*rence betw*en being s*bjective and being d*ranged. I don’t ever think I can “obj&ctively” op*ne on just about *nything – as ind*ed I don’t think that pr*tty m*ch any*ne c*n. It’s f*nny beca*se the v*ry n*tion of “obj*ctive op*ning” is in it*elf nons*nsical – an oxym*ron. It reminds me of when “strict constructionists” think their personal interpretation of “original intent” – which is always inherently shaped by their individual psychology, cognition, education, and experiences is an “objective” interpretation.

      • Yes, found the offending word: oxymor*n. Pretty obvious in retrospect.

      • I remember for a time that the word “Joshua” was moderation keyword.

        The reason for that I am guessing is that you were deemed to be just spamming the blog.

        I honestly am trying to give you opportunities to provide incite into your thinking but instead you want to take offense when none was meant and then followed up by clarification for which you ignore so you can stick to being unproductive. Do you honestly want me or others point out unfair criticisms you have made of Trump in order make some sort of progress? If you believe that I think you are fooling yourself.

        Instead of telling everyone always what you are not, offer something enlightening, logical yet unique. Whether or not one can give an objective opinion is not interesting to anyone because you clearly knew the point being made but simply looked for a way to answer in a argumentative deflection rather than acknowledge the point of skillfully respond with a logical counter. In a court of law they built and objection that counsel can make specifically to admonish the witness for this.

      • Actually, the “argumentative” objection is made typically against opposing counsel, not the witness.

        Did anyone watch Bill Maher video? He literally calls out the left as having another psychoses he calls “progress-o-phobia” where one is blind to historical social progress.

      • Ron –

        > …but instead you want to take offense when none was meant.

        Not only did I not want to take offense, I simply didn’t take offense. For you to say you didn’t intend offense by saying I’m deranged is irrelevant to me. I don’t care whether you intended offense or not.

        You’re welcome to call me deranged if you wish. Just like Trunks is welcome to tell me his theories of how deranged I am. I don’t particularly care and I certainly don’t take offense.

        As far as I’m concerned if you do say I’m deranged it says something about you and nothing about me.

        The fact is that you did so. Whether I take offense isn’t important.

        Perhaps you should consider WHY you did so. If you can describe something I said that was deranged, you can offer it for my edification. If I didn’t, then I offer for you the challenge of considering why you said that I am deranged.

        It’s up to you. You can consider why you said that or not. Again, I don’t particularly care one way or the other.

      • Ron –

        > Do you honestly want me or others point out unfair criticisms you have made of Trump in order make some sort of progress?

        You dismissed my criticisms of Trump by saying I’m deranged. Then you said you intended no offense. (Of course, it’s nonsense to call someone deranged and then day that you meant no offense.)

        And then, you followed thst up with a description, basically, if bow people who uniformly criticize Trump are deranged or so obsessed that they can’t think clearly.

        I care about none of that.

        I have criticisms of Trump. I’m open to reviewing those opinions in light of a critique. Calling me deranged is no such critique. So it’s a useless response from my perspective. Telling me how other critics of Trump are driven by irrational views likewise is of zero use to me.

        It’s intersting that you think my criticisms are “unfair.” What does “unfair” have to do with anything? What is unprincipled or unkind about me criticizing Trump? I’m some dude on the internet. Trump is completely unaffected by my criticisms. That you attach such an emotional valence to my criticisms of Trump suggests to me that you’re sensitive about him.

        Instead of offering me your view of why my criticism is WRONG, you respond from some kind of emotional place – that poor Donald Trump has been treated unfairly. And from that emotional place, you insult me, say you didn’t intend offense by the insult, explain how other people who criticize Trump aren’t rational in their criticisms, but don’t actually respond with a response.

        It’s sub-optimal behavior from someone who wants to establish Trump and who values dialog and who is concerned about people who attack others rather than engage in dialog.

      • Ron –

        Here’s something else that’s intersting that you said:

        > . Do you honestly want me or others point out unfair criticisms you have made of Trump in order make some sort of progress? If you believe that I think you are fooling yourself.

        So you question whether I’m being honest when I offer for you to back up your statement that my views on Trump reflect derangement?

        Suggesting bad faith on my part is sub-optimal from a perspective of trying to establish trust as well as as a way to establish dialog with someone who you disagree with.

        Likewise, by condescendingly telling me that you think I’m fooling myself – which implies that you think that you know what I want better than I know what I want.

        It’s also kind of odd that you introduce a question about what I want other peope to do when I’m engaged in a dialog with you. Why do you care what I want other peope to do? What does what I want other people to do have to do with our dialog? That language suggests to me some kind of group affiliation reflex, as a kind of “piling on” appeal to an audience of comrades.

        And of course there are other sub-optimal things in your comment with respect to your intent to establish trust and a dialog – such as your off hand reference to me being in moderation, with an indirect suggestion that I’m a troll.

        There’s other oddness too from the angle of promoting dialog and tris, and again, I don’t care about any of that in the sense of taking offense. But I do see all of that as obstacles to having a dialog. As to establishing trust,as I’ve told you I think that’s actually secondary, and a product of a good quality exsjsnfe rather than a prerequisite. But regardless, you’ve said quite a number of things that seem to me to be counterproductive from the perspective of establishing trust.

        And with that, I bid you a good night – and won’t bother responding further unless you offer something I consider meaningful in some way.

      • Joshua,
        Do you agree that a person can for years spend half of their energy on blogs telling people that they misrepresent their assumptions or conclusions and then they spend the other part doing exactly that?

        There is a technique to avoid this when two parties are in conflict and distrust. It is called going slowly to check that you understand each assumption and point the other is making and acknowledging that before proceeding past the sale with a misread that looks to the other as likely intentional false argument or straw man.

        This is not meant to be condescending.

      • Ron –

        > Do you agree that a person can for years spend half of their energy on blogs telling people that they misrepresent their assumptions or conclusions and then they spend the other part doing exactly that?

        I assume this is a passive aggressive way for you to criticize me? At any rate, it’s a gross overstatement at the very least, and certainly non-productive from a standpoint of establishing trust or engaging in dialog over points of disagreement. Making global statements about someone’s behavior is among the least productive ways to engage in dialog.

        > There is a technique to avoid this when two parties are in conflict and distrust. It is called going slowly to check that you understand each assumption and point the other is making and acknowledging that before proceeding past the sale with a misread that looks to the other as likely intentional false argument or straw man.

        Let me see if I have this correct. That looks to me like you are saying that you were seeking clarification so as to not employ a strawman when you (1) asked me if I was being dishonest and (2) told me that if I was being honest I was fooling myself.

        Again, IMO, both (1) and (2) look to me like among the worst ways to engage in dialog. Further, IMO, neither looks remotely like a form of asking for clarification. For future reference, I see asking or clarification to go something along the lines of….”Joshua, I was hoping you might clarify what you meant when you said….XYZ.”

        Certainly “Joshua, were you being honest when you said XYZ? And if you were being honest, I know what you want better than you know what you want, and what you think you want isn’t actually what you want.” is not what I’d recommend as a way to go to establish trust and quality dialog.

      • Ron –

        > Do you agree that a person can for years spend half of their energy on blogs telling people that they misrepresent their assumptions or conclusions and then they spend the other part doing exactly that?

        I assume this is a passive aggressive way for you to criticize me? At any rate, it’s a gross overstatement at the very least, and certainly non-productive from a standpoint of establishing trust or engaging in dialog over points of disagreement. Making global statements about someone’s behavior is among the least productive ways to engage in dialog.

      • Ron –

        > There is a technique to avoid this when two parties are in conflict and distrust. It is called going slowly to check that you understand each assumption and point the other is making and acknowledging that before proceeding past the sale with a misread that looks to the other as likely intentional false argument or straw man.

        Let me see if I have this correct. That looks to me like you are saying that you were seeking clarification so as to not employ a strawman when you (1) asked me if I was being dish*nest and (2) told me that if I was being honest I was fo*ling myself.

        Again, if I am correct about that, IMO, both (1) and (2) look to me like among the worst ways to engage in dialog. Further, IMO, neither looks remotely like a form of asking for clarification. For future reference, I see asking or clarification to go something along the lines of….”Joshua, I was hoping you might clarify what you meant when you said….XYZ.”

        Certainly “Joshua, were you being honest when you said XYZ? And if you were being honest, I know what you want better than you know what you want, and what you think you want isn’t actually what you want.” is not what I’d recommend as a way to go to establish trust and quality dialog.

      • OK, Joshua, let’s start over from the bowels of distrust.

        So to start, do you agree with the following:

        1) Logic would dictate that any sincere disagreement can be dissected back to the first assumption where the two parties diverged?

        2) That it is only possible to have a productive debate if the parities agree to be disciplined into following rules of of logic and logical rules.

        3) Rule one must be to acknowledge points that you agree with so that they can then be laid as foundations for further progress?

        4) That progress through debate and free persuasion is lasting and peaceful and life enhancing.

        5) That progress through coercion, regardless severity, from friendly consensus enforcement outright threat of violence is not lasting and peaceful or life enhancing.

        6) That dialogue is thus morally superior in all cases to shutting down debate and censorship.

        7) That universal morals include that peace is preferable to conflict and truth is preferable to deception.

        8) That since there are more than one moral their is to be innate conflict as a natural order.

        9) That among all the morals that truth stands above all others.

        10) That trust is a necessary ingredient for personal and family relationships, business negotiation and national diplomacy.

        11) The functionality of a family, economy, world are all related to trustworthiness.

        Feel free to add or subtract and we can start from there. Please acknowledge my points by repeating them back in another affirmative way and I will do the same to your points.

      • Ron –

        > So to start, do you agree with the following:

        > 1) Logic would dictate that any sincere disagreement can be dissected back to the first assumption where the two parties diverged?

        Probably, although I’d suggest that’s too simplistic to be very useful. Practically, disagreement probably most likely stems from multiple sources of different types and of varying degrees of explanatory value.

        > 2) That it is only possible to have a productive debate if the parities agree to be disciplined into following rules of of logic and logical rules.

        Yes. But beneath that, I think productive debate only occurs if people are willing to work from a presumption of good faith – by which I mean that people accept that their interlocutor believes what they say that they believe, are actually seeking to find out the “truth” of the matter, are honestly motivated, etc. Even if ultimately you have some question about any of that, you can suspend judgement and still work from that presumption in a given premise for the discussion. I also think that “debate” is a sub-optimal framing. The goal, IMO, is to have a discussion. “Debate” implies a presumption of disagreement. How do you know whether you actually disagree if you haven’t first done things like define foundational terms, and establish the point(s) of disagreement? I’m not interesting in debating you, Ron. I’m trying to have a good faith discussion.

        > 3) Rule one must be to acknowledge points that you agree with so that they can then be laid as foundations for further progress?

        Again, I don’t know that’s “Rule one,” but it certainly is a key part of the process of having a fruitful discussion

        > 4) That progress through debate and free persuasion is lasting and peaceful and life enhancing.

        I don’t know what you mean by “free persuasion,” but having enlightening discussions where you discover new knowledge and find new and more informed ways to understanding things is certainly life-enhancing for me. In fact, that’s something that is a source for a great deal of my mental and emotional energies.

        > 5) That progress through coercion, regardless severity, from friendly consensus enforcement outright threat of violence is not lasting and peaceful or life enhancing.

        I’m not totally sure what you mean by “coercion.” It feels like a false binary to me. Much of engagement involves some degree of pressure – and pressure can be intrinsically located as well as extrinsically located. Threats or force are obviously counterproductive to fruitful discussion.

        > 6) That dialogue is thus morally superior in all cases to shutting down debate and censorship.

        Hmmm. I’m not particularly inclined to assess “morality” here. I don’t see the relevance, and “morality” is a whole ‘nother ball of wax. I”m interested in practical assessments of how to make progress in exploring issues from differing perspectives. But “shutting down debate” and “censorship” are, IMO, very subjectively defined in most real world circumstances these days, and they’re concepts that are being exploited often by people who have no real intent at meaningful engagement.

        > 7) That universal morals include that peace is preferable to conflict and truth is preferable to deception.

        Again, I tend to avoid a goal of assessing a “moral” hierarchy. But I know what I consider to be a hierarchy regarding various concepts. That said, I don’t see “conflict” as inferior to “peace” – depending on context. Again, I think you’re asking me for simplistic answers to complicated issues. There are many ways that “conflict” can be extremely productive and contexts where “peace” is relatively unproductive. Context matters. But of course as a general rule, I prefer peace to conflict.

        > 8) That since there are more than one moral their is to be innate conflict as a natural order.

        “Conflict?” There again, I need more definition before I can consent to that statement. I don’t see nuance and contextual conditionality between competing moral frameworks as “conflict.” In my life experience, most people I encounter have, roughly speaking, a similar hierarchy or morals. The problems arise, mostly, IMO, with how people contextualize those frameworks.

        > 9) That among all the morals that truth stands above all others.

        W/o context, I couldn’t agree with that. And “truth” is a very tricky customer. Truth is nuanced, and truth differs based on people’s orientation and experience. I don’t see any particular value to saying, in some abstracted or generic frame, that “truth stands above all other moral values.”

        > 10) That trust is a necessary ingredient for personal and family relationships, business negotiation and national diplomacy.

        Again, this is so generic I don’t know how to respond. Trust varies in degree and you can certainly negotiate mutually beneficial relationships even when “trust” per se is lacking. Trust is of varying degrees of importance, IMO, depending on the specifics of the goal and other contextual factors.

        > 11) The functionality of a family, economy, world are all related to trustworthiness.

        Related? Sure. But the the relationship is multi-factorial, and trustworthiness has different degrees of moderating and mediating roles depending on context.

        So the general pattern here is that while I have a general degree of agreement with the thrust of your statements, I see them as too unspecific, generic, dualistic, etc. to be of much practical value. For me, as a set of conditions, they don’t lay out much of a roadmap of how to proceed. I don’t see any particular value in thinking of them as preconditions in any practical sense. IOW, I often see people who would likely agree with all of those preconditions in some generic form engaging in ways that are not at all productive for meaningful discussion. To be specific, although you espouse all of those as goals, and I don’t doubt that you aspire to uphold them, you have AT TIMES nonetheless engaged with me in ways that are sub-optimal in terms of well-reasoned and meaningful exchange. That doesn’t mean that I am characterizing your engagement in that way as a blanket statement. This post that I’m responding to now is, indeed, IMO, a reflection of intent for exchange through a productive pathway. It’s just that I don’t see where agreement on those principles as being some kind of hierarchical commandments is really what makes a difference.

