by Judith Curry
In which wicked scientists are the good guys.
Activism by climate scientists has been the topic of numerous prior blog posts at Climate Etc. Such activism is generally focused on eliminating fossil fuels. This post presents a new framing for the activism issue. While many scientists prefer to remain in the ivory tower, others desire to engage in the messiness of politics and policy making. Why most scientists reject admonitions to “stay in their lane,” there are more and less useful ways for scientists to engage with politics.
Simpleton climate scientists
I’m defining ‘simpleton climate scientists’ to be academics, mostly in disciplines that are far afield from the core discipline of climate dynamics, who think that both the climate problem and its solutions are simple. Their preferred modes of activism are twitter rants, demonstrations and increasingly civil disobedience.
The issue of simpleton scientists was brought to the forefront last week by a publication in Nature Climate Change entitled Civil disobedience by scientists helps press for urgent climate action. The authors are faculty members in the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Cardiff:
- Stuart Capstick, psychologist
- Aaron Thierry, social scientist
- Emily Cox, psychologist
- Oscar Berglund, policy studies (U. of Bristol)
- Steve Westlake, psychologist
- Julia Steinberger, geography (U. of Lausanne)
The Nature article is behind paywall, but a Guardian article interviews the authors. It is clear that this is not just a scholarly article on civil disobedience. The quote that really popped out for me was by Berglund:
“We have a kind of what we call epistemic authority here: people listen to what we are saying, as scientists, and it becomes a way of showing howserious the situation is, that we see ourselves forced to go to these lengths.”
Since when do psychologists have epistemic authority to speak on climate change, its impacts and relevant policies?
Inside Climate News has another choice quote from the actual paper:
“Civil disobedience by scientists has the potential to cut through the myriad complexities and confusion surrounding the climate crisis.”
Ya think? Is this all it takes?
Also cited in this article is a statement from Peter Kalmus:
Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, agrees. In April, Kalmus was arrested for locking himself to the front door of a JPMorgan Chase bank branch and has since urged other scientists to join him in protest, saying it’s their duty as experts to convey the weight of their findings to the public and convince elected officials to take proper recourse.
“For the sake of our children, for the sake of the future of humanity,” Kalmus said, “you have a responsibility to do everything you can to get that information out there.”
Exactly how does civil disobedience get meaningful information out there? These scientists seem to be taking their cues from Michael Mann’s book for children entitled The Tantrum That Saved the World
Further:
Kalmus told me that he’s “disappointed” that, so far, fewer scientists than he had hoped have joined in his call to action, but he sees Monday’s article as a positive sign and believes more researchers will join the movement—especially as extreme weather and other consequences of global warming accelerate in scope and severity.
Have any of these climate scientists actually read the IPCC AR6?
So why haven’t more climate scientists joined this call to action? Maybe because they find this kind of behavior embarrassing and counterproductive.
More credible approaches to climate activism
Jim Hansen was probably the first high-profile climate activist. Has anyone ever heard Hansen claim “epistemic authority” to speak publicly on climate change? Of course not. Hansen doesn’t need to claim such authority – he has it. Hansen has worked assiduously to communicate with public. He has done the hard work to understand the economics and politics of carbon pricing and also nuclear power. He has worked closely with policy makers, most famously with Al Gore. Have some of his actions been over-the-top? Yes. Whether or not you agree with Hansen, it is undeniable that he has been effective in the political and policy arenas. Hansen is now in his 80’s, it would be interesting for him to write an essay that reflects on his activism, what worked and what didn’t, any general or specific regrets, and recommendations for current activists.
An interesting essay on this topic was written recently by Rick Pancost, entitled Climate Scientist Activism. The entire essay is well worth reading, here are some quotes:
I am not sure what sort of activism will be most effective to bring about transformative change. I certainly cannot speak to where you will be most effective in your activism. Those who do have political influence – real influence – should recognise what a rare commodity that is; they should neither casually discard it nor should they waste it. The climate movement must be a thriving mosaic of approaches, with each leveraging the successes of the others to increase cultural, popular or political capital and drive a Just Transformation.
We must find what activism is most effective, is most genuine, for each of us – but be self-critical when doing so. Some of us DO need to engage governments, some of us must be IN government. But let us not be complicit in our own deception. After all, engaging politicians is difficult but activism is hard. You sacrifice more than your time, but also your reputation, job prospects, even your freedom. Sometimes the logical choice is the right choice; sometimes it is just the easy choice.
But you do have to make a choice. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. We cannot be the vizier to the king as well as the court jester. We cannot participate in civil disobedience and still serve on government advisory boards.
Activist scientists must also be humble and remember that we are not experts on what is effective. We did not know what would be effective when we allowed ourselves to be bound by others´ rules of engagement, when we allowed ourselves to be captured by governments and by extension the lobbyists and special interests who influence them. Because we are not experts on how policy is made, we were tricked. So perhaps rather than deciding who and how to engage, we should join those who do know.
Finally and most importantly, I would urge you to consider that maybe we should stop partnering with governments and start partnering with communities. “
Pangost’s essay reflects scientists attempting to work constructively with policy makers, planners and stakeholders, primarily on the issue of mitigation (reduction of CO2 emissions) and associated societal changes. There are clearly frustrations, but this approach is far more effective than simpleton tantrums.
Wicked scientists
And finally we come to wicked scientists. As I have written in multiple previous posts, a wicked problem is characterized by multiple problem definitions, contentious methods of understanding, chronic conditions of ignorance, and lack of capacity to imagine future eventualities of both the problem and the proposed solutions. The complex web of causality may result in surprising unintended consequences of attempted solutions that generate new vulnerabilities or exacerbate the original harm. Further, wickedness makes it difficult to identify points of irrefutable failure or success in either the science or the policies. Wicked problems are both complex and political.