      • Joshua,

        Thanks for coming back with very well composed discussion. I just don’t know how you get away with a post that long. Mine go into moderation.

        I will repeat where we agree. I know this sounds tedious but how many discussions have you had with me and others that end up nowhere anyway. In the words of an un-named orange person, what have you got to lose? And we might both learn something that can be applied in many spaces.

        > >1) Logic would dictate that any sincere disagreement can be dissected back to the first assumption where the two parties diverged?
        Probably, although I’d suggest that’s too simplistic to be very useful.

        >Practically, disagreement probably most likely stems from multiple sources of different types and of varying degrees of explanatory value.

        Yes. Conclusions are made from a mosaic of weighted assumptions. I think it might seem tedious but exploring those assumptions must be worth doing, otherwise parties just speak past each other, each with their own unrevealed logic.

      • >> 2) That it is only possible to have a productive debate if the parities agree to be disciplined into following rules of of logic and logical rules.

        >Yes. But beneath that, I think productive debate only occurs if people are willing to work from a presumption of good faith – by which I mean that people accept that their interlocutor believes what they say that they believe, are actually seeking to find out the “truth” of the matter, are honestly motivated, etc. Even if ultimately you have some question about any of that, you can suspend judgement and still work from that presumption in a given premise for the discussion. I also think that “debate” is a sub-optimal framing. The goal, IMO, is to have a discussion. “Debate” implies a presumption of disagreement. How do you know whether you actually disagree if you haven’t first done things like define foundational terms, and establish the point(s) of disagreement? I’m not interesting in debating you, Ron. I’m trying to have a good faith discussion.

        Good point that good faith pursuit of truth is a requisite of fair debate/discussion. I use debate not in the hostile or competitive sense but in their being a dual and interactive discussion with a purpose of trying to compare logics for exploration toward a mutual understanding.

      • An interesting article on research into Ivermectin, and which also touches a bit on HCQ research

        https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/whats-the-deal-with-ivermectin-and-covid/

      • >> 3) Rule one must be to acknowledge points that you agree with so that they can then be laid as foundations for further progress?

        >Again, I don’t know that’s “Rule one,” but it certainly is a key part of the process of having a fruitful discussion.

        I am glad we agree that acknowledgment is important. The reason I elevate it to #1 is that it is the last thing one is naturally inclined to do. But it is critical for both building goodwill and allowing the discussion to efficiently progress.

        >> 4) That progress through debate and free persuasion is lasting and peaceful and life enhancing.

        >I don’t know what you mean by “free persuasion,” but having enlightening discussions where you discover new knowledge and find new and more informed ways to understanding things is certainly life-enhancing for me. In fact, that’s something that is a source for a great deal of my mental and emotional energies.

        We agree that new knowledge is life enhancing and I would add that discussion not only brings new knowledge from outside, it helps one clarify their own thinking by engaging in the task of composition.

        By free persuasion I meant enlightenment as opposed to coercion.

      • >> 5) That progress through coercion, regardless severity, from friendly consensus enforcement outright threat of violence is not lasting and peaceful or life enhancing.

        >I’m not totally sure what you mean by “coercion.” It feels like a false binary to me. Much of engagement involves some degree of pressure – and pressure can be intrinsically located as well as extrinsically located. Threats or force are obviously counterproductive to fruitful discussion.

        We agree that force is counter-productive. I just take that further as a principle. Even if coercion is just sales pressure, who is more likely to have buyer’s remorse, the person who acquiesced to a high pressure sale, or the one who was kindly assisted to buy in? Coercion/force produces blowback. The stronger the coercion the stronger that potential.

        >> 6) That dialogue is thus morally superior in all cases to shutting down debate and censorship.

        >Hmmm. I’m not particularly inclined to assess “morality” here. I don’t see the relevance, and “morality” is a whole ‘nother ball of wax. I”m interested in practical assessments of how to make progress in exploring issues from differing perspectives. But “shutting down debate” and “censorship” are, IMO, very subjectively defined in most real world circumstances these days, and they’re concepts that are being exploited often by people who have no real intent at meaningful engagement.

        Here we don’t have any agreement per se. I hear you saying that morality is not tied to censorship. Is that right? Or, are you saying the concepts are too ill defined to think about clearly?

        Which one of these is not censorship.
        a) Refusing to have a discussion with someone whom one has power over by denial of forum.

        b) Chilling free expression by punishing those who express thoughts that are counter to an accepted POV or political narrative.

        c) Blocking the broadcast or publication of ideas that are counter to a political view.

        Which ones of the above are not abridgements of free speech? Is free speech a human right? Are human rights moral issues?

      • “…people accept that their interlocutor believes what they say that they believe, are actually seeking to find out the “truth” of the matter, are honestly motivated, etc.”

        And that is why you don’t holler “denier” at people who doubt you can heat Boston in February at night with solar panels. Or those who suggest investigating that giant lab full of coronaviruses right smack in the middle of the launchpad for a deadly coronavirus epidemic. Or cry “supremacist” and “phobic” at people who held the same immigration and social justice views as Barrack Obama ~2012.
        Or encourage the media to make up fantasies about Russian collusion and teargassing protestors for photo ops.
        Because… when you do those things and get people fired and banned from social media for even questioning, then your interlocutor has a decision to make- is this person entirely lacking in good faith, a couple beers shy of a sixpack, or misinformed? Only one of those is curable.

      • Jeff –

        It’s ironic that you weigh in on that particular point as you have demonstrated to me that you are uninterested in engaging in good faith. There many here who have dknsrdsted likewise, say Trunks with his rails about how “the left” are essentially sub-human. David and Don with their constant insults show they’re not interested in good faith exchange. Some go back and forth, like

      • … go back and forth, like Bill, with a mixture of insults and cartoonish characterizations, and meaningful and interesting exchanges that show actual engagement with what I’ve said.

        But I think you stand somewhat unique in the degree to which your engagement demonstrates bad faith exchange – as you NEVER actually engage with what I actually said and you’re always engaging with me as if I’m some creature that lives in your imagination only – to the point where you actively truncate what I say I quotes as to obvosuly, deliberately portray them to convey a meaning that’s different from what I actually intended.

        It’s obviously possible to misunderstand what someone says or to unintentionally focus on one part and miss the importance of other parts of what was said. Certainly when responding to my comments that are complicated or unclear or ambiguous that can happen. I generally believe that it is the writer’s responsibility to clarify what their intended meaning was when thst happens.

        But I’ve given up with you as you’re misleading quiting of what I’ve said has shown it could only be deliberate and willful, and your uniform unwillingness to engage with what I have actually said demonstrates a similar assumption of bad faith.

        In a way I can understand. Someone who has such a uniformly hateful view of “the left” would, in a sense, only logically engage with me in such a manner. It must other commenters here, even if they display wildly generalized rhetoric fully hateful of the left, at least sometimes act inconsistently with that rhetoric and actually engage on point. From what I’ve seen, that never happens with you.

      • This latest comment of yours is a perfect example.

        You interject into a discussion I’m having about good faith exchange to ‘splain to me about the use of “denier” when you’ve NEVER seen me use that term.

        Apparently, you think it’s appropriate to saddle me with responsibility for a term I don’t use because come on the left use it. If course the use of the term is an obvious sign of bad faith. But you ignore the constant bad faith on the other side of the aisle – as we see throughout basically every post at this site. Look at all the comments here about “the left,” clearly demonstrating zero attempts at good faith interpretation of basically ANYTHING some 1/2 of the American public says or does.

        Again, it’s only logical that people who have such hatred and contempt for people because of their political leanings would not be interested in good faith exchange. But I will say, if there really is just an inkling of interest in good faith exchange with me, pay attention to what I actually say, don’t deliberately misquote me to convey meaning contrary to what I said in fulll, stop railing in absolutist terms abiu”the left,” and don’t try to saddle me with bad faith or whatever from” the left” as a group (and BTW, it won’t work anyway as I’m simply not responsible for that -even if it makes you feel good to somehow do suss anything I might say by limping me I to a group for which you have such contempt).

        Or, you could just stay out of my discussions with other people, at least when they and I are attempting a good faith exchange. TIA.

    • I partially agree with Joshua on this point. I don’t agree it renders the analysis fatally flawed. I had no issue identifying myself as an R or a conservative 20 years ago. I am a classical liberal though, and Trump certainly is not. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn’t leave the Republican party the Republican party left me.

      Maybe characterizing myself as a conservative was always mistaken. As I understand, conservative in Europe has always meant more a nationalist. I am more a free market liberal.

      This analysis seems to leave me unaffiliated.

    • Joshua: You are correct, but it is a reasonable surrogate, since the majority of Trump voters would identify as conservative. But we, in fact, are all over the map. 17% of Bernie voters voted for Trump. My own views are libertarian, although not Libertarian Party. What I find most refreshing about Trump is that he is sincere, he always tells the complete and whole truth about the media, and he truly loves our nation. Five years of Trump hatred by the left has done great damage, but it has energized many.

    • On the flip side of this – while probably marginally better than the reverse equating Trump support with being a “conservative” or a right-winger, the concept that support for Biden equates to being a “liberal” or a left-winger is likewise problematic.

      There are plenty on the left who only supported Biden in the specific frame of him running against Trump in the 2020 election. In fact, in some ways being a lefty would predict a rejection of much of what Biden supports.

      In particular, the notion that support for Biden would equate to the kind of “far left” views that is putatively the only allowable belief system in academia is a poorly constructed conceptual underpinning for this sort of analysis.

      I haven’t read the analysis, but the idea that it might be constructed on such a shallow organizing structure forms an interesting intersection with the idea that it is political orientation that drives views in the academy about the merits of scholarship.

      It would certainly seem possible that this analysis could be flatly and reaonably rejected for basic failure to live up to even the most basic academic standards, but that said rejection would be viewed by people who identify with the ideological valence of the analysis’ conclusions as merely being based on ideological bases.

    • Joshua

      You seem really sensitive on things Trump. I was merely reporting there a small (but illustrative) part of Kaufmann’s methodolooy. What is your problem with that?

  5. It gets worse than Academia. The CIC just said Global Warming is our Greatest Threat.

    Clearly, he didn’t get the memo that it is climate change.

  6. The time has come to put on ignore all of these science authoritarians who continue to make a mockery of the scientific method and morality and who engage in blackballing the truth. They all are lost to reason but we are not. They do not want to hear what nature has to say but we have to live in reality. They cannot defend their beliefs and behavior and lifetime employment at our expense and seek only to excuse in their own minds their inability to make a worthwhile contribution to society and to justify their existence. We simply do not have the luxury to think like they think or no one will eat.

    • .How many lives has the Left saved by saying NO to truth and NO, NO, NO to capitalism? How much misery, poverty and death has the Left caused by sacrificing individual liberty on the altar of the blindingly self-defeatist Climatism of Leftist ideology?

  7. Patrick,
    Very well done and if we dig a little deeper we find even more causes of this de-evolution. First of all;
    Ignorance is a most wonderful thing.
    It facilitates magic.
    It allows the masses to be led.
    It provides answers when there are none.
    It allows happiness in the presence of danger.
    All this, while the pursuit of knowledge can only destroy the illusion, so it is no wonder then, that mankind chooses ignorance!
    Given this natural human dedication to ignorance, can there be other causes too? Yes, if we do a deep dive into the many other causes, we find that we have created a society that perpetuates this mindlessness by ignorant educators, corrupt news media, a corrupt Federal Government full of psychopathic politicians, funded by greedy Big Tech and Big Pharma! And, unless we do something about it, it will continue to its natural end – the end of the Great American Experiment!
    To add to your understanding and for more details on these many causes, I think you will enjoy two papers at https://fact-checked.org/reports/ ; Wakeup Sheeple, and De-Evolution of Mankind. These reports also include more possible solutions to prevent our demise.

  8. Academia has a very very bad history of putting politics over principle.
    One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published in 1931. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.

  9. Perhaps those with dissenting views from the current climate change science orthodoxly here in the US/UK/Canada may, ironically, get a more sympathetic hearing from the scientific communities of China or Russia? I have long suspected that those two countries are basing policy decisions regarding climate issues on models below RCP 4.5 and certainly dismissive of RCP 8.5. Neither one seem to be much worried about apocalyptical predictions or applying the Precautionary Principle to “solving” AGW, while paying lip service to international forums such as the non-binding Paris Accord.

    • Victor, I don’t know if China has an IPCC climate model but Russia’s has been the most accurate of all 52 of them.

      “But one of the models actually works. According to University of Alabama’s John Christy and his colleagues, only the Russian model, designated INM-CM4, gets things right. So why not weight heavily on the model that is working? Perhaps because it has less global warming in it than all the other U.N. models?” -Patrick J Michaels
      https://www.cato.org/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming

      • David Appell

        This is a great example of the kind of thing Pat Michaels publishes in order to avoid the peer reviewed scientific literature.

        Bloggers might link to it — that’s all. It means absolutely nothing to the discourse and advancement of professional, research science. Pat knows this.

      • ‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.’ https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161

        Are these each 50% probabilities? After that you’d have to ask what the range of imprecision is for each model. I can’t see much point but the world seems to like counting these angels on pinheads. And David has a clear edge in the pinhead strakes.

      • “Bloggers might link to it — that’s all. It means absolutely nothing to the discourse and advancement of professional, research science.”

        So when you say bloggers, you mean the people. To hold one group above the rest is a great marketing strategy. The low opinion you may have Michaels is the problem. We are not the kneeling subjects of professional research science. This is a trait of independence, which may have heard of.

      • “This is a great example of the kind of thing Pat Michaels publishes…”

        It is a quit notable fact that the Russian model, the blacksheep of the IPCC CMIP program, with it’s lowly 1.8 ECS, has been right on target.

        But rather than acknowledge that and make a valid defensive point the activist smear the messenger as untrustworthy, evidenced I suppose by his point of view on the topic, reasoned on the logic (conscious or not) that anyone with that POV must be untrustworthy, a paid shill or a delusional type. If this is your reasoning, David, you can hopefully see that it is cul-de-sac.

        David, tell me where my point on the Russian model is wrong without circular reasoning.

  10. ‘The idea that the science of climate change is largely “settled,” common among policy makers and environmentalists but not among the climate science community, has congealed into the view that the outlines and dimension of anthropogenic climate change are understood and that incremental improvement to and application of the tools used to establish this outline are sufficient to provide society with the scientific basis for dealing with climate change.’ https://www.pnas.org/content/116/49/24390

    Congealed views are ubiquitous on both sides of the aisle. The dominant climate science paradigm is that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases bias a globally coupled nonlinear system to warmer conditions. It is the dominant paradigm for good reason. We are pushing against planetary boundaries and the response cannot be predicted.


    https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html

    The rational response ‘should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.’ The Hartwell Paper, 2010

    Science is settled enough to make pragmatic progress on solutions. It It involves reduction of pollutants – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry.

  11. Academic prowess can often be about impressing ones peers with grand ideas about how something works, while lacking the skills to investigate and identify how it actually works. In such an intellectual climate, ideas can be herded to exclude factors. Like the role of solar variability in climate change, simply by calling annular mode variability and ocean phases, unforced and chaotic internal variability. Once in that loop, they can be easily convinced that changing the climate changes the weather. There’s currency in that for the Sustainable Markets Initiative, so knowledge of how the Sun discretely drives major heatwaves is the last thing that they would want to know. The threat of imagined ‘impacts’ is where the big money is.

    • joe - the non climate scientist

      “Academic prowess can often be about impressing ones peers with grand ideas about how something works, while lacking the skills to investigate and identify how it actually works.”

      An excellent example is Marc Jacobson of Stanford & 100% renewables.

  12. Even in mathematics there is bias. Some of the commentary around the “hawkmoth” idea is biased and comes from philosophers who have no experience trying to solve ill-posed problems. Transonic flow is a “hawkmoth” problem that is 60 years old. It still results in high uncertainty.

    • The first author of the paper you’re sliming is from someone from the Department of Combinatorics and Optimization at Waterloo, David:

      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/01/31/the-hawkmoth-effect/

      • Thank you for the link.
        Quote from link: “The Hawkmoth Effect is named so as to complement the Butterfly effect and refers to structural instability of complex systems. The idea being that, in complex dynamical systems,

        [y]ou can be arbitrarily close to the correct equations, but still not be close to the correct solution. ”

        One can readily see ‘Instability’ in the saw-tooth shape of the last four glacial cycles. In ‘Control’ circles its know as ‘Bang-Bang’ response.

        Even the envelope of a glacial cycle is not smooth, with enough evidence of abrupt jerks in the system. Those jerks have a meaning in the last 8kyrs of the present glacial cycle.

      • The Earth system doesn’t have ‘structural instability’ or ‘sensitive dependence’ – these are model temporal chaotic properties. The Earth system has coupled nonlinear oscillations in spatiotemporal chaos.

      • To be more specific, from above quote “The idea being that, in complex dynamical systems,–“, what is ‘dynamical systems’ intended to mean?
        Thermo-dynamically, considering the earth is covered by a fluid that undergoes two phase changes and receives heat energy from a nearby source, the saw-tooth temperature profile of the past four glacial periods, indicates that the system oscillates between two extremes. (such as a thermostat switch on a water heater; off or on). That is one form of instability; it won’t sit long in one place.

        Is it structurally (as in geological) stable? Unlikely, seeing that earlier glacial cycles behaved differently. It is also known that there have been changes (vide the many whale skeletons in North African desert see here at 04:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHCk1I_8igU ). Some changes are quite recent, but that may be labelled as heretic.

        Is it dynamically stable in space, meaning does the dogma of unchanging axial tilt really holds true. Perhaps its not the time to give that heretic answer, from what the subject of this thread indicates.

    • ‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation (see ref. 26).’ https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

      I’ve got no idea what Ken Rice or poor wee willie make of it – but I am not optimistic.

    • I’m not sliming the paper, just saying everyone with much computational experience knows examples of this phenomena and the consequence is that uncertainty is much higher. Right at the transition the problem is singular and big jumps are usually present. Quantification is possible here.

    • > everyone with much computational experience knows

      You haven’t read the paper, David, and it shows.

      They know about Navier-Stokes.

    • ‘Absence of structural stability does not deserve the name “hawkmoth effect”. It is not a form of model structure chaos analogous to the butterfly effect. It does not imply that model error destroys forecast skill faster than the chaos inherent in the real world attractor. And it is not ubiquitous in non-linear models. We should acknowledge that none of this is intrinsically newsworthy. But we believe it is worth clearing all of this up given some misleading claims that have been made in the philosophical literature: that the absence of structural stability is in any way analogous to a butterfly effect; that it (in anything like the normal cases) does something akin to what we see in Fig. 1; that it undermines the predictive capacity of nonlinear science; and that it undermines the capacity of the same to produce decision relevant probabilities.’

      The essence of the argument made here is that structural instability is not necessarily as ‘chaotic’ as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. I’m sure poor wee willie views it as a demonstration that deterministic weather and climate forecasts are not necessarily ‘doomed to failure’.

      • Thanks for this presentation, Chief!

        What is it supposed to support?

      • Precisely what it says poor wee willie.

      • Tim said a lot of things, Chief. Among them he declared having won the ensemble war.

        Are you sure you listened to it?

      • When Tim Palmer talks of ensembles these are not the CMIP6 opportunistic ensemble. What I’m sure of is that you don’t have a clue.

      • It must have been a while since you watched the video, Chief, for Tim does not mention climate projections at all. He does mention how ensemble forecasting saved us lots of money when Typhoon Haiyan hit, however.

        You might as well try to deflect the exchange at this point.

      • Here’s another one. You might learn something although that’s a low probability event.

      • Thanks, Chief!

        Too bad you’re not a betting man.

      • I stick to value investing – with the occasional blue sky stock. But if I were to bet it would be on you diverting from the mathematical nonlinearities common to both weather and climate models.

      • You’re a wise man, Chief, for Tim repeats his other talk for about nine minutes and then gives me the win around the eleventh by explaining the meteorological fallacy fairly well.

        Toyota seems to do well this year. I’d put it under my radar if I were you.

      • Toyota looks forward to a sales recovery having claimed to have solved the global chip shortage holding back other car makers. But 100 years of climate prediction is a bit ambitious even for Tim Palmer. Initialised probabilistic decadal forecast may be a bit more manageable.


        https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161
        ‘Figure 8. Schematic of ensemble prediction system on seasonal to decadal time scales based on figure 1, showing (a) the impact of model biases and (b) a changing climate. The uncertainty in the model forecasts arises from both initial condition uncertainty and model uncertainty.’

      • And you do understand that we are talking perturbed physics ensembles and not the opportunistic ensemble of CMIP6?

      • Not sure who’s that “we,” Chief, but Denizens already know you can decide to talk about whatever you fancy at any time and without notice.

        I am rather sold to the idea that there is no decisive answer to the question if model error and model uncertainty destroys forecast skill or predictability. This remains a quasi-empirical question that needs to be investigated on a case-by-case basis. And even for each case, as Tim’s presentations and paper suggests, scale changes the kind of uncertainty modellers have to tackle.

        You can try to bait me once again. See if I care.

      • Me, Tim Palmer, James McWilliams, Gerald Hurrell… and so on. Here’s a case. 1000’s of runs with small initial differences. True Lorenzian chaos as opposed to the structural instability discussed. And the scale Tim Palmer refers to relates to the ‘uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation’ – you might remember the Russian dolls in this context. Navier-Stokes is of course fractal – a continuum from his breath – the butterfly wings – to planetary waves. Models have a grid size or some 100km. Propagating error is inevitable.


        Click to access rowlands2012.pdf

        I wait with bated breath for your informed response. Or perhaps I shouldn’t hold my breath.

  13. John Thorogood

    Patrick:
    An excellent post. You have conclusively proved the old adage: “Those who can, do. Those who can’t teach.” In other words, normal active people have better things to do with their life after education; they get out into the world and do real, socially useful, practical stuff. Living in the real world where they have to take the rough with the smooth, they laugh at trivia like microaggressions and CRT. They make politically incorrect jokes and revel in their CO2 footprint. Here in the UK they definitely voted to leave the EU….

    • I prefer the observation of Thomas Sowell:
      “The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.”

      Thomas Sowell

      • Not only do their ideas not work, they haven’t had a new idea in 90 years.

        Complexity is not their forte. They think money is the solution to all problems. If they’ve spent trillions and there are still problems, it never occurs to them that perhaps money is not the solution. In their brains, the lack of a solution means we need to spend more trillions. That is why the Control Knob Theory is right up their alley, doesn’t require a lot of thought.

      • The fundamental problem with the left is the lack of appreciation of the costs of action. Every enterprise is a wager that the time and resources put into it will reap greater benefits.

        To clarify my above claim, the left places too much weight in the benefits as defined by effects to strengthen their cause (their community of like minded leftists.) This is a form of bias and stems from the left’s overall political tendency to assign individuals to a group in order to manage them. The opposite of this is the concept of rugged individualism, that fairness means a level playing field for all and any government intervention spoils that dynamic. Government non-intervention leaves the responsibility of social interventions to individuals and through private organizations. Receiving private assistance is accompanied by an implied moral obligation to use the assistance as a stepping stone rather than a permanent shelter. Throughout American history poor communities that mostly relied on assistance from private entities and did much better than those whom relied on federal assistance, whether it be native American’s on reservations or African Americans in urban settings. I have no citing for this and I wonder whether such a study would even be possible in today’s academic environment.

        It seems that any enterprise that conflicts with the growth of power of the left’s ideals, which is mainly growth of power, is going to be attacked as being rightwing.

        Why was the Wuhan lab leak possibility dismissed as rightwing conspiracy? Was it purely self-interested viral researchers concerned about the threat of discontinuing GOF experiments? There are many viral researchers that are against GOF, (thus the 2014 US moratorium/pause). Could it have been simply to contradict Trump? Senator Lyndsey Graham is openly asserting now that the virologists community’s pre-bunking of the lab leak theory changed the 2020 election by disarming the US from confronting China, an issue where Trump would be stronger than the alternative candidate, whom received millions of dollars from China through his addict son, Hunter. The Biden family corruption story was also covered up by the left and is still coming out.

        So the question arises: what is the cost-benefit analysis of the left’s agenda? What do we give up versus what do we gain?

      • Bill Fabrizio

        > “The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work.
        >Not only do their ideas not work, they haven’t had a new idea in 90 years.
        Complexity is not their forte.
        >The fundamental problem with the left is the lack of appreciation of the costs of action.

        Simply put, fundamentally the left doesn’t have a realistic view of human social psychology. They never did, as any political philosophy that is derived from a utopia idealizes human nature.

  14. UK-Weather Lass

    At the moment, in the battle between honesty and dishonesty at work, dishonesty is paying the higher wages and there, although I cannot claim any expertise in the subject, may lie the problem.

  15. Wow
    Really great post and much needed
    Muchas gracias

  16. The History of Academia and Politics: 100 Scientists Against Einstein

  17. “Since these are respondents who are
    in the YouGov system answering other
    surveys, there is no danger that they are
    self-selecting into the survey due to their
    interest in answering questions on
    academic issues”.

    Yep. No danger whatsoever. They are already self-selected by participating in the YouGov system. The study is rubbish.

  18. Hi Judith

    I get the impression that this is part of a larger effect,
    i.e. that since Facebook introduced its like button and twitter its share button we have been spiraling into cults with our own confirmation bias. Our social interactions are being ran by algorithms (scary as that sound) and following Marshall McLuhan’s theory that retribalization is driven by communication and a change in medium, expect this to continue.

    What we should be driving for is platforms that are decentralized to avoid monopolistic behaviours and knowledge monopolies from forming.

  19. Pingback: Death spiral of American academia – Watts Up With That?

  20. The phenomenon we are witnessing has been around for decades but in recent years it has been greatly amplified and directed by social media. The left has always had the burning need to change things, usually society. The change is always required urgently, the solution appears obvious (to the left) and is preferably enshrined in law. Sometimes such an approach causes more problems than it solves. The right tends not to notice the problem but reacts when it becomes necessary. Usually, the right has an open mind and considers several possible solutions.

    This difference in proactivity manifests itself everywhere. The left embrace ideological solutions. They are better at networking, they gain influential positions in decision making bodies. They are more tenacious, more ready to march, demonstrate, strike or use force to make their point or achieve their aim.

    Such qualities can be very beneficial; the left can get things done. But as in all complex societies, there needs to be checks and balances. There does not seem to be a compensating, counter-balancing mechanism on the right, so in the age of instant communication, the left are in control and the right are bystanders. This is a very serious situation for all. Even the left benefits from having a strong right, perhaps to save the former from its own excesses.

    This is of course, a simplified generalisation, but one can observe that the left dominate our universities and colleges, school teaching, the civil service, local councils, in fact most public services where employees are remunerated from the public purse. The BBC provides a useful case study. The Corporation has enjoyed considerable independence because politicians need to be seen to avoid having any influence on the impartial, national broadcaster. This has allowed the BBC to evolve into the left wing, climate alarmist organisation that we have today.

    How did this happen? The Corporation is bloated with senior executives who enjoyed private education. The rank and file tend to be arts graduates. Many former BBC journalists have written about the BBC culture. Executives seek new employees in their own image. Those who approved of Thatcher or Trump have no place in the BBC. The left leaning Guardian newspaper is the policy bible and Greenpeace and WWF are effectively the scientific advisors on climate change.

    The BBC is an organisation of clones. How can it reform itself? What does political neutrality look like if your political spectrum runs from centre-left to extreme left? Even experienced BBC presenters could not hide their personal distress and anguish when Leavers won the Brexit referendum or Trump won the presidency.

    The BBC probably cannot reform because it would mean sacking most of the staff. So, what does the future hold? Eventually the public will refuse to pay the compulsory charge. As a subscription service the Corporation will wither away. Until then, they will be driven by the need to change our lives. I have read that they are to make a film about ClimateGate. Just like their colleagues in academia who are keen to destroy particular statues, the BBC wishes to rewrite the history of ClimateGate

    We can therefore anticipate the social and political characteristics of the average BBC employee. No doubt they are pleasant, caring people. They will be very concerned about climate change and will probably sympathise with the woke initiatives of students. They will be shocked when at some stage the BBC reveals that climate change deniers hacked into the servers at a university in order to spread malicious lies about innocent scientists.
    The journalist, Christopher Booker, identified the problem as GroupThink: a study in self delusion, and wrote a book with that name. I tend to think left leaning people have characteristics which are readily amplified by social media platforms that give positive feedback.

    I agree very much with the excellent comments of Patrick Michaels, with just one exception. He sees an end to the problem which he calls the death spiral. I see no end in sight.

  21. The objective of the Climate Change Agenda is absolute control of world energy utilization. Period. Climate Emergency shutdowns are in the near future. Private use of trucks and autos monitored and eventually restricted. Fuel prices artificially elevated. Am I wearing a tin-foil hat? Maybe. We’ll see within the next 10 to 20 years won’t we?