Although much has been written about wicked problems and the need to address them, there is not much in the way of guidance for effectively tackling wicked problems. Two recent articles have addressed this issue:
“Wicked science” is a process that is tailored to the dual scientific and political natures of wicked societal problems. As such, wicked science is massively transdisciplinary, including natural sciences and engineering along with social sciences and humanities. Wicked science uses approaches from complexity science and systems thinking in a context that engages with the political roles and perspectives of decision makers, planners and other stakeholders. Wicked problems and the strategies devised to address them cannot be defined by scientific experts alone, but include the experiential and operational knowledge of a range of stakeholders.
Two recent papers by atmospheric/climate scientists have articulated something similar to wicked science for the climate sciences, that notably focus more on adaptation than mitigation.
Adam Sobel’s paper “Usable climate science is adaptation science” emphasizes that the localness of adaptation implies much greater uncertainty in the relevant climate science. Climate science for adaptation is more about characterizing uncertainty for robust decision making. Usable climate science requires that scientists engage in co-production of usable science with stakeholders, with a willingness to learn to understand how the human factors are manifest in a particular setting.
Regina Rodrigues and Ted Shepherd’s paper entitled “Small is beautiful: climate-change science as if people mattered” addresses strategies for grappling with the complexity of local situations. The strategies include expressing climate knowledge in conditional form in terms of scenarios developed via the storyline approach, and working with local communities to make sense of their own situations.
Combining and integrating knowledge from diverse disciplines and other sources to provide insights, explanations and solutions to wicked problems is a substantial challenge. For the solution orientation of wicked science to be meaningful, we need an overarching philosophy for navigating wicked problems. We need to acknowledge that control is limited, the future is unknown, and it is difficult to determine whether the impact you make will be positive. We need to accept that climate change will continue to disrupt natural systems and human wellbeing; this acknowledgement helps avoid the urgency trap. By acknowledging that there is no road back, we can focus on the road ahead.
Wicked scientists are willing to become embroiled in political debates and thorny social problems. As such, wicked scientists are not activists that are advocating for a preferred political/policy solution and recognize the reality of political disagreement as a key aspect for dealing with wicked problems.
Wicked scientists are needed to break the hegemony of disciplinary researchers, particularly those who are strident political activists, as being regarded as experts for solutions to the wicked problem of climate change. While the IPCC has operated via a loose cooperation between multiple disciplines, genuine transdisciplinary understanding and collaborations, across disciplines and with a broad range of stakeholders, is needed for meaningful contributions to wicked problems.
Some universities are starting to grapple with how to train wicked scientists. Working in the private weather/climate services sector provides a crash course in being a wicked scientist, in terms of becoming conversant with additional disciplines, working in transdisciplinary teams, an emphasis on uncertainty, and actually listening to and working with policy makers, planners and stakeholders. Not only is activism not needed for problem solving, but it mostly seems counterproductive to actually formulating and evaluating solutions.
The road ahead can be facilitated by broader, transdisciplinary thinking about the climate change problem and its solutions. This requires moving away from the consensus-enforcing and cancel culture approach of attempting to restrict the dialogue surrounding climate change and the policy options. We need to open up space for dissent, disagreement and discussion about scientific uncertainty and policy options, so that multiple perspectives can be considered and broader support can be built for a range of policy options. Bring on the wicked scientists.
But if a scientist is dominated by their political instincts on this issue, they will continue to take the court jester path and not contribute to solutions in a meaningful way.
Pingback: Climate scientists & politics: Simpleton versus wicked scientists - Climate- Science.press
Thoughtful and incisive, as usual. The only thing missing is a definition of ‘wicked’ since you are using the term in a non-standard way. Perhaps: remarkably sophisticated?
How odd that Anthony Watts has not reported on the extraordinary climate of his well-instrumented back yard in the temperate foothills of the Sierra Nevada.
I hope his heating system is in good order , as temperatures in Chico plunged wickedly to as low as 104 F on Tuesday night.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/09/not-in-his-back-yard-northern.html
Maybe because 2022 is not the first or last California heat wave
Consider the 1913 CA heatwave with temperatures shown for the 2022 heatwave when the same location weather stations (maybe they have moved but are still in the same community) are compared:
California heat wave of 1913
(versus California heat wave of 2022 in parentheses)
1913
OJAI 113, (112 in 2022)
WASCO 113, (108 in 2022)
INDIO FIRE STN 112,
PASO ROBLES 112,
LEMON COVE 111, (116 in 2022)
LIVERMORE 111, (116 in 2022)
BLYTHE 110,
BRAWLEY 2 SW 110,
HEALDSBURG 110,
MERCED 110
CHICO UNIV FARM 109, (108 in 2022)
ORLAND 109, (106 in 2022)
PASADENA 109,
PETALUMA AIRPORT 109, (100 in 2022)
SANTA BARBARA 108, (101 in 2022)
SANTA ROSA 108, (112 in 2022)
WILLOWS 6 W 108,
DAVIS 2 WSW EXP FARM 107, (107 n 2022)
MARYSVILLE 107,
BERKELEY 106,
SANTA CRUZ 106,
UKIAH 106,
REDLANDS 105,
NAPA STATE HOSPITAL 104,
ELECTRA P H 103,
ORLEANS 103,
YOSEMITE PARK HQ 103,
TEJON RANCHO 102
Not so odd considering that Anthony no longer lives in California.
‘The road ahead can be facilitated by broader, transdisciplinary thinking about the climate change problem and its solutions.’
Like with AA – the first step is to accept that there is a climate problem.