  22. Pingback: Death spiral of American academia – Watts Up With That? | Blue Anon News

  23. Pingback: Death spiral of American academia – Climate- Science.press

  24. Michaels says, “Why viewing the planet as existentially imperiled is “left”, and seeing the climate as a modestly warming metastable system is “right” is a mystery, but the ensuing discrimination is a reality.”

    It’s pretty obvious why CAGW is a “left” issue. The core difference between right and left in the US is people on the “left” want government to have significant control over economic activity. People on the “right” believe government should have little control over economic activity. If man-made CO2 can be blamed as an existential threat, then there’s an argument for governmental control over energy production and use, which is a fundamental element of economic activity.

    What’s even more interesting is that the “left” attracts “moralists,” people who have a need to impose their view of right and wrong behavior (beyond violence and fraud) on others. It used to be the Church that was the best vehicle to follow this predilection. The Church has lost its power for that purpose, but government still retains that power. QED.

  25. The problem of intolerance and bias in academia is real and well understood by anyone who has ever come near academia. Academia is as dogmatic as any religion, with a caveat that Gods change now and then, kind of like the transformation of the Roman Empire into the Holy Roman Empire.

    Having said this, turning left wing swamp into a right wing swamp is not a solution. I do not think that Fox News is a salutary contribution to civilization, never mind things like Breitbart or Daily Caller. there is plenty of propaganda to go around.

    The problem with right wing whining is twofold. We went through so called Reagan/Thatcher revolution ,and look what we have to show for it. One, big, steaming, never ending economic and political crisis, which may still smoothly (or not) transition into another Great Depression and war. Fanaticism is bad, Right or Left. The second problem is that the Right is even more intolerant than the Left. Just look at present day Trumpevism and excommunications of heretics there.

    I am not sure what the solution is. Ideological balance is in the eyes of the beholder.

  26. In robust democracies we may argue for laws and tax regimes as we see fit – but not everything is up for grabs if we are holding out for economic stability and growth. Economic stability is best served with government at about 25% of GDP, price stability through management of interest rates and money supply, balanced government budgets, effective prudential oversight, effective and uncorrupted enforcement of fair law and a commitment to free and open trade. These are an essential to maintaining social progress in ways much more fundamental than race, gender or climate politics of academia. And that are neglected by both sides of broader US politics.

    e.g. https://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates

  27. The collapse continues:

    • Why let facts get in the way of a good narrative. Ever since the anti Asian racism charges became prominent, it never rung true. Instinctively something was out of sorts. In all stories of assaults we should never diminish the influence of mentally ill individuals, as well.

  28. Yet another event in that death spiral that confirms the death spiral hypothesis.

    https://wp.me/pTN8Y-7qw

  29. Geoff Sherrington

    Might one part of a better balance in the USA entail a new University or two sponsored by very wealthy conservatives? Similar procedures used bythe left to stack the staff could be used by the right to stack their staff. Anyone know of a candidate with whom to bounce the idea?
    Not me, nominally conservative but $$$ broke. Geoff S

  30. It’s a Death Spiral not just in American academia but in centralised power against individual freedom:

  31. Pingback: Patrick Michaels: Death spiral of American academia

  32. It would be nice to think wealthy individuals could respond by creating universities to compete with the current players to contest the veracity of their ideology and science. However, educational institutions take decades to establish and to build credible reputations. Stanford’s annual budget is ~$6.6B, Harvard’s is ~$4.4B. They have endowments of $30B and $45B, respectively. And, even if a few competing universities could be created, how would they crack the publication monopoly held by the current players, which is the gateway to credibility? While worth trying, I somehow doubt such a strategy would reverse the direction in which our country is being led.

    A significant limitation of colleges that support conservative political thinking is that they are religiously-based (Christian). Because religion and conservative political values are conjoined, the reach of those institutions is limited–and they tend not to have strong hard-science components, which is critical to reputation but very expensive to develop. One non-religiously affiliated college that upholds American values that might be worth expanding with significant investment is Hillsdale College in Michigan. It is firmly libertarian/ conservative, educating its students to understand the thinking behind our Founding and the Constitution (https://www.hillsdale.edu/). They do not have a strong hard-science program, so that could be an opportunity.

    The best way to change the political bent of universities in the US is to change the nature of the funding they receive. Most of the higher-ranked universities get a critical percent of their funding from the Federal government. I’m talking about research grants to faculty in all manner of disciplines. IF Congress and the White House were so inclined, they could impact the amount of funding and the nature of the work funded such that pressure would be brought to bear on universities to reduce faculty and to reduce faculty compensation in departments with strongly liberal agendas. Of course, that would require unprecedented intrusion by Congress into the workings of dozens (hundreds?) of Federal executive departments whose minions are protected by Civil Service regulations. So, actually, the tip of the spear in change is the Civil Service bureaucracy that prevents our massive Federal agencies from being responsive to the changing political interests of the citizenry.

    When will we citizens understand that it is the protection of the ~2,000,000 civilian Federal employees who are the ones who, in effect, create the “laws” (we call them “regulations” to disguise their true significance) that affect our personal and economic lives, that is the true threat to our political system? It is these bureaucrats who decide how our universities evolve because they are the ones deciding what and who gets funded and who does not. Until the elected branches of government can more easily and quickly make changes in how and what the executive branch bureaucracies do, we will be at the mercy of whatever ideology has overtaken their untouchable managers and personnel. Consider the EPA and Department of Education as two prime examples.

    • UK-Weather Lass

      Thank you for an excellent comment, Meisha,

      The Federal issues you write about are echoed in the UK where government, both local and national, outsource large contracts effectively meaning that many would be tenderers are deterred by the scale of the risks involved in meeting the requirements of those contracts. The effects of this can be observed as a reduction of the chance that outsourcing will yield realistic VFM. Without better competition from those who would work harder to get results too many companies are living on easy money.

  33. Here is a perfect example of the quality and tone of current American academic research. (This is not a joke article. It is an earnest and authentic high profile journal publication.)

    https://www.rt.com/usa/526149-medical-journal-whiteness-malignant/

    On Having Whiteness
    Donald Moss
    Journal of the American Psycoanalytical Association
    First published May 27, 2021
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00030651211008507
    Abstract:
    Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has – a malignant, parasite-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and socio-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites – to redice their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure.

    • Many read that abstract and thought- dude could have doubled his grant request if he’d simply added, at the beginning of the first sentence, “We study the effect of climate change on… ”
      They’ll remind him at the next faculty Senate meeting, where they approve next year’s tuition increase.

    • An example, or one you found and are trying to claim represents one of many?

      If it’s an example, show several more. Also, critique the abstract in view of the fact that the net worth of a typical white family is nearly ten times greater than that of a typical Black family. Of black incarceration rates versus whites.

      • Rob Starkey

        Blacks are incarcerated more because they have been legally convicted of committing crimes at a higher rate. Why are black people convicted more? That’s debated

      • joe - the non economist

        David – black families that have adopted the “white ” / western civilization culture have comparable net worth as worth as white families. Black families and individuals that have adopted the black subperformance culture such as single parent families do have far lower net worth. This delta is primarily of the culture which each individual adopts.

        The higher incarceration rates are a function of the higher rates of crimes committed by blacks – again a product of the culture that large sub groups of the black population has adopted.

        Hint – it isnt white supremecy.

      • “….have been legally convicted of committing crimes at a higher rate…”

        By a jury of their peers in deep blue cities where the police chief is a liberal political appointee and the prosecutor and judges are often elected liberal Democrats.

      • Mallen Baker’s video on slavery history:

        makes it clear that the single predominant factor causing injustice and disadvantage to blacks in the USA and Europe was the commercially driven slave trade. This might sound obvious, but the real history shows that there was and is nothing intrinsic in “white” people programming them to oppress black peoples. Indeed there was peaceful respectful and tolerant living together of black Africans in England for example long before the slave trade. There were even some black aristocrats during this time. Spain even had an inverted experience of oppression involving blacks, in which the North African Moors were the conquering and ruling class in Spain for several centuries.

        The slave trade was the real evil impelled by an irresistible self-sustaining momentum and inertia. This created the brutalised and economically marginalised black population is North America. What drove it was the vast American capitalistic market. This is the same scenario by which today, Mexico is being torn apart by violence due to the huge financial power of narcotics barons supplying America’s insatiable demand for narcotic drugs. And as the fentanyl episode makes clear, supposedly respectable pharma firms have no qualms about grabbing a slice of the action for themselves.

        If there is a single nexus of the historic and current roots of racial oppression in recent times it is the overwhelmingly size, power and amoral nature of the North American market.

      • Phil Salmon: If there is a single nexus of the historic and current roots of racial oppression in recent times it is the overwhelmingly size, power and amoral nature of the North American market.

        Is there a single nexus?

        I don’t think so. I think that of greater importance are the long-term (enduring?) records of slavery in the African societies, Asian societies, and the overlapping Islamic societies. Our problems, that is America’s problems, need to be solved, or at least improved; but racial prejudice is nearly universal among humans, and black men are safer in the US than in most African nations.

      • David Appell

        and black men are safer in the US than in most African nations.

        This itself is a racist statement. Congratulations.

      • So its “racist” to point out that black people are safer in one country rather than another.
        Seems “racism” now just means anything that mentions race in any way at all. Climate Etc is now racist, the dictionary is racist, the word “racism” is itself racist.
        Welcome to Wokeland.

      • Like Thomas Sowell said “ Racism is like catsup, it can be used on

        anything “

        The lack of historical context that some on the left have no idea what the word means. Or that it is everywhere. Absurd.
        When a garden variety Conservative sources Bill Maher, it’s pretty scary.

      • Maher further stated, “And yet there is a recurrent theme on the far left that things have never been worse. Kevin Hart expressed a view many hold when he told The New York Times, ‘You’re witnessing white power and white privilege at an all-time high.’ This is one of the big problems with wokeness, that what you say doesn’t have to make sense or jive with the facts or ever be challenged, lest the challenge itself be conflated with racism. But saying white power and privilege is at an all-time high is just ridiculous.

      • David Appell

        So its “racist” to point out that black people are safer in one country rather than another.

        Yes, because it’s irrelevant to the discussion and because the underlying message is clearly, ‘Americans blacks shouldn’t complain because they could have it worse.’ That’s racist.

      • So really you confirm then that merely mentioning race is racist.
        And thereby admit admit to be a racist yourself, for what that’s worth. Congratulations.
        Thanks to people like you, “racism” has become a meaningless filler word deployed in the style of the endless use of “kind of”, “like”, “basically” et al. You’re like racist, dude.

  34. Saw it written and I saw it say
    Pink moon is on its way
    And none of you stand so tall
    Pink moon gonna get ye all
    And it’s a pink moon

    / I saw it written and I saw it say
    Pink moon is on its way
    And none of you stand so tall
    Pink moon gonna get ye all
    And it’s a pink moon
    Yes, a pink moon /

  35. And the collapse continues. Just what do you think the logical outcome of this kind of educational system is?

  36. “Death spiral of American academia”

    Translation: Independent journals won’t publish my papers or hire me, so academia is endlessly corrupt. It’s got to be them, since it can’t be me. I’m right and everyone else is wrong. Isn’t this obvious??

    • Jesus,David, try arguing from facts.

      UVa offered me a lifetime position. I left because I was tired of it, because I realized how corrupt everything had become. Hence my essay.

      PJM

      • David Appell

        Pat, if you want to get published, write good papers and submit to journals with double blind peer review. Don’t blame your frustrations on corruption — write better papers or accept that your science is wrong. Present at real conferences and real universities. Fight for your ideas. Stop hiding behind op-eds and blog posts and think tanks.

    • Curious George

      David, do you recall what happened to one Judith Curry at Georgia Tech, thanks to you?

    • “Independent journals”

      Oh, you mean the state-funded ones tasked with Consensus enforcement, and off-limits to dissent.

  37. Death spiral of American academia – Truth or consequences: global warming consensus thinking and the decline of public debate – Collapse of the fake consensus on Covid-19 origins – How epidemiologists try to fool us with flawed statistical practices – etc. etc.

    A conspiracy to repress the truths championed by the few who have resisted consensus thinking?

  38. Anyone who doesn’t believe how serious I was needs to read today’s news out of Yale. Chilling, ominous, an evil portent:

    https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/yale-law-school-goes-to-hell-in-a-handbasket/

    Sorry for the horrific news

    PJM

    • Worse than Jerry Falwell Jr at Liberty University?

    • “Yale Law Descends Into Commie Hell With Ostracism and Harassment of Two Beloved Old-School Liberal Professors”

      Very Serious stuff indeed!

    • Sex, lies and suicide | Salon.com
      https://www.salon.com/2000/01/19/hillsdale
      Jan 19, 2000 · George Roche III resigned as president of conservative Hillsdale College in Michigan after accusations of a quasi-incestuous relationship with his daughter….

      • I’m surprised david feels Hillsdale College is Ivy League competition.

      • David Appell

        I thought conservative schools like Hillsdale and Liberty U are sure they’re better than the Ivy League….

      • On the other hand, it is Ivy Leaguers who brought about this disaster of an incompetent government.

      • Stop. You’re making Brett Kavanaugh sad.

      • David Appell

        Gary, Biden went to the Univ of Delaware and Syracuse Law. Trump went to Penn in the Ivy League.

      • David: The only president who flunked third grade, or any grade. Graduated at the bottom of his law school class. Likable, but not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

      • Trump supporters as anti-elites is prolly the most humorous thing going in politics.

      • mesocyclone

        “Trump supporters as anti-elites is prolly the most humorous thing going in politics. ”

        Hardly. Trump is not part of the modern elite – he’s rich, but he’s not part of the “in” crowd. Today’s modern elite are left wing, “woke” and generally obnoxious, as they fly around in private jets while creating policies to impoverish us ordinary folk.

        Trump supporters tend to be anti-elite because the elite today are anti-American-values.

      • Joshua: No doubt some are, but without question the elites hate him. He connected with the common man, for whom the elites have no use. I do not regret voting for him twice, but in 2024 my preference would be DeSantis/Gabbard.

      • Trump-inspired death threats are terrorizing election workers

        Late on the night of April 24, the wife of Georgia’s top election official got a chilling text message: “You and your family will be killed very slowly.”

        A week earlier, Tricia Raffensperger, wife of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, had received another anonymous text: “We plan for the death of you and your family every day.”

        That followed an April 5 text warning. A family member, the texter told her, was “going to have a very unfortunate incident.”

        … but cancel culture

      • David Appell

        mesocyclone wrote:
        Trump supporters tend to be anti-elite because the elite today are anti-American-values.

        Many think just the opposite.

      • > Trump is not part of the modern elite

        Born standing on 3rd base with a silver spoon in his mouth. Ripped off workers and contributed heavily to politicians to leverage his vast inherited wealth for decades. Gamed the tax system and bragged about it. Partied with stars and politicians in his private plane.

        Words mean what you want them to mean in a way that suits your purposes at the moment, I guess

        But even more humorous tham that, and what was actually my point, Trump has been embraced by many, many members of the elite – because they see alliance with Trump as a means to enhance their elite status. Not all of course, but his presidency was a long series of elite-enhancement and dismissal of needs of non-eltes. Tax breaks for the rich mixed with pulling resources out of a social safety net, a total failure to deliver on promises of improved health insurance, a failure to live up to promises to end off-shoring and tepid results in manufacturing despite constant claims of vast improvement. A full embrace of the system whereby corporate lobbyists enable the rich and powerful to exercise outsized influence on every aspect governance despite promises to “drain the swamp.” A complete failure to move up to promises to rebuild American infrastructure.

        Whether Trump himself is a member of the elite is actually beside the point even if it’s ridiculous to say that he isn’t. The point and the source of the honor is that he ran such a good con and convinced so many people that his administration was in any meaningful way “anti-elite.”
        .

      • Trump is anti-liberal, and since some liberals are members of the elite, if you’re inclined to want to think that he’s anti-elite and if you like selective reasoning then you can say can say he’s anti-elite because he’s anti- those liberals who are also elite. But he’s also anti- those liberals who aren’t members of the elite.

        He’s also anti any Republicans who don’t support him, and since some of the Republicans who don’t support him or members of the elite then if you like selective reasoning you can say he’s anti elite. But he’s also anti- those Republicans who AREN’T members of the elite and who don’t support him. And he also warmly embraces any Republicans who ATE members of the elite as long as they support him.

        So if you like going along with the con job you can certainly find evidence to believe his claims that he’s anti-elite because you can find examples of liberals and Republicans who are elite that he attacks. But if you aren’t into selected reasoning you can also see that he attacks many people who aren’t members of the elite and he embraces many people who are members of the elite.

      • David Appell

        I’m not here to argue about Biden and Trump. Have fun.

    • Amy Chua from Yale responds to imaginary allegations:

      .

  39. Pat, David, and Willard should have no difficulty in finding a publisher if they get together to pen :

    Foucault: Our Role In His Downfall

  40. / I never felt magic crazy as this
    I never saw moons knew the meaning of the sea
    I never held emotion in the palm of my hand
    Or felt sweet breezes in the top of a tree
    But now you’re here
    Brighten my northern sky. /

    • Do you know the ethereal voice and music of Alexandra Elene MacLean Denny (Sandy Denny), who died at 31 in 1978? Anyone sending me this picture must! If not, look her up, start with “Fotheringay” (home recording) and then go to “Who Knows Where the Time Goes” (which she wrote at 19). Her talent will change your life.

      • She’s in my dvd documentary collection, so I’m aware of her work. Music is such a lovely thing which touches the soul. It’s a shame that both artists died so young. It’s a common thread on those who are bit different, yet so talented and special.

      • Richard Greene

        Good choice of songs
        I prefer the Eva Cassidy version, over those by Sandy Denny and Judy Collins — just personal taste — this song was released six years after Eva died of cancer at age 33 — maybe singing this song brings bad luck … but it is a great song.
        Richard Greene
        audiophile since 1965

  41. A simple case of it all being in in the funding.
    Government has a huge part in funding universities. Hence they tend to produce studies that justify governmental glorification and expansion.
    eg climate alarmism.

  42. Should not many of these posts be removed because they advertise a particular political point of view that has nothing to do with the problems of modern universities? I find that many of them are offensive.

    • Bill Fabrizio

      Lowell … One of the problems with modern universities, as the article points out, is the lack of diverse opinions. This results in reduced open debate, and a hostile climate for some. That is political, although some may argue otherwise. Dr. Curry does a fantastic job of maintaining an open debate forum, but there is moderation although you may not see it. There’s much passion here, along with a treasure trove of information supplied by her and the participants. If you’ve been here before, you already know this. If not, stick around and you may be surprised.

    • Politics has everything to do with modern universities. Politics of the left more specifically, which is overwhelming in control of academe, shuts down debate instead of encouraging open discourse. This is nothing new. But it is much more overt today than decades ago.

      What is offensive is that our tax dollars at public universities are being used to push a specific political agenda.

    • I meant to say that many of the posts in this thread promoted the poster’s political position without making any connection in their posts to the problems in Universities. It is obvious that the promotion of extreme political dogma rather than rational thought has made almost all modern Universities poisonous.

  43. ‘Climate is changing, forced out of the range of the last million years by levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not seen in Earth’s atmosphere for a very long time.’ NAS, 2013, Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises

    A respect for free speech is the essential underpinning of democracy. On or off campus. A commitment to democracy and the rule of law is the basis of a free and peaceful society. Something many Americans seem to have forgotten. What conservatives have forgotten is that you first need to win the politics. For that you need policies and people with broad electoral appeal. You need to be looking at policies and people for 2024 – and not waste time defending a failed president who at this stage is just a distraction from the main game.

    Climate is one of the things you need to address realistically and pragmatically in a way that the majority of risk averse people find acceptable. The dominant scientific paradigm of warming from CO2 emissions set against a backdrop of abruptly changing climate is not changing anytime soon. Climate is not ‘metastable’ whatever that means.

  44. One molecule CO2 cannot warm 2500 molecules of air, no matter what physics laws are applied.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  45. FollowTheAnts

    Data:

    Percentage of academics in total global population:

    0.000000005 %

    Think about that.

    Street view:

    I’m a pracademic. My profession is mapping and helping to change complex organizations. Did revolving door research at many major universities. Also helped re-structure major global corporations and gov’t institutions.

    So what?

    Assertion concerning the “organizationalt structure” of the ‘education industry”….based largely on US and EU data:

    Significant number of research-oriented academics are terrible teachers.

    They get tenure based on numbers of “citations” – which is an inbred social process.

    People who can’t teach – help others who can’t teach – get tenured academic slots by cerifying “citations”

    School administrations begin to realize this, and need to have good teachers to keep revenue- paying student populations growing…

    …so administrators shunt high-citation non-teachers onto *accreditation committees*….(where they can’t bore students in classes)….

    ….who roam the land “certifying” similar high-citation faculty into tenured positions

    Over the years non-practitioner, non-teachers begin to dominate the “peer-reviewed publications industry”

    Which may mean there may be significant bias is the “evidence” – of “evidence-based science”…

    ….that is cited by non-elected government administrators of the regulation-making industry…..

    ….who make thousands of conflicting regulations…..

    …..that provide jobs to the extremely profitable “lawyer industry”…that thrives no matter which political parties get elected.

    Follow the bouncing ball…

    • “My profession is mapping and helping to change complex organizations.” FTA

      Any suggestions on how to solve the problem you’ve outlined?

      • “School administrations begin to realize this, and need to have good teachers to keep revenue- paying student populations growing…”

        The only thing I can think of is to have a rule that *all* academics must teach students on a weekly basis. Those that are less inspiring/confident can do more research-oriented work but will still need to have the skills to hold a classroom of young challenging intellectuals.

        Or is this just pie-in-the-sky dreamland?

  46. FollowTheAnts

    Yes, Great question. I do have field-tested suggestions.

    All organizations have structures that stimulate or suppress their dynamic learning. There are 2 parts to all organizations.

    1- A formal “COMMAND” network where each human “node” has a specified number of links to other “nodes”

    2 – Informal “EMERGENT” networks where human nodes wander around bumping into each other “by accident”

    Both are present all the time. One is not better than the other. Their dynamic adjustment speed determines which networks thrive and die.

    Sustainable organizations dynamically re-balance themselves quickly via their strategic principles.

    – Companies like GM fail because they do too much “central command” which inhibits the creative exploration of “emergent” employees who confront the real world hourly.

    – Companies like Toyota thrive, because their basic “system learning” happens “just in time” at the finger tips of their workers – who are trained to change maladaptive behaviors in real time – with their fingers on the machines. These Just-in-Time network principles adapt to market and legal challenges faster and better than the aloof GM central command dominated network.

    (Aside: this is why we know a priori that the IPCC’s current “consensus” management will fail, because its “consensus” command structure seeks to “smush” nearly “infinite” climate data into a narrow, single-point temperature metric.)

    The US/EU academic citation “peer review” system mentioned above is a classic GM, GE, ATT, etc “central-command dominant” network – where only tenured, peer reviewed “experts” are allowed to “certify” publications.

    Notice that many if not most scientific “breakthrough” have happened with a large degree of accidental discovery. See Thomas Edison. How may fibers did he test for the light bulb?

    So:

    The best schools do NOT lock people into classrooms listening to packaged “certified” lectures.

    They are dominated by what Toyota would call “Gemba Walks” where managers and workers all get out of the office and wander the plants, dealers, and customer environments….

    ….seeking to capture the kind of “intuitive” data needed for innovation….and to corrode bad central management policies…

    Engineering and medical schools are the best “Anglo” examples of real-world learning.

    In Germany , the apprentice system is far more powerful than theoretical engineering education.

    Therefore:

    If schools stopped paying and tenuring faculty according to narrow abstract data – like the number of citations on articles that have been narrowed down in scope, to increase the likelihood of “publication”/…..

    …..and had faculty, students, and just regular people form “Gemba” teams to travel the world’s networks….

    ….this would do wonders to improve not just “science” but the effective APPLICATION of “science” to challenges like industrial pollution.

    For example. Colleagues and I have brought executives, faculty, students, and just regular people – on trips around the world where these more diverse “non-expert” teams come face to face with the multi-disciplinary realities of science and industry.

    If you take such a group to the salars of LATAM where lithium is mined – they will “grok” (Stranger in Strange Land) the social, financial, and ENVIRONMENTAL complexities of “electric vehicles” and “green” solar and wind systems being advocated by “experts” back in their offices.

    If you take such a group to the ports in Asia where the US/EU are dumping millions of tons of e-waste….they will “grok” how un-clean many electronic “clean” climate “solutions” are.

    The point is not to argue about who is right (see discussion above this).

    The point is to experience the world until you feel productively “stupid”

    See article “The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research”

    https://journals.biologists.com/jcs/article/121/11/1771/30038/The-importance-of-stupidity-in-scientific-research

    “Getting stupid” is when real science – and true science-based solutions appear outside of narrow “peer approved” publications.

    Learning is about learning new things.

    Not about “proving” some abstracted factoid.

    Proven facts are very important

    But getting them into sustainable action – with high value for all users – is what Edison did

    And why we need much more messy field work and experience across the “narrow job slots” of modern society.

    Hope that helped.

  47. FollowTheAnts

    Adding to my comment above. One of the articles Judith cited this week relates to trees and nitrogen.

    This field study would be excellent teaching material to demonstrate how Command and Emergent networks apply to science.

    The trees and water form a dynamic (“emergent”) network where trees interact with local environment to re-shape ecosystems in ways not yet discovered.

    This branch of science has a “command” system of past research with data on behavior of water and nutrients PER SQUARE UNIT OF LAND.

    The article Judith cites on the orchard research – is an example where scientists – at the Gemba – are sorting out “surprises” ….

    ….that will improve both the “central command” statistical system….and the “emergent” new ways to measure how orchard-water ecosystems relate to global “climate”

    That orchard research is a Toyota-like “Gemba Walk”

    • Is it possible that the Emergent networks could extend to outside those formally within a system? Is there room for the home-schooled, unconventional, enthusiastic outsider to make a contribution to the foundations of science?

      Can a Gemba Walk consider the outsiders, after time has reduced their numbers to a manageable amount that could warrant fruitful investigation?

  48. There is a death spiral for academia, the media, primary education, publishing, Federal Government Departments like the FBI, CIA and higher level of Military.

    Note, not media mistakes, media lies, media manufactured false narratives.
    My Top 10 media lies: Goodwin
    https://nypost.com/2021/06/12/my-top-10-media-lies-goodwin/

  49. Alan, Yes. Absolutely.

    In fact the actual state of “emergence” in organizational networks – is that many of the “internal” nodes interact in real time with “external” nodes – to the extent that it is impossible to separate the two nodes.

    Adaptive networks recognize this.

    Toyota’s Just-in-Time system moves seamlessly across hundreds of “outside” supplier companies in – EMERGENT – real time.

    TOYOTA HAS A CENTRAL COMMAND STRATEGY BASED ON CYCLE TIME OF THE WHOLE NETWORK

    The World buys a Toyota approximately every 5 minutes.

    There are 10,000 parts in a Toyota car.

    If every on of those parts takes exactly 5 minutes to make – then the whole network of 10,000 parts flowing toward a final car IS IN BALANCE.

    Think about that. The “central command theory” is: every 5 minutes a part should move up the line to where it meets the next part.

    BUT TOYOTA ALSO KNOWS SURPRISES CAN HAPPEN ANY TIME AT THOUSANDS OF PLACES IN ITS BROADER NETWORK

    Toyota employees only work in 15% of the total supply chain.

    The Toyota internal “Command” network ends with the last employee in the Toyota assembly plant.

    The other 85% of the Toyota system is at outside suppliers beyond the Toyota “direct command” system.

    SO TOYOTA USES A FEW SIMPLE “COMMAND” PRINCIPLES – TO HELP THE THOUSANDS OF WORKERS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE COMPANY COORDINATE THE SYSTEM – WITH VERY FEW CENTRAL RULES.

    A PRIMARY PRINCIPLE is that any worker – inside or outside – the company can stop the production line at once if they detect an error.

    INSIDE TOYOTA

    Individual workers can stop the line if they discover an – emergent – error.

    If a Toyota worker finds she is taking longer than the target 5 minutes to fix a problem…

    ….that worker IS EMPOWERED BY “COMMAND” RULES TO STOP THE LINE to fix a bad part

    That one stoppage is transmitted in 5 minutes to the next place in the line – whose worker stops their work….and so on…and so on…

    …through all the workers INSIDE Toyota.

    That means the Toyota “command’ rules…. “command workers to EMERGENTLY stop the line to fix things when a local error happens.

    Think about that.

    The Strategic Central Commandments of Toyota…..”command” workers to “emergently” fix errors – locally – when they happen.

    And if that takes longer than 5 minutes – then the rest of the internal Toyota “command” system will start to slow down….”emergently”….depending on local conditions.

    So the larger Toyota system will begin to help the place where the slowdown occurred – in real time.