“There is no climate crisis.” Clintel
https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
In a high economic growth scenario CO2 levels inexorably rise to some 1000 ppm by 2100. That’s a very bad idea. Keep the growth ditch the emissions.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/ssp5.jpg
Robert I. Ellison:
> In a high economic growth scenario CO2 levels inexorably
> rise to some 1000 ppm by 2100. That’s a very bad idea.
> Keep the growth ditch the emissions.
Your scenario is impossible. Fossil fuel reserves on earth are estimated at 5000 GtC. Carbon in the ocean is about 38000 GtC. Atmospheric carbon accounts for a further 750 GtC. So the ration of Atmospheric to Ocean carbon should remain the same according to HENRY’S LAW, but, of course, ocean depth and slow mixing complicates this. The ration A : O = 750 : 38000 = 1 : 50.7 at equilibrium.
All things being equal, 51 times as much FF carbon will be absorbed by oceans compared with the amount put in the atmosphere. All things aren’t equal because ocean CO2 mixing to achieve an equilibrium takes time. If ONLY 10 times more FF goes into oceans than atmosphere (not 51 times) we find a maximum of 455 GtC will be added to the atmosphere.
Given 750 GtC = 412 ppm, we find, if the amount absorbed by oceans is only 10 times that of atmospheric absorbance the atmospheric level will peak at : 412 × (750+455) ÷ 750 = 692 ppm, after ALL know fossil fuel reserves are incinerated.
Ultimately all the anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere will be cycled through carbon sinks. With burning all fossil fuels – that’s about 2380 ppm CO2. How much in the atmosphere at 2100 ad depends of sink efficiency and the rate of emission.
A “problem” is not necessarily a “crisis”.
That there is no problem, which many of us believe, does not seem to have a place in this wicked model. It looks like three forms of mistaken activism.
That the supposed solutions are the primary problem may finally be coming painfully clear. One can hope.
That there is no problem is a fringe view that in politics has no traction. It has no place in the matrix of solutions arrived at in democratic cut and thrust for the very good reason that contrarian curmudgeons – perhaps I should be politer but the arrogant and ignorant
certainty wears thin – have lost the battle for hearts and minds. Call it uncivil who give’s a rat’s arse.
It’s time to move on to economically and socially sensible solutions.
1. Energy innovation – a project progressing in leaps and bounds.
2. 21st century land and water management. This is a snowballing global project.
3. Building resilient infrastructure for whatever happens for whatever reason – along with early warning systems. I suggest you leave that to engineers and weather modellers.
Fringe view? That’s pretty arrogant.
Practicality needs to be the primary consideration, as opposed to placating the elitist political class and their activists cohorts.
From a practical standpoint, we have no idea if CO2 is a real big problem or not a problem with worrying about. We have no idea whether or not mankind can alter the trajectory of the planet’s climate. The problem, real or imagined, is beyond our abilities to accurately define, much less solve. I believe that is the essence of a “wicked” issue.
Strikes me as fundamentally inefficient to spend vast sums of wealth, impoverishing millions, with no particular confidence that there is a problem and no particular confidence that the solutions will work
I propose an engineer’s approach, as opposed to an academic approach. Concentrate on making energy reasonably clean and affordable for the common man. Don’t lose sleep over the CO2 boogeyman; fix actual problems in a cost effective fashion.
Climate has always changed in natural, alternating, warm, cold, warm, cold, keep repeating, cycles.
There is no effort to understand how or why.
We just came out of the Little Ice Age and it is not now nearly as warm as any of the previous warm periods of the most recent ten thousand years.
It is not now nearly as warm as the much warmer periods before a hundred thousand years ago for a few millions of years.
Since climate science is long ago settled, there is no money being spent to, actually, check any of the stuff they claim is settled science. Science always questions and none of the “modern, so called, climate scientists” question anything, so they cannot be classified as actual scientists, not any kind of scientist.
My views don’t matter much.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/agw-poll.png
And even Republicans are taking the hint.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/01/house-republicans-to-introduce-climate-change-strategy-with-eye-on-midterms-00036481
Robert Ellison wrote (for some reason, his comment has no “Reply” button on it):
“That there is no problem is a fringe view that in politics has no traction. It has no place in the matrix of solutions arrived at in democratic cut and thrust for the very good reason that contrarian curmudgeons … have lost the battle for hearts and minds… It’s time to move on to economically and socially sensible solutions.”
This is not an argument; it’s a circular salvo. The point is, in a civilized society, if there are important disagreements, they must be worked out by good faith discussion & debate, not by bullying and strong-arming by one side. On many important issues these days, the Mainstream enjoys a cultural & sociopolitical hegemony which its representatives exercise by demonizing and/or marginalizing whoever disagrees with their Narratives — whether it be Climate, or Covid, or Ukraine, or Transgenderism, or Race.
RIE,
So, what is the problem?
There is simply no climate change of any consequence that has happened in my 80 years. Not a thing. I look out of the window and see another day of boring same.
The threats are imaginary, mere imperfect projections of fearful changes to our pleasant current state. Others encourage us to believe the projections when this cynic notes that all are designed to take money from my pocket to theirs. That is wicked, but not in the way that Judith means.
What is to fear, Robert? Please be more specific than a trite “All that is in IPCC reports,” Geoff S
There were in fact a number of climate shifts in the 20th century. But if Geoff’s research is limited to gazing vacantly out a window – I’m not surprised he missed it.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/tpi-sst.png
RIE wrote “There were in fact a number of climate shifts in the 20th century.”
I’m aware of climate shifts with various signatures. I was asking about harms and threats and what has hurt you. Geoff S
I read about shifts in eastern Australian stream geomorphology circa 1990. Flood and drought dominated regimes – Erskine and Warner. Earth sciences have come a long way since. It’s been a substantial part of my professional development over decades.
One of the things I did for a living was risk management. What can go wrong? What could happen? Is the risk acceptable? How can risk be reduced?
Reducing greenhouse gas risk needs must have nuclear energy as a backbone of energy abundance, state of the art land and water management and – something else I was pretty good at – building resilient systems and infrastructure.
Geoff
See here for many real issues in implementing this madness:
https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf
Ignore gasbag, boastful, crabwalking Ellison. He will go nowhere near the content in Michaux’s analyses.
Even if Michaux’s estimates are only half right, the Swiss solution will be the easier for authorities to implement. Just jail people for heating their houses in winter.
[Some of my colleagues and myself are going through the Michaux paper page by page, comparing it with our own databases. An interesting exercise so far.]
What a caterwauling over fishy smelling tales. But free markets are made by many billions of decisions daily.
I go outside here in SE Michigan, and we have shoveled snow off the same 100 foot driveway since 1987. Lived four miles south from 1980 to 1987. The winters are not as cold as in the 1970s, and snowfall last winter was, by far, the least since 1977. That’s our climate change WHERE WE LIVE AND WORK. We did not need any scientists with average temperatures, that no one lives in, to tell us what we have experienced. We have had mild local warming, love it, and want a lot more local warming.
Sad part is that lower solar activity causes colder winters in SE Michigan.
Re
ianl | September 8, 2022 at 6:19 pm |
Geoff
See here for many real issues in implementing this madness:
https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf
………………………
Thank you, ianl. It is not every day that someone sends me a 1,000 page pdf and a rarer day when I read one. This is a rare document for its scope and neutrality. It will now serve as a handy goto for a range of current issues.
Geoff S
ianl
Had Geoff not mentioned the document was 1.000 pages I probably would not have taken a look. It is now too tempting to ignore. Given its scope and content I can’t resist digging in.
I’m sure to benefit. Thanks.
Mostly nuclear works to provide safe, clean, reliable power. If people are buying electric cars more nuclear is needed sometime soon. It is quite simply a practicality that can’t be credibly ignored in assumptions.
Digging more deeply into the Finland Geological Survey report – the guy is a Club of Rome fan. Fossil fuels run out very soon – and there are not enough materials for an alternative path to a high energy future.
‘Figures 1.11-1.13 shows the 1972 study industrial output per capita scenarios (with a model future prediction between 1970 and the year 2000), overlaid with historical data from 1970 to the year 2000 as measured (Turner 2008). The historical data shows that industrial output per capita is following the Standard Run model from the 1972 Limits to Growth study.
All of this implies that the global industrial ecosystem is going through the Limits to Growth standard run.
This means that industrial production per capita is about to peak and decline, and non-renewable resources will continue to deplete. This has very serious implications to the global population. It also very clearly shows that the industrial ecosystem is about to transform into something else entirely.’
Negative growth and a reduction in consumption is needed apparently – something obviously supported by humungous twits.
As in all spheres of human discourse, there is an entire range of involvement from non-engagement to activism. Labeling some sphere as political appears to me to be an artificial, and in current terms, a divisive distinction.
What scientists need to do, like all participants in society, is to act as good citizens, balancing their personal desires with the common weal. They bring a special detailed knowledge base and trained analytical skills to the table, and as citizens, can hopefully disseminate their knowledge base and explicate their analytical methods to the general public.
Politics as understood today, appears to involve accumulating power using tools which sway or shape the electorate. Scientists have no obligation or prohibition from engaging in such activity, but this effort should not be confused with citizenship and normal human discourse.
The political system of elected officials is a primary decision system of democracy. That it is fashionable to dislike it does not change that.
The notion of false prophets is very ancient.
Q: “Since when do psychologists have epistemic authority to speak on climate change, its impacts and relevant policies?”
A: Ever since psychologists like Daniel Kahneman gave us Behavioral Economics and invented ‘Inflation Expectations’. Result; 306 trillion dollars in global debt.
Our technology is changing reality in ways that natural processes can’t. Climate change is just a cover story to obfuscate the planet wide geoengineering and bioengineering actually taking place.
We are the Apex predator on the planet, it’s what we do.
Aug 16, 2022
https://interestingengineering.com/science/fertilizing-the-oceans-with-iron-could-help-remove-a-gigaton-of-carbon-dioxide-per-year
WICKED synonyms;
evil · sinful · immoral · wrong · morally wrong · wrongful · bad · iniquitous · corrupt · black-hearted · ungodly · unholy · irreligious · unrighteous · sacrilegious · profane…
Just a point of accurate intellectual history. “Inflation expectations” as a central aspect of macroeconomic theory and forecasting long predates Kahneman and behavioral economics. (And it in no way, as a theoretical concept and a real thing, can be blamed for global debt.)
Thank you Steve, I stand corrected. Although Kahneman & Tversky started to develop their behavior theories in the 70s many elements of BE were identified decades earlier. Central bankers began embracing key features of BE by the late 80s with the introduction of QE and negative nominal interest rates.
“Behavioral Economics and Fed Policymaking”
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2016/9/cj-v36n3-6.pdf
So which economic model do you think we are operating under; Keynesian, Behavioral or Modern Monetary Theory or some combination of all three?
I just can’t see a way we will every payoff that much debt. At some point we will be compelled to declare a debt jubilee on most of it. I predict it will occur shortly after the Treasury creates it’s CBDC and links it to the Fed and all FDIC bank accounts.
Inflation expectations from University of Michigan survey:
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/michigan-inflation-expectations
It’s the Stupid Model.