    No consultants or “outside experts” needed.

    TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION: CAN EMERGENCE INSIDE AN ORGANIZATION MOVE OUTSIDE ITS WALLS?

    Let’s continue with Toyota example:

    If the TOYOTA INTERNAL line stoppage takes longer than 5 minutes to fix, then the line stoppage ripples OUT INTO THE SUPPLIERS in near real time

    If a worker in a Toyota SUPPLIER PLANT makes a part, puts it on the conveyer belt….that worker expects the part to be taken up the line in 5 minutes

    If that part is STILL there 5 minutes later, the suppler worker STOPS MAKING MORE PARTS and waits until the part she made 5 minutes ago moves on.

    THIS REQUIRES NO CENTRAL COMMAND FROM TOYOTA SCHEDULING DEPARTMENT.

    IT HAPPENS – EMERGENTLY – IN REAL TIME – USING SIMPLE RULES THAT ALL WORKERS KNOW INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE TOYOTA PLANT.

    “If your part has not been taken in 5 minutes, stop what you are doing – and wait until that part has been taken up the line.”

    Think about this. Deeply.

    The COMMAND network inside Toyota has a GENERAL rule “make a part every 5 minutes”.

    But if an EMERGENT SURPRISE happens, then the “Command” system halts.

    In 5 minutes.

    And stays halted until the problem – somewhere up the line – is fixed – up the line.

    So the bottom line is – companies who have small command networks – and train and trust thousands of workers to EMERGENTLY improve the natural STRATEGIC FLOW of the total system….

    …are the most sustainable companies in the world….on all dimensions of “sustainability”

    HERE’S AN EXAMPLE OF COMMAND AND EMERGENCE AT WORK IN SCIENCE

    20 years ago scientists said they “cracked the human genome”

    They asserted they had documented the “central command” structure of the human genome.

    And the rest was “JUNK DNA”

    That bold assertion – with aNobel prize awarded for it – was quickly proven false….
    ….because most of science is constant emergent discovery.

    Now we know that “JUNK DNA” is really part of a – boundless – EMERGENT network of “stuff” that is simultaneously “in” and “out” of the “human organism”.

    EMERGENT NETWORK BEHAVIOR IS ALSO CENTRAL TO THE INTERNET

    Google, Amazon, Apple networks are clear demonstrations that there are no firm boundaries between “command” and “emergent” …..or “inside” or “outside” the organization

    Try this at home. Try to divide Google into its “Command” and “Emergent” networks

    NOW – HERE’S A BRAIN TEASER FOR YOU

    Can we apply this command-emergent network perspective closer to the subject of this blog?

    Is there a central command organization that is trying to command a large network beyond its own membership to do some task?

    Is this task likely to induce many unpredictable changes among the networks outside the central command organization?

    Is is possible this central command task will result in unpredictable – emergent – DISCOVERIES among the population outside the central organization?

    Are central commanders in this process using single-number forecasts to determine what success will mean for the emergent processes outside this central organization?

    If any of the above are true – are there ways that the command-emergence network frameworks of the “Toyota Way” might be helpful to everyone involved.

    So – yes -both command and emergent network processes extend beyond the bounds of all organizations.

    AND – TRUE SCIENCE IS LARGELY ABOUT EMERGENT DISCOVERIES THAT PROVE PREVIOUS COMMAND MODELS WRONG

    • “Can we apply this command-emergent network perspective closer to the subject of this blog?”

      Well, the subject of this blog is the climate controversy. I’ve been told in the past when entering a physics prize essay competition, feeling hopeful that I had a good chance for the ‘outsider prize’, that because the host of the competition was a famous mathematician with his own ideas, that if your entry didn’t match his own, then you didn’t get a look in. That was around 15 years ago and I’ve developed the ideas since.

      Incidentally, the winner of the ‘outsider prize’ was a well written essay about imagining time-travelling back to the time of Sir Isaac Newton and having a discussion.

      Mine was a poorly written, short essay which was trying to convey the concept of a spinning helical structure being able to model a radiated graviton which induces a force of attraction. Other competitors said that they liked what I’d done but wanted more (we marked each others before it went to the panel of judges).

      I was challenging the very basics, the very foundations of physics (which was the whole point of the competition) yet the winner of the outsiders was essentially endorsing Einstein-like time-travel and worshipping Newton’s gravity theory.

      I’ve concluded that there’s two types of matter within the Earth, which would invalidate Newton’s simplistic equation.

      In short, why not consider gravity as a strong force that emanates from a compact exotic core but which only interacts with known matter very weakly?

      It’s a simple solution, yet solves everything.

      • I’ve only just looked back at the Foundations in Physics website and seen that I entered in 2010 and 2012. Only now do I recognise the famous names amongst the other entries. I had no idea at the time. I could have done so much better with what I know now. I’ll consider entering again next year and weave a narrative to fit the essay title.

        https://fqxi.org/community/essay/rules

      • Curious George

        “A strong force that emanates from a compact exotic core but which only interacts with known matter very weakly”.

        It has been known as the God hypothesis. It’s a simple solution, yet solves everything.

      • Curious George – the theories of high theism presented by Stephen C Meyer & Michael Kaku (amongst others) do *not* consider the unique idea that I’m putting forward.

  50. “Everything likes to live where it will age the most slowly, and gravity pulls it there.”
    ― Kip S. Thorne, The Science of Interstellar

    Science exists as analysis and synthesis. Analysis is founded on empiricism.

    e.g. https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

    Synthesis creates a new view of the world through combining tested results. Such as Newton’s laws of motion or Einstein’s general relativity. These then suggest validating empirical observations. Space/time curvature and time and mass dilation replace force and clockwork time in Newton’s worldview. But general relativity reduces to the laws of motion at low velocities and both have been validated many times with increasingly precise observations.

    There remain a few anomalies. The universe exploded into existence some a13.7 billion years ago as a hot and dense gas that expanded while matter coalesced into all the recognisable forms. Is the universe ‘lumpier’ than expected? Why is mysterious ‘dark matter’ required to explain the rate of expansion? Does the still unobserved graviton explain gravity? Can these anomalies be explained by mass creating time itself and greater masses causing time dilation? The latter is the entropic hypothesis of time and space in which masses coalesce in a chaotic state space geometry. It views the universe as a nonlinear dynamical system. In which chaos brings balance to the force.


    Source: ‘Sabine Hossenfelder & Timothy Palmer – Rethinking Superdeterminism’

    Anomalies require explanations from which new scientific paradigms emerge. This entropic hypothesis has at least respectable antecedents. Analogous with climate science in that there are hundreds of years of meticulous science leading to a scientific paradigm. Greenhouse gas emissions bias the planet to a warmer state with associated feedbacks all of which operate in a setting of change in a nonlinear dynamical system. Handwaving sans scientific analysis by a very few contrarians who hold themselves to be custodians of the true science doesn’t change that.

  51. Bill Fabrizio

    I thought this interesting as it relates somewhat to the topic at hand. Note the definition of ‘struggle’ in the piece. Not very different from the extreme elements on campus … both students and some faculty.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/beijing-protests-a-lab-leak-too-much-11623598397?st=rar79024ste62ru&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

    Enjoy!

  52. Top tip for anyone in the UK ➡️ GBnews is superb, full of high standard familiar faces of journalism which is a refreshing change to mainstream media groupthink.

    It’s free and I’ve also downloaded the app for my smartphone.

    • / Forget your lust for the rich man’s gold
      All that you need is in your soul
      And you can do this oh babe if you try
      All that I want for you my son is to be satisfied /

  53. Math is apolitical?
    I’m sorry, but 2+2=5 for very large values of “2”
    You may now apologize.

    • Very good, jimmww; you may now proceed to the back of the non rascist line to await further instruction.

    • Ha, quite so.
      All numbers are equal but some are more equal than others.

      • Yes, mega, many are not aware that “2” is a variable.

      • JIMMWW: Realize you’re having a bit of fun, but this: A variable in computation or analysis, but not variable by definition. ~2 would be variable by definition.

      • But, Gary, the “marks” identify the text as figurative, alleged, and interpretable.

      • jimww: Concede your point.

      • jungletrunks

        jimmww, It appears many people round up that number using a different interpretation:

        https://clarion.causeaction.com/2021/02/13/why-math-is-racist/

        Based on this thread I thought the link was what you were referencing, at least that’s how it added up:)

      • jungletrunks says “It appears many people round up that number using a different interpretation”.
        It is ‘The Mathematics of Obfuscation’, and also getting the answer you aim for. In a wider form, the use of Illogic in Logic. Its not only ‘moving the goal posts’ but even getting your adversary tangled in the net.
        It is why one needs to go back to basics rather that accepting the dogma ‘as-is’.

      • ” and also getting the answer you aim for.” – mm

        That instantly reminded me of Einstein’s work which reached the required number for the anomalous precession of Mercury – he knew the number beforehand but the story gets reported as a “prediction”.

      • jungletrunks

        melitamegalithic: “The Mathematics of Obfuscation”

        Yes, putting it mildly, just one area among many other academic obfuscations — from grade school to climate physics, and everything in between; the rationale for it sees no reason to stop with academics.

    • What is all this nonsense? I had a quick look at the source of the mats is racist sentiment. The language is problematic. A few years ago there was a discussion on how expressing maths problems in language disadvantaged boys and advantaged girls. In the same way the intention is to make math more accessible to all – not to reinvent number theory.

      • jungletrunks

        RIE “What is all this nonsense?”

        Good question, it’s insane. I can’t believe the real intent has anything to do with math, or race; it’s more likely about programming people how to dismiss logic, if I had to guess. A brainwashing construct.

      • What’s equally insane is imagining that it is about getting the wrong answer no matter how math is taught. Their argument is that the way math is taught reinforces ‘white supremacy’ – teaching math in ways more accessible to girls and other cultures is not a bad idea. But if like jiminy you can’t tell the difference between a log and an exponential function – it seems that math teaching has failed grumpy old contrarians as well.

      • There are many loose ends with maths. Those ends are used to obfuscate, entangle others, and pure damned extrapolated lies. Examples:
        Engineering tenders: I learned not to trust anyone, and go through the numbers with a fine tooth-comb. The mistakes are plenty, and one can tell that some are intentional. Numbers can be ‘cooked’ to get the desired fudge.

        A bank began selling bonds. I was shown a curve rising ever so high, in the words of the seller, extrapolated to the land of riches. I saw it leading to the edge of a cliff from where brokers throw dead cats and gullible investors. We did not part as friends and I did not part with my money when the bubble burst.

        More than a century ago, someone – “Newcomb had worked out the Earth’s orbital plane theoretically for three different dates (years 1600, 1850 and 2100) which he then used to derive a formula for the motion of the orbital plane and using the value of the obliquity at year 1850 as a basis.” calculated the oscillations of the earth’s axis and used the three dates in curve fitting to produce a polynomial. From which polynomial the obliquity measurements of the past diverged noticeably. That bothered a few, but was swept under the carpet.

  54. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #458 – Watts Up With That?

  55. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #458 – Climate- Science.press

  56. FollowTheAnts

    Responding to a question above: “Can we apply the command/emergence framework to something closer to the subject of this blog?”

    Absolutely

    The dominant theme here is models of “the climate”

    Models are tiny Command structures

    The actual “climate” is a massive, still largely undefined emergent reality that is changing all the time around the skeletons of the models.

    And most of the “climate” science discussions point toward the massively “emergent” Universe – and long streams of energy and matter that are far from static.

    And even more important – the puny “command” systems some folks want to pit against the massively emergent “climate” – like wind farms – are subordinated to highly unpredictable – emergent – human behavior- and emergent unknown derivative effects of massive lithium mines, etc.

    The IPPC documents are tiny command summaries of massively emergent natural and human systems.

    And if the history of science is any indication – it will emerge that most central-command hypotheses of today – agreed upon by only a few thousand scientists – will be subordinated to the massively emergent unknowns “out there” yet to be discovered.

  57. ‘He surveys the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada using different markers for liberal and conservative views. Among others, in the U.S. he used Trump-versus-Biden support, while for the U.K. he centered upon “leave” or “remain” in the controversy over membership in the European Union.’

    I’m not sure the UK academics’ position on Leave or Remain is particularly ‘political’, it was solely based on the self-interest of there being large amounts of EU grant money in ‘Framework Programmes’.

    Leaving the EU meant that a lot of scientists would have to find a new gravy train, so it wasn’t that surprising that they were all vigorous remainers.

    They were into putting Number One first, they had much less time to discuss whether the EU was equally good for the UK fishing sector, UK energy policy, etc etc.

    The fact is that leaving the EU benefits some and disadvantages others in the short term.

    IF you talk to New Zealanders about the effect of the UK joining the EEC in the 1970s and the effect it had on UK-New Zealand Trade, you will discover that they suffered short-term challenges but forged new long-term relationships with Asia.

    If UK scientists suddenly discovered that there were billions of research programme funds available to be applied for in the Middle East, Africa, the US, China, India and Russia as a result of Brexit (so far as I know, there isn’t yet!), they wouldn’t be half as anti-Brexit as they currently are.

    • rtj1211: “They were into putting Number One first, they had much less time to discuss whether the EU was equally good for the UK fishing sector, UK energy policy”.

      It makes complete sense. Your comments also fundamentally speak to the Achilles heel of socialism, any form of central authority. The appeal of communism/socialism is its promise that central authority will provide equality, fairness; the elimination of greed, etc., but for these outcomes to work requires that humanity be mostly good. The fact of the matter is that greed is an innate characteristic in humans. Socialism/communism doesn’t allow an escape from innate human failings, despite the advertisements; these political philosophies amplify human failings. All forms of central authority philosophy breed the worst kind of greed and excesses by nature that they favor the elites who have authority. These individuals will insulate their greed and power utilizing any type of coercion, or contrivance necessary; we see this today in the march towards ever increasing government power. The sycophants who service the elites have their own power, and their own sycophants. Eventually massive protectionist scaffolding grips society, required to support the edifice. It’s worse than the worst kind of individual crony capitalist who can be reeled in with laws and separation of power protections.

      It’s human nature to want a piece of the action. Many individuals seek power, or money, and these individuals will often sacrifice the good of society to protect their turf, in any form of governance structure. But central authority eliminates separation of powers, it’s the ultimate insulator for greed and power; it fuels human vice. It’s much easier to govern rogue individuals not playing by the rules in a free and open society with laws that protect the individual, than to expect that central authority is going to create a better society that eliminates greed. An impossibility after central authority burns through the low hanging fruit of promises and pandering for its authority, history proves that this is when it gets really ugly. I might add, there is no successful EU socialist model to be seen yet, the history is too short; first eliminate the massive consumerism of the U.S. that helps fuel the current model, including the defensive umbrella the U.S. provides, then let’s see how long China stays out of the EU, for starters.

    • rtj1211: “large amounts of EU grant money in ‘Framework Programmes’ … If UK scientists suddenly discovered that there were billions of research programme funds available”

      Yes, money. An interesting paper relating to the origins of scientific consensus, specifically relating to IPCC here. It’s a fascinating read that pulls historical context together as it relates to consensus, money, and politics. The essay is unwitting in that it fully explains the genesis of the problem we so often discuss here at CE:

      Click to access JIOSfinal_5_0.pdf


      The Evolution of International Cooperation in Climate Science
      The Evolution of International Cooperation in Climate Science by Spencer R. Weart, American Institute of Physics International regimes in the scientific sphere have been surprisingly successful in arriving at
      journal-iostudies.org

      Excerpt:
      “Fostering transnational scientific links became an explicit policy for many of the world’s democratic governments, not least the United States. It was not just that gathering knowledge gave a handy excuse for creating international organizations. Beyond that, the ideals and methods of scientists, their open communication, and their reliance on objective facts and consensus rather than command would reinforce the ideals and methods of democracy. As political scientist Clark Miller (2001, 171, passim) has explained, American foreign policy-makers believed the scientific enterprise was “intertwined with the pursuit of a free, stable, and prosperous world order. … It meant advancing the causes of universal truth and world peace (e.g., Hamblin 2002, 14)”

      • jungletrunks

        A couple more excerpts:
        “…a small band of scientists got together to push international cooperation to a higher level in all areas of geophysics. They aimed to coordinate their data gathering and—no less important—to persuade their governments to spend an extra billion or so dollars on research. The result was the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957–58….IGY with its unprecedented funding was energized by a mixture of altruistic hopes and hard practical goals. Scientists expected in the first place to advance their collective knowledge and their individual careers. The government officials, who supplied the money, while not indifferent to pure scientific discovery, expected the new knowledge would have civilian and military applications….It is a moot question whether, in a more tranquil world, governments would have spent so much to learn about seawater and air around the globe. For whatever motives, the result was a coordinated effort involving several thousand scientists from sixty-seven nations (Needell, 2000, ch. 11; Greenaway, 1996, ch. 12).”

  58. Pingback: China’s Climate Con, Part Two | silvercityburro

  59. Best rebuttal of CRT and Academia I’ve seen.

  60. When Great Leader Kim attended Columbia for advanced brainwashing techniques, he got all these smiles from his classmates after regaling them about his Papa’s 11 holes in one during his very first round of golf. There are no bounds on the gullibility of the left. One good BS story deserves another.

    https://babylonbee.com/news/kim-jong-un-attends-ivy-league-university-to-learn-new-brainwashing-techniques

    • Papa Impressing his military aids who have been given the day off from holding their omnipresent note pads in honor of the occasion of the 11 holes in one.

      https://content-api-news.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/AW/s/content.api.news/v3/images/bin/a607ac97dda2e30d6d0287ef1d02b9a1?width=768

      • Retweeting a link entitled “Twitter Shuts Down Entire Network To Slow Spread Of Negative Biden News” – it never happened –Trump said: “Wow, this has never been done in history. This includes his really bad interview last night. Why is Twitter doing this. Bringing more attention to Sleepy Joe & Big T.”

        Twitter did not do that.

        The story was the from the Babylon Bee, a satirical news site. The motto on the Bee’s Twitter page says it all: “Fake news you can trust.”

      • CKid(a) was so brainwashed by Trump, he predicted a Trump landslide victory.

        Because crowd sizes.

      • No, I linked to pictures of Progressives’ home boy telling his lackeys about his 11 holes in one and his progeny wowing the dupes at Columbia. No humor this morning? Note that I said one good BS story deserves another. Liberals are notorious for their lack of humor. You’ve just reinforced that stereotype. Or did I touch a nerve about your heroes? You need to lighten up. Or is the dread of 2024 weighing on the psyche.

      • > Liberals are notorious for their lack of humor.

        Good point.

        Trevor Noah. Steven Colbert. John Stewart. Just about any comedian you can name.

        All humorless.

        Ranks up there with your predicting political future by crowd size.

      • It’s really amazing how in comment after comment, “denizens” see categorical differences between “liberals” and themselves in all manner of attributes, with “liberals” being comparatively inferior in each and every one (well, every positive one but miles ahead in every negative one), and it never even occurs to them that there might be some confirmation bias going on.

        Even susceptibility to confirmation bias.

      • It just hit me. Since you probably get your news from the MSM, AKA, the Dem Party Talking Organ, you might not know about the factual story because of their censorship practices. A NK defector from the tyrannical regime in her country, has called the woke and Uber political correctness at Columbia “nuts”. She compared the restrictions on free speech and critical thinking there to those in her home country. Is it any wonder some call America a free range insane asylum?

        I think back to the real heroes of the left, like Hubert Humphrey, and have to believe they would be pushing for increased spending for straight jackets.

      • I expected that more from Stephen A Anderson than you, Kid:

        You’d have to have been inhuman not to be moved. But – and you’re going to hear a lot of “buts” – was the story she told of her life in North Korea accurate? The more speeches and interviews I read, watch and hear Park give, the more I become aware of serious inconsistencies in her story that suggest it wasn’t. Whether this matters is up to the reader to decide, but my concern is if someone with such a high profile twists their story to fit the narrative we have come to expect from North Korean defectors, our perspective of the country could become dangerously skewed. We need to have a full and truthful picture of life in North Korea if we are to help those living under its abysmally cruel regime and those who try to flee.

        https://thediplomat.com/2014/12/the-strange-tale-of-yeonmi-park/

        When are you moving to Sierra Leone, the Truest Land of the Freeest?

      • Waiting on the UHaul.

      • “When are you moving to Sierra Leone, the Truest Land of the Freeest?”

        Right after you move to North Korea- the communitarian country that would never allow corporations to emit CO2.
        Everybody can play spot the squirrel!

      • If I don’t move there, will you stop punching hippies, Kid?

      • jungletrunks

        Sure, Will, let’s undermine and question Yeonmi Park, dismiss this messengers rhetoric as being an unreliable source, that her claims are unsupportable; the truth about NK makes her claims absurd. It’s widely known that NK is paradise, specifically for workers, probably for hippies too. There’s no reason to believe stories about Kim Jong-un’s dislike of executing his political adversaries with rifles, that he prefers using anti aircraft weapons to execute antagonists with instead (those convicted of the crime of raising their eyebrows, questioning Kim’s judgment). There’s no evidence for this or any other outrageous story describing the NK regimes draconian treatment of its citizens. There’s certainly no evidence to suggest that China has worked to support and protect NK’s paradise.

        What’s the hippy allure to all this? I can’t say; though Jane Fonda has been seen gleefully embracing communist anti aircraft weapons; there’s a bewildering question for what the hippie standard for huggable really is.

      • Trunks,

        The “woke” meme is pure crap, the NK association is overly silly, and connecting the two only reinforces the idea that the woke meme is pure red baiting. That you and your fellow Freedom Fighters fall for a YT celebrity scam is only par for the Denizen course.

        You’re not showing any care for the NK folks. You’re just using them as some shield for more reactionary politics. That’d be funny if it were not infuriatingly sad.

      • jungletrunks

        Yes understood, Will, freedom is so overrated.

        Americans should follow the lead of another hippie, Sean Penn, and his hug fest smoochery with Venezuela’s Chavez (RIP). Printing money worked well for the Chavez regime; we need more paradise like those NK/Venezuela created. Inflation seems to work, Beijing Biden has seen the light.

      • > Freedom is so overrated.

        See for yourself:

        Under British rule India’s share of world manufacturing exports fell from 27 per cent to 2 per cent as East India employees made colossal fortunes. The marquess of Salisbury, secretary of state for India in the 1870s, remarked that “India is to be bled”, and by the end of the 19th century it was Britain’s biggest source of revenue.

        https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/inglorious-empire-what-the-british-did-to-india-1.2981299

        Amartya Sen worked on freedom. For some reason Freedom Fighters never mention him.

      • jungletrunks

        Yes, now please opine on why the standard of living for the average communist/socialist should be emulated using the many success stories trail blazed from the quiver of Robin Hood. Abuses can be found in any system, Will. Capitalism has increased the standard of living for more people than any other system. Even China’s.

      • Your itch, Trunks. You scratch it.

        Meanwhile, another cookie:

        Millions of people living in the war zones have also been displaced by war. The US post-9/11 wars have forcibly displaced at least 37 million people in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria.This number exceeds the total displaced by every war since 1900, except World War II.

        The US could have pursued several nonmilitary alternatives to holding accountable those responsible for perpetrating the 9/11 attacks. These alternatives would have been far less costly in human lives. For example, the US invasion of Iraq has turned the country into a laboratory in which militant groups such as Islamic State have been able to hone their techniques of recruitment and violence. The formation of jihadi groups now spreading throughout the region counts among the many human costs of that war.

        https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human

      • jungletrunks

        I refuse your transference of itch, Will.

      • Your “now please opine” follows your own itch, Trunks.

        More cookies:

        Some of the largest insurance firms in the US – New York Life, AIG and Aetna – sold policies that insured slave owners would be compensated if the slaves they owned were injured or killed.

        https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49476247

      • The level of self-victimization from snowflake “conservatives” is actually to the point where they’re comparing their plight to that of North Korean dissidents.

        It’s hard to imagine a more extreme level of level of entitlement and lack of proportion.

        Next they’ll be comparing someone expecting them to war a mask indoors in close quarters during a pandemic to Jews being burned alive in ov…

        Oh….Wait….

      • mesocyclone

        “The level of self-victimization from snowflake “conservatives” is actually to the point where they’re comparing their plight to that of North Korean dissidents.

        It’s hard to imagine a more extreme level of level of entitlement and lack of proportion.”

        Joshua, stop projecting. It’s absurd.

      • meso –

        I can understand complaining about bias. I don’t heoown to think that “conservatives” face a particularly unlevel playing field, but they aren’t alone in seeing themselves as maltreated victims.

        But comparing conditions in the US to conditions in NoKo, in any way, is absurd.

      • Marjorie Taylor Greene Keeps Comparing COVID to Holocaust Amid Backlash, Likens Vaccine Passports to ‘Gold Star’

        https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-keeps-comparing-covid-holocaust-amid-backlash-likens-vaccine-passports-1594538

      • Talk about absurd.

        An influential republican politician, a “conservative” likens her plight to Jews beinf exterminated.

        We have an entire party fully convinced that a rich and powerful man, who trolls the media 24/7, is a victim who’s been treated unfairly and had an election stolen from him.

        Project that, meso.

      • Joshua: “Marjorie Taylor Greene Keeps Comparing COVID to Holocaust Amid Backlash, Likens Vaccine Passports to ‘Gold Star’” and “Project that, meso.”

        Greene says some pretty silly things. But, she also apologizes for such things when corrected, unlike the rabidly antisemitic members of the Democratic congressional “squad” (Ilhan Omar), and the silly members (AOC).

        Rabbi Dov Fischer has written an excellent article illuminating the differences, and refusing to condemn Greene: https://spectator.org/marjorie-taylor-greene-ilhan-omar-anti-semitism/

        For every outrageous or ignorant statement from Greene, one could publish a book of the outrageous statements from Omar or the silly from AOC.

        The Democratic Party owns the anti-semites in the political sphere these days, and kowtows to them – examples including Omar, Al Sharpton who incited a fatal anti-semitic riot, and Louis Farrakhan, whose antisemitic views should not need any introduction, since they are loud and frequent.

        So while anti-semitism is in the far fringe on the right (and Fischer does not believe Green is an anti-semite, just uninformed), it is accommodated by the left.

  61. You satisfy itches with faux scratches that don’t remedy your itch, Will; my question asks for sensible elaboration in an effort to help you finally resolve this itch; a soothing salve, if you will.

    • > faux scratches

      Around here we’d say “fausses scratches.” We conjugate our anglicisms.

      Are these faux, Trunks:

      It is estimated that the total profits obtained from the use of forced labour in the private economy worldwide amount to US$150 billion per year. A majority of the profits are generated in Asia, with two-thirds in this region originating from forced sexual exploitation.

      Annual profits per victim are highest in the developed economies (US$34,800 per capita), followed by countries in the Middle East (US$15,000 per capita), and lowest in the Asia-Pacific region (US$5,000 per capita) and in Africa (US$3,900 per capita).

      Click to access wcms_243027.pdf

  62. The politicization of Academia and Science has literally killed people. “Scientists” adjusted their positions because they didn’t want to support Trump’s position. The Politicization of Science isn’t new, and it can and is happening here in the US.

    https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/scientist-waited-legitimize-lab-leak-162344951.html

    • co2islife: The politicization of Academia and Science has literally killed people.

      Which people? Names, please.

      “Scientists” adjusted their positions because they didn’t want to support Trump’s position.

      Which scientists? Again, names.

      • Very very very simple. Because “Science” diverted attention away from China, the source of the Virus, and used it to attack President Trump, it was far far more difficult to execute an agenda to address the Crisis. China prevented people from getting to the truth with the help of the US Media and Academia. They claimed that the Virus was SARS-like so they addressed it in a totally inappropriate way. Nursing Homes and the Vulnerable should have been protected with our initial efforts. Instead, the Media and Academics had Trump building ventilators that went unused and Hospital Ships sitting off NYC unused. Just look at what Cuomo did and got an Emmy for it.

      • David I find it interesting that you challenge me instead of addressing the issue. You have a media and academics that lied for political reasons and you have no problem with that, but instead have a problem with me calling it to people’s attention. BTW, your question is answered in the graphic. Didn’t you bother to read it before you responded? Here are plenty of more examples.

        Your evidence that my claims are wrong? Chirp chirp.

      • Curious George

        After you. Provide names of four million people killed by a fossil fuel pollution. I would settle for one whose death certificate says so.

      • David, my other responses are stuck in moderation, but I agree with Curious George. Show me the lives lost from atmospheric CO2. I can show you crop yield exploding, poverty and famine declining, but nowhere do I see life getting worse. Anyway, this quote from Dr Renfield and the interview covers how lives were lost. Not having accurate information resulted in bad decisions being made. The first known case from the Chinese lab was Feb 2019. There is no Animal Zero or evidence that the virus went from bat to an animal and then to human. The distraction allowed China time to clean up the mess, and now we will most likely never know the truth, but what we do know is that it didn’t likely come from the Wet Market, and did likely start in the lab. Nancy Pelosi was telling people to go to the Chinatown festival, Fauci was telling people not to wear masks, and Cuomo was forcing nursing homes to take sick patients.