Psychogists no nothing about human behaviour when they have to make choices under various restaints, such as budget etc. Kahneman made great contributions to behavioral economics but he did not invent ”Inflation Expectations”. This was done by macroeconomists who simultanuously warned against Government debt. You are completely off-track here. You know abolutely nothing about Economics. Please stop post nonsens.
Inflation expectations are held by firms and individuals who factor it into their behaviour and create future asset price rises. The Austrian school of economics is not germane. Nor does it involve government debt, low interest rates or digitally printing money.
Rational investors – the central idea – take a broad view and make fewer trades. Women are better at it than men. Having women in charge of companies is a plus in my book.
This comment is horrendously sexist.
If someone else would care to educate themselves. The first requirement is to listen and contemplate. It’s usually a better idea than confirming their off the cuff foolishness.
And the madness continues. The Guardian offers Master class courses in climate crisis for journalist and activists
https://membership.theguardian.com/event/the-climate-crisis-a-masterclass-with-academics-journalists-and-activists-403449808237?INTCMP=gdnwb_copts_merchinline_mstrs_masterclasses_climatecrisis
No fact checking, no research, no people with scientific knowledge and integrety, only a lot of people with ” the correct” opinions.
only a lot of people with ”the paid for” opinions.
Pingback: Các nhà khoa học khí hậu & chính trị: Simpleton đấu với các nhà khoa học độc ác - News7g
There is a third category: Evil scientists. Michael Mann is in this category.
Michael Mann cannot be any kind of scientist.
Real scientists question consensus, Michael Mann only helps enforce consensus.
Evil he is, but Evil Scientist, he cannot be.
This moving away from JC’s usual Ph.D. style, which is good. Still too many large words and long sentences. The message here, I believe, is simple:
Politics +Science = Politics
Governments get the science and scientists they pay for
Scientists on government payrolls are paid to climate scaremonger, so they do
Scientists program their computer games to scaremonger too
The appeal to authority logical fallacy works because all leftists believe leftist government officials
The mass media does not report 50+ years of wrong climate predictions
People living with mild, harmless global warming, for up to 47 years since 1975, don’t realize all 47 years had wrong predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming that never showed up
If people live with mild harmless global warming yet still believe predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming, how can we change their minds?
We can only change their minds by attacking the previous wrong predictions of the government “authorities” they believe
But the belief in a coming climate crisis was not created with facts, data and logic, so can not be refuted with facts, data and logic.
The coming climate change crisis belief is a religion with far too many scientists playing the scaremongering game.
Politics – Science = Politics
Climate stuff is not science, it therefore cannot add anything, only subtract,
AGW is based on science
CAGW is not
Climate change has come to mean CAGW
A prediction of doom, not reality/
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired … Johnathon Swift 1721.
… Jonathan Swift. My bad.
That is one of the best quotes, it captures human nature in so few words. The modern version that I first heard:
“It is difficult to reason someone out of a postion they have not reasoned their way into.”
I stopped reading this blog months ago because my comments never showed up. Happened again today. Nothing controversial but just a long comment. No links. So this blog is permanently off my radar. Censorship is not tolerated by me.
Your comments (among many others) occasionally get caught in the moderation filter, which is something i can’t control. I release comments from moderation 2-3 times per day.
Thanks for an explanation of what seemed to be censorship, but was actually a confused computer program. I’ll just assume my comment will eventually show up, hopefully the same day, and hopefully where I tried to place it.
Expecting moderation makes one shy away from disagreements and longer comments. Which may be a goal of the moderation program. Some programs frown on links to other websites. This moderation program is the strictest one I’ve ever experienced.
Hopefully this comment will eventually show up !
Maybe there is a word or phrase or name on you posts that is on a blog “bad list”
I think my name is on the “bad list”
Fix the moderation filter !
You are not on a ‘bad list’. getting on the bad list requires the commenter to excessively insult other commenters without making constructive or otherwise meaningful comments, after failing to get the message by my frequent deletion of their posts. If they post a constructive comment, i will release it.
This blog would be a garbage dump if it weren’t moderated. Unfortunately, the moderation filter acts up and puts some comments in moderation for no reasons that I can discern.
I looked up Epistemic. I found this:
Epistemic as a adjective means Of or having to do with knowledge or the act or ways of knowing.. Dictionary Thesaurus Sentences … The definition of epistemic is related to knowledge or knowing. An example of something epistemic is a journey to find new sources of truth.
I want to focus on this last sentence:
An example of something epistemic is a journey to find new sources of truth.
There they fail miserably, they settled climate science in the last century, and therefore, they have not even thought about actually searching for truth.
This is scary. I’m no nervous nelly but Nature publishing calls to action from a bunch of social “scientists” (who I would unscientifically, because I lack the evidence, also label as socialists) does scare me. It demonstrates to me how far the traditional processes of advancing new knowledge have shifted. I see it everywhere – in academia, learned academies, professional societies. The truth, as they say, is out there but mainly because that’s where it has been thrown.
The truth is out there but trillions is being spent to prevent looking for it.
Everyone who disagrees is shut down “unless” they disagree “halfway” and can easily be defeated with the precautionary principal.
They do like “Luke warmers” who keep the discussion focused only on just how bad the harm from CO2 will be. All the games are played in their home fields with their umpires.
Just do try to study and understand and explain the natural causes that did work in past hundreds, thousands and millions of years and they will shut you down, with actual help from their “Luke warmers”.
I am hoping this image link of the Holocene temp reconstruction from Greenland ice cores can give some perspective on natural climate. The IPCC likes to highlight only the far righthand side of the chart.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/107-Alley-GISP-1.jpg
Ron Graf
You need to push the date of your figure back about 1100 years. The abrupt temp rise at the far left should match both the Vostok and Kilimanjaro rise time-wise. (All from O2 isotope)
See this https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/
This is not true at all. You can be a lukewarmer and easily crush the shallow and illogical arguments of the alarmists. The precautionary principle holds no water here – period. Energy deprivation has always caused mass deprivation. We’ve simply never experienced it in the west. That is changing in real time.
But if a scientist is dominated by their political instincts on this issue, they will continue to take the court jester path and not contribute to solutions in a meaningful way.
But if a scientist is dominated by their “peer reviewed, consensus, settled” instincts on this issue, they will continue to take the misguided, destroy life as we know it, shut down every reliable power source we ever had, worse than court jester path and contribute to forcing us to depend on China for everything we cannot make and if you are in the western countries of Europe, forced to depend on Russia for fossil fuel or do without.
Small correction – Oscar Berglund Is not a psychologist. But he is delusional to consider himself an expert in climate change – or science.
University of Bristol: Ph.D., Politics and International Studies, 2016. Thesis: “Contesting Austerity through Civil Disobedience: The PAH and the Spanish Housing Crisis.”
University of Bristol: M.Sc., Social Sciences Research Methods (Politics), 2013.
University of Bristol: M.Sc., International Security, 2010.
University of the West of England: B.A., International Relations, 2009.
Lecturer in International Public and Social Policy, U Bristol.
https://expertfile.com/experts/oscar.berglund/dr-oscar-berglund
“… demonstrations and increasingly civil disobedience.”
Shouldn’t that be “decreasingly civil disobedience?” :-)
“Ya think? Is this all it takes?”
No, it also takes hubris.
Another brilliant woman takes charge. Liz Truss as UK Prime Minister.
https://www.politico.eu/article/everything-know-liz-truss-afraid-ask/
I don’t want to encourage profligate government spending – but some productive spending using borrowed funds boosts GDP. And economic growth is at the end of the day the least painful way to pay off profligate spending.
What we need from government for climate change is nuclear tenders. To commence delivery by the end of the decade. They are perfectly safe these days – fair warning if you tell me they were always safe I won’t believe you.
I don’t care who makes them. General Atomics is my favourite. What a catchy moniker. It has a 60’s vibe about it – which is when the private company invented the industry. Rolls Royce, Seaborg, Westinghouse, NuScale… It will all work – at the right price – this is now mature technology.
Truss’s first step is bad economics.
Capping utility bills — taxpayers cover expense above a certain limit. With deficit spending indirectly financed BY THE CENTRAL BANK. Which will lead to a price inflation tax on everyone who buys good and services. The\is new energy welfare policy is likely to become permanent — not just for two years.
It will be very expensive. With a cap on their energy bills this winter, UK citizens have no incentive to conserve energy. Energy companies will have no incentive to control their costs too. This is a counterproductive policy, and you know it. A band-aid, not a long-term solution to an energy shortage
Here are the details so far from The Daily Mail Online:
Energy bills will be capped at a typical £2,500 for households from October 1 for two years
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2022-09-09T06:06:00-04:00&max-results=5
Wrong link — correction;
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/09/energy-bills-will-be-capped-at-typical.html
I wonder what economic theory was use to justify all that debt? Keynesian, MMT (modern monetary theory) or Behavioral Economics?
With global debt over 300 trillion dollars why not just max out the credit card. We are never going to pay that off so eventually there will be a debt jubilee.
The term “activist scientist” is an oxymoron. From the very beginning of the formal descriptions of the Scientific Method, the ideal scientist has been the “disinterested observer.” That is, someone who is completely objective and doesn’t make observations and induce from them results that are colored by preconceptions or biases. For those who haven’t read T. C. Chamberlain’s “Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses” I highly recommend it. He explicitly warns against ‘fathering’ an idea which one then feels compelled to defend against all who would criticize it. Nobody likes to be told that their baby is ugly! It should be the responsibility of scientists to be as objective as possible, within the constraints of the paradigms that were in vogue when they received their formal educations, and provide policy makers with their best assessment of the data and the implications, along with the most rigorous assessment of the uncertainties associated with their measurements and derivative conclusions. Anyone can support their political beliefs with rationalizations. Indeed, the major difference between the general public and someone who qualifies for Mensa is that that Mensan will typically do a superior job of articulating their rationalizations. It takes a very special mind to remain objective in their analysis when we all carry the baggage of our family’s political leanings, and the education we received. We should listen closely to what the rare ‘disinterested observers’ have to say, and ignore the activists. Activists are NOT scientists, regardless of what letters of the alphabet they place after their names. In the worst case, they are religious zealots.
It is time for climate science to move away from Global Average Temperature and move to regional/local temperature prognostications. Who cares if the globe is going to warm 1 degree if my area is going to warm 3 degrees, or worse, cool by 3 degrees.
Those who say everywhere is going to warm to a tripping should be shouted down whenever they pop up!
Time for those trumpeting CAGW to stand up and tell the world where and when things are going to get worse and where and when they are going get better.
Who are the Simpletons? Like many, they can’t even list the order of importance of gases that swirls around the thermometer (or probe). Once we all learn how to breakdown the recorded temperature and identifying each gas’s relevance to the recording, we will understand a bit more of the world we live in. No, I am not a philosopher, but age has taught me to respect Nature.
Scientists search for the truth, but they are also educators. In my opinion, and I don’t want to insult anyone, they should have killed this climate change stupidity 30 years ago.
Academia becomes ossified by the process of teaching wrong information. That information then percolates outward thru students who can’t or won’t research more in depth. The fact that many in academia also participate in government makes the ossification more firm.