      • David Appell

        co2life: so no names of anyone killed as your claimed, no names of anybody who adjusted their positions as you claimed.

        qed

      • David Appell

        co2 – no one knows what happened in the Chinese lab, neither do you, and it will likely be a long time until we do. I don’t see how it’s relevant. What is relevant is that Trump completely botched the pandemic, lied about its consequences and wanted us all to drink Hydroxychloroquine. LOL

      • “What is relevant is that Trump completely botched the pandemic, lied about its consequences and wanted us all to drink Hydroxychloroquine. LOL”

        A find example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trump did not completely botch the pandemic, and in fact I think he did as well as Hillary would have or Biden. He made mistakes, as would anyone. And let’s not forget the Democratic leaders telling people to go celebrate in Chinatown after Trump – who was of course evil in their minds – pointed out that the disease was from China and tried to shut down travel from there. And let’s not forget that as the pandemic was ripening, Democratic leaders were focused on impeaching him on drummed up, bogus charges, while he had a task force up and running and actually paying attention to the pandemic.

        Trump did not want people to drink HCQ, nor inject bleach, or the other stories spread by the fabulist of the legacy media.

        Trump’s mistakes were in messaging – mostly later on, but the public health establishment was worse. Trump’s mistake later on was to suggest that masks didn’t work and that the disease was being conquered. The “masks don’t work” was a direct result of botched message by Fauci and others. The “being conquered” was true.

        Thanks to Trump, vast quantities of vaccine were about to be delivered in record time, with an excellent (for an emergency) distribution network run by the military – true logistics experts. No, Trump didn’t invent the vaccines, nor claim to. But Operation Warp Speed focused on those things that achievers, as opposed to bureaucrats understand: logistics and solving problems by unconventional means, including throwing money at risky approaches. It also produced lots of ventilators, but it was hardly Trump’s fault that they turned out not to be needed.

        But look at public health… FDA obstructed test development early on when it was most needed. So did CDC, along with botching its own test and requiring all tests to be done in its labs.

        Public health ignored clear evidence early on (for those of us reading preprints) that the disease was primarily spread as an airborne (not gravity affected) aerosol. And yet, to this day, they are ignoring ventilation, one of the main ways to deal with aerial spread of a disease. It’s only been a couple of weeks since WHO even admitted airborne spread. At the same time, public health were pushing the 6 foot rule, which is fine for fomites, but not for aerosols, and masks greatly solve the fomites problem anyway.

        Once they reversed themselves on the mask lie, they failed to provide adequate information for people to get effective masks, even for a time suggesting simple cloth masks some of which are worse than no masks at all (because they increase aerosolization of emissions from the mask wearer). They never prioritized mask acquisition, production or distribution – they just left us to the really unreliable Amazon and other outlets for getting masks – good luck on quality.

        The public health and scientific establishment in general insisted on gold plated scientific evidence before acting – random controlled trials while people were dying. While that is good science, it is terrible for fighting epidemics – you don’t have time! Science let us down, so it is surprising that “believe the science” didn’t resonate with everyone?

        I’m all for good science. But I know how it actually works, and science is not fighting an epidemic, it is an often slow, sometimes error prone process that over time converges on the truth. It is also not a consensus process, although too many scientists, bureaucrats in white coats as a result of our funding and citation counting world, think it is.

        What we didn’t have time for was good science. We did have time for scientists and clinicians to provide their best suggestions and guesstimates, based on their expertise. That is using science in an engineering sense, as opposed to the scientific method. And it is very important, more important in the crisis of an epidemic than “good science.”

        No, Trump didn’t botch it. It was the entrenched bureaucrats, and the scientists stuck in their habitual ways of thinking, who made the most consequential errors.

      • David Appell

        LOL except for the few hundred thousand deaths due to Trump’s incompetence, and many more ill and disabled. No LOL there.

  63. This is truly Prophetic: They were written long before today.

  64. Geoff Sherrington

    If there have been any academics writing in the last 40 comments above, can I please thank them for a gentle confirmation of the thesis that there is a death spiral in American academia. Geoff S

  65. UK-Weather Lass

    Thank goodness there are some political commentators asking for the investigations into SARS-CoV-2 to be turned back to at least 2002 when the horror story first appeared to move into the dangerous territory of coronavirus manipulation. Perhaps we will discover just how culpable we have all been in the steady descent to the depths of obfuscation we now find the world in and get some decency back into science, academia, politics and the media.

  66. Academia fears Trump Supporters and Carbon more than China.

    Anything that weakens the US and Strengthens our enemies

    • At what point does this kind of comments turn Judy’s into a pure radicalisation website?

      Kids at home: don’t take this commenter too seriously. He’s just spamming all the Climate websites. Don’t pay attention to his drive-bys.

      • Williard, this thread is about the Death Spiral of Academia. I’ve simply provided irrefutable evidence to support that death spiral and added historical documents to try to explain the why. Feel free to refute anything I claim. Gaslighting and ad hominin attacks don’t count at rebuttals.

      • Judith’s as a radicalisation website. That’s a word that can mean whatever you want it to mean. Used by our intelligence agencies duplicating the practices any number of authoritarian countries. I think the NASA’s comments about climate change have radicalized many people. How else can we explain all the support for electric cars, wind and solar? The hate of natural gas and pipelines? It’s not rational.

      • David Appell

        Ragnaar: How else can we explain all the support for electric cars, wind and solar? The hate of natural gas and pipelines? It’s not rational.

        Because carbon emissions are rapidly changing the climate and ocean with potentially serious consequences.

        LOL.

      • Can you define rapid change as you just used it? I doubt it. Do you fear your ability to adapt to climate change? I doubt it. Do you feel you are helping poor young women in Africa by putting solar panels on your roof instead of buying them access to the Internet?

      • David Appell Says: Because carbon emissions are rapidly changing the climate and ocean with potentially serious consequences.

        If you control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor, and isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures, you get no warming. CO2 at these levels provides very very little marginal W/m^2 with an increase.
        This evidence won’t go away, and David and the alarmists have no explanation.

        The Temp Charts have multiple Dog-Legs. CO2 won’t cause Dog-legs in temperature. This evidence won’t go away, and David and the alarmists have no explanation.

        David claims that CO2 causes the warming, but if something is understood it can be modeled. The climate models fail miserably trying to establish the CO2 and Temp relationship.

        Guess what? many locations actually have FALLING sea levels, but you will never hear about them in the press.

        This is what you will hear in the press.

  67. Cancellation of gender specific vocabulary, prevention of free speech, removal of statues that do not meet woke approval, these are just some of the articles in newspapers today. When I add in some of the more bizarre climate and energy proposals it really does seem as though the world has gone mad. How often have I heard that expression?

    It made me pause to think. I do not remember anything like this in the last 50 years. I’ve never read about such widespread madness in our history. It is clearly a product of social media. We know that social media platforms are designed to amplify and give positive feedback. Basically, they reinforce the beliefs and prejudices of the users by bombarding the user with like minded and more extreme articles and images. Some people spend many hours a day looking at this stuff.

    Most young people are very impressionable and idealistic. Many left wing people are emotionally attached to ideological concepts. Could it be that too much exposure of vulnerable people to social media “brainwashing” can trigger a form of mental illness? As with groupthink, enough people with the disorder will convince the others that they are normal and those who do not believe are the enemy. The disbelievers are a threat, they need to be silenced and punished. This does fit well with some of the experiences common in climate science.

    That is not to say that University climate related funding is real and tangible and all the explanation needed to account for the harsh treatment of those who question the science. But such pressures are certainly additive and cumulative stress levels do contribute to the onset of mental disorders.
    We already know that mental illness is a fast growing problem and that health professionals are alarmed at the increase in recent years. Young people especially, are prone to depression, eating disorders, self harm and even suicide. We know that the climate scare stories deliberately aimed at children have a seriously damaging impact.

    The next time you think that the world has gone mad, consider this: perhaps it has.

    • Peter …This piece may be interesting for you. The elephant in the room that’s not explored is the disembodied neurosis. Enjoy.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-shutdowns-and-masks-suit-the-elite-11624038950?st=4carunbwuyd9cs6&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

    • “Cancellation of gender specific vocabulary, prevention of free speech, removal of statues that do not meet woke approval, these are just some of the articles in newspapers today. When I add in some of the more bizarre climate and energy proposals it really does seem as though the world has gone mad. How often have I heard that expression?

      It made me pause to think. I do not remember anything like this in the last 50 years. I’ve never read about such widespread madness in our history. It is clearly a product of social media.”

      Yes, it is a form of madness – a “moral panic” and crowd mentality, driven by ideologues.

      That we face insanity, especially on the left, is best demonstrated with the adoption of radical transgender ideas by the media, academia and many on the left. It is heretical today to believe that people who “transition” are in any way different from those whose biology put them in that gender. Hence, the strong fight by leftists (who are the most subject to this stuff) to allow transgender “men” to participate in female sports competitions.

      In terminology, “birthing people” is used to imply that both (any?) gender can have children. “Men” are to offered cervical exams.

      The use of gender neutral pronouns going against normal language use is striking, especially in gendered languages: “latinx” – a neologism designed to avoid the inherent gender labeling in Latin based languages.

      I saw a great example of this nonsense in the English language in a local news article yesterday: “”One person, …, has been pronounced dead. They were later described as a 56-year-old man, but the department did not release their identity. ”

      This sort of dangerous nonsense does not come from social media, it comes from academia. But you are right that it (and silliness on the right, too) is amplified by social media or the Internet in general.

      The availability of alternate sources of news and information through the web is also significant. Those of us on the right can choose, if we wish, to avoid the constant lecturing and propagandizing that is disguised as “news” in the legacy media, but that also means that we can end up choosing equally unreliable and biased sources. Anti-vaxxers can read only information supporting their views. COVID19 deniers, ditto. And on and on…

      I don’t know if our civilization can survive this. Certainly our strategic adversaries, especially China and Russia, are looking at this as a great weakening trend, unmatched since at least the late 1970s, and are laughing at our silliness and the damage it is doing. And in terms of its impact on society, not just foreign affairs, I have seen nothing like this in terms of both madness and impact in my long lifetime.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        meso …

        >This sort of dangerous nonsense does not come from social media, it comes from academia. But you are right that it (and silliness on the right, too) is amplified by social media or the Internet in general.

        I think you’re right that the ‘nonsense’ doesn’t necessarily come from social media. And also you’re right that the nonsense is ‘amplified’ via social media. And here’s how: people can say anything they like on the internet, but more importantly, they can say it anyway they choose. If I’m in front of you I can’t say things in a manner that might get me a punch in the nose, or worse. Not unless that is what I want to happen, which means I’m looking for a fight, which means I’m violent. But on the web we can be as nasty as we like with none of the ’embodied’ consequences. This ability to not be confronted physically, body to body, human to human, is why the web attracts so many … neurotic … people. They can vent their issues without ever having to discuss/debate as humans have for … ever. They’re shielded. As evidence, look at the commentators on this blog. I highly doubt that they would use the same tone/inferences if they stood toe-to-toe with the other person. But eventually even a coward becomes bold when after repeated outbursts online, with no embodied consequences, they take it to the physical realm. These are the people who we’ll call ‘yellers’. They don’t discuss, they can’t discuss, because they’ve become used to unchecked bad behavior.

        >I don’t know if our civilization can survive this.

        Me neither. Because eventually the yellers will be confronted. Physically. And I don’t look forward to that.

  68. Hear it from someone that has suffered from “equity.” This woman does the best job highlighting the dangers of the Academic Death Spiral I’ve seen.
    600k people died fighting to empower Kim Il Sung and the Communists. Does anyone think they fought for a worthy cause? Progressives today do and want to repeat that mistake.

    The common denominator is almost all these Tyrants? Socialism or Comnumism.

  69. I have just spent a few moments browsing the connection between woke and mental disorder. It seems that many of those who consider themselves to be woke are concerned about the effect it has on their mental health.

    It is deeply concerning that so many in academia – the people who teach our kids – are so so stuffed full of crazy ideas. Judging from some of the insane views of several hundred Offord Dons, there is a real concern that your offspring could enter Oxford as a clever child and come out as a lunatic.

  70. Another term would be academic Fascisim.

  71. The Peril of Politicizing Science

    Today’s censorship does not stop at purging the scientific vocabulary of the names of scientists who “crossed the line” or fail the ideological litmus tests of the Elect.(11) In some schools,(33,34) physics classes no longer teach “Newton’s Laws”, but “the three fundamental laws of physics”. Why was Newton canceled? Because he was white, and the new ideology(10,12,15) calls for “decentering whiteness” and “decolonizing” the curriculum. A comment in Nature(35) calls for replacing the accepted technical term “quantum supremacy” by “quantum advantage”. The authors regard the English word “supremacy” as “violent” and equate its usage with promoting racism and colonialism. They also warn us about “damage” inflicted by using such terms as “conquest”. I assume “divide-and-conquer” will have to go too. Remarkably, this Soviet-style ghost-chasing gains traction. In partnership with their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion taskforce, the Information and Technology Services Department of the University of Michigan set out to purge the language within the university and without (by imposing restrictions on university vendors) from such hurtful and racist terms as “picnic”, “brown bag lunch”, “black-and-white thinking”, “master password”, “dummy variable”, “disabled system”, “grandfathered account”, “strawman argument”, and “long time no see”.(36) “The list is not exhaustive and will continue to grow”, warns the memo. Indeed, new words are canceled every day—I just learned that the word “normal” will no longer be used on Dove soap packaging because “it makes most people feel excluded”(37) (emphasis mine; see Figure 3).

    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c01475

    Death Spiral is apt. It’s like a South Park episode. Everyone just sits around and calls each other racists.
    I saw an educational show that covered Nero. I don’t think he fiddled while Rome burned. But it would be a good one show up at a Ben Shapiro protest as Nero playing a fiddle.

    • I totally agree. This madness is everywhere. Renaming scientific laws is madness, as is discovering “racism” or “oppression” in every day words.

      It shows that we have a bunch of people who are true snowflakes, melting at the slightest imagined hint of outrage, and a bunch of others who think that they are benefiting people by treating them as true snowflakes.

      Of course, the lack of critical thinking skills is evident – and the “Critical” studies are good demonstrations of Orwellian inversion of word meaning.

    • I just learned that the word “normal” will no longer be used on Dove soap packaging because “it makes most people feel excluded”

      The free market at work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s