At some point in the future, people are going to look back and wonder how sciencists and computer programmers were allowed to claim that catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CAGW) is SETTLED science.
I propose a definition of TOA. It’s the distance from the planetary surface at which gases can’t be scientifically detected. If it catches on I will call it the angy principle.
And I apologise in advance but what about this EV? I’m going to follow the money trail.
Good deal! Realistic range.
Keep it for the school run and have power for emergencies, picnics, whatever.
I would guess that for some in the climate sciences the use of computers to emulate climate is pretty ‘wicked’ just as games simulate much else too, but there are very precise limits to what computers can and cannot do.
The problem I have with climate science is that if CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels was identified as a probable problem decades ago then why was there not serious development of the nuclear options at that time since it was the most rational and reliable long term solution? The route we have chosen to negotiate is not the rational, logical or plausible solution to reducing emissions and that makes me very suspicious about the choices that have been made to mitigate e.g. solar and wind. Perhaps the ‘settled GHGE climate science’ was an equally illogical choice by the same tokens. Perhaps the scientists used a computer to guess the best way forward!
One thing is for sure ‘computer games’ are not going to help us understand climate science any better than they help us to predict coin tosses. That is how ‘wicked’ computers are.
Climate computer models model the beliefs of those who created the code.
What does the beliefs of the modeler matter?
The models either match observed conditions, or it doesn’t. Ignore models that don’t match and take heed of those that do match.
Even I can create a model that replicates the past, but it wouldn’t necessarily, and probably wouldn’t, predict the future climate.
The computer games — a term I have used for a decade — predict whatever the programmers are paid to predict. On average, the computer games represent the climate science consensus. Except the Russian INM model, that seems to be accurate, probably by chance, so it gets no attention.
We know the climate change consensus is wrong because the computer models are wrong, for over 40 years, and seem to be getting less accurate (CMIP6 has a higher ECR range than CMIP5, which was already too high).
The computer games are props to scare people about CAGW
They serve no other purpose. Computers predict what they are programmed to predict They are programmed to predict what “management” wants predicted. That’s a high ECR and CAGW.
So that’s what we get, except from those pesky Russians.
The new seamless weather and climate models data assimilate, machine learn and artificially intelligently analyses and updates.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/earth-model.png
Numerical models of weather and fine scale climate are essential and are getting better at solving the complex, multi-scale governing spherical harmonic functions in Earth system simulations.
A lava lamp makes a better climate model than a computer.
The University of Michigan can do productive things other than packing 110,000 fans into the Big House and occasionally beating Ohio State University. In this case, they are researching how to make a next generation EV battery. This is how to innovate out of a non crisis.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2022/09/06/meet-um-researchers-race-build-next-gen-ev-battery/7951926001/
RE: The World Needs Wicked Scientists
Why is it that in the list of social problems we never see oppressive governments/dictators? Those are the source of much of humanities woes. The US is increasingly in this camp.
“We need to accept that climate change will continue to disrupt natural systems and human wellbeing…”
Baseless propaganda for solving a problem which does not exist, now that is truly wicked. The real scientific problem is in working out how the Sun drives weather patterns and ocean phases and the associated changes in cloud cover.
Is climate change an example of totalitarian ideology?
I read Desmet’s The Psychology of Totalitarianism and am now on Hannah Arendt’s The Origin’s of Totalitarianism.
Desmet’s condensed theory, inspired by Arendt, is that social isolation leads to anxiety which is relieved by a simple narrative and people adhere to groups supporting that narrative.
The irony being, of course, that this is also a simplified narrative.
Never the less, Arendt details how the simple racist and socialist narratives gave rise to the totalitarian states and that simple narratives were seductive because they limited the chaos and uncertainty that people had to deal with.
Chaos and uncertainty are, of course, striking characteristics of climate and the atmosphere. The simple narrative, replete with morality, of: ‘carbon dioxide bad’ offers relief from the chaos of atmospheric motion and the uncertainty of any future state. The lure of simple paradigms is so strong that exceptions to them are dismissed. It still seems strange that people would adhere to climate change as an organizing idea, but the Nietzsche observation that we would attempt replace religion after killing god seems manifest.
> Chaos and uncertainty are, of course, striking characteristics of climate and the atmosphere. The simple narrative, replete with morality, of: ‘pollution and particulates bad’ offers relief from the chaos of atmospheric motion and the uncertainty of any future state. The lure of simple paradigms is so strong that exceptions to them are dismissed.
The moon is made of green cheese. Prove me wrong before dismissing my theory.
> Chaos and uncertainty are, of course, striking characteristics of climate and the atmosphere. The simple narrative, replete with morality, of: ‘wear a mask, get the shots, social distance, close the schools, shut the economy, fire the unvaccinated, dismiss natural immunity’ offers relief from the chaos of atmospheric motion and the uncertainty of any future state. The lure of simple paradigms is so strong that exceptions to them are dismissed.
Anybody can play this game … but the primary lesson is missed. Bureaucracy, however it’s controlled or originally organized, always stands in opposition to the individual. That is the gateway for abuse. Right or left doesn’t seem to matter as any mechanism for social control inevitably puts its own welfare first, not only over individuals but other social mechanisms.
Prove me wrong.
Thanks for serving as an example.
Bill –
> Anybody can play this game … but the primary lesson is missed. Bureaucracy, however it’s controlled or originally organized, always stands in opposition to the individual.
I don’t think that’s true.
> Prove me wrong.
I don’t know about “proof” (part of my point was that assuming proof is complicated), but I offer the American enterprise as a phenomenon that complicates your absolutist and simplistic cause-and-effect mechanism.
Joshua, that never helps, only makes it harder for me to clear the moderation queue in a meaningful way
Joshua …
> ,,, but I offer the American enterprise as a phenomenon that complicates your absolutist and simplistic cause-and-effect mechanism.
LOL!!! Well, on the one hand I appreciate the sentiment that the American enterprise stands for the individual. And you would be correct, that it did at one time, and still does at least in its founding documents. As for simplistic and … absolutist (interesting word choice) … I can not take credit for the mechanism or its explanation. But the statement stands as it is a common one in the sociological literature. Of course my reference period is prior to CRT, yet the very idea of a white supremacist culture relies on the definition of social structures that oppress anyone not white.
Proof? Social science, regrettably, isn’t like hard science. There are no mathematical formulas. Yet, there is observation. If you had the occasion to see Biden’s speech in Philadelphia, in fact the very place where the Constitution was written, you may have had a similar feeling come over you as I had. My first thought was Kristalnacht. (I’m not Jewish or German just have read a fair amount of the time period.) To my knowledge there was no single speech that was the predicate for such a horrible event. Yet, that event washed over me as I watched the blood red (CNN supposedly lightened it to a deep pink) and dark blue with the Marines flanked behind and the venomous characterizations coming from Biden’s angry mouth. For me, the parallel of German Jews of 1938 and MAGA Republicans seemed evident. Was that speech an example of the American enterprise you speak of?
Lest I be misunderstood, the bureaucratic mechanism has elevated human development. It is found in developed cultures going back thousands of years. I would not advocate for its elimination. However, I would regard it for what it is … a means of control. It is a powerful structure prone to abuse, as we’ve seen, and should be kept within strict limits. And that is what Turbulent Eddie touched on, if only a bit. He spoke of a simplistic rational put forth as a means of effecting control.
Enjoy your evening!
Bill –
I didn’t watch the speech (I find such events incredibly dull) but as a jew I both find it amusing that you embue such deep meaning to facile political theater and disturbing that you’d compare. such an insignificant event to the extermination of millions.
I dunno. I have to say that it feels awfully contrived to pull out from you back pocket a boilerplate linkage between everyday partisan politics in the US of 2020 and Hitler’s Germany. Are you always so dramatic and alarmist?
At any rate all that aside.
I think you’re exploiting a false dichotomy. I don’t think we have to choose between the bureaucratic state and individual freedom as I don’t think they’re in direct opposition to each other. Many of the freedoms we enjoy, that our predecessors wouldn’t have even dreamed of, wouldn’t exist without this killer of individualism that you decry. I think context and specifics are omoosrsmr and I don’t think some generic formula applies.
Have you ever traveled from surrounding counties to Singapore? If you have then I suspect it wasn’t lost on you that the people of Singapore, even as they lack some elements of individuality their neighbors possess, enjoy many individual freedoms such as good housing or good healthcare, even the ability to eat a good meal regularly, that so many people living right on the other side of the border struggle to realize ever day. Benevolent dictatorship. What a concept. Even in a dictatorship some individual freedoms can flourish. That’s not to say I want to live under a dictatorship. Indeed, I enjoy individual freedoms that could easily be lost in a dictatorship.
I dunno. I guess I see life as more complicated than you. I don’t share the simple narratives that seem to describe your world. I see a world of trade-offs. Not only between the state and individual freedoms, but between individual freedoms of one sort with individual freedoms of another.
But I realize that boogiemen like Trump and Biden scars some people.
And perhaps you might think about what an American slave from before the Civil War, or a woman before suffrage, or a man in the 1960s who wanted to live with another man, might say about the trajectory of individual freedom over time you just outlined.
Joshua …
Krystalnacht is an apt parallel because it was an action based on a lie. Don’t take the example any farther than it rates. (And by the way, the lessons of the Holocaust are not just for Jews but for us all. I’m sure you agree.) I never spoke of murdering millions of MAGA Reps. I hope that’s not something you think about … in a ‘complicated’ sense, that is. As for:
>And perhaps you might think about what an American slave from before the Civil War, or a woman before suffrage, or a man in the 1960s who wanted to live with another man, might say about the trajectory of individual freedom over time you just outlined.
All of those examples turned out rather well, in America. No slaves and we had a two term black president (not to mention several SC justices) voted in by whites, women can vote and actually make up the majority of the university student population, and gay men can get married and adopt. Not too shabby.
However, one of the places where slavery and homophobia still occur is in China, the land of the Chinese Communist Party. Another country that isn’t leftist, but seems to be held in high regard by the left, Iran … either throws gay men off of tall buildings or hangs them from cranes in public squares.
Somehow CRT just can’t keep up …
Bill –
Since you’ve brought it up twice (and I still don’t understand it) can you explain the relevance of CRT?
I also don’t exactly understand the relevance of Iran either, but on the front I’m interested what evidence you see that “the left” hold Iran in high regard?
Of course, it seems true that fundamentalism of all stripes (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) tends to associate with a deprivation of individual freedom with government as a mediator (I think not really a moderator)..
Indeed, that is one of the variables I’d say is more explanatory for the relationship between government and limitations of individual freedom – which is why the signals of theocratic thinking in the contemporary US seems rather worrisome to me.
Good morning, Joshua.
> Since you’ve brought it up twice (and I still don’t understand it) can you explain the relevance of CRT?
CRT relies on the supposition that our society is systemically racist. The social mechanisms of control work for the benefit of one race over the others. That relates to my point about bureaucracy and its relationship to the individual. CRT emphasizes their opinion of a racial aspect, but doesn’t seem to be as concerned about the inherent nature of the mechanism. It seems obvious to me that if it’s bad in one aspect, it has a good chance of being bad for all. But, those who seek power comfort themselves with the thought that they can do better. Why? Because they are better? Wouldn’t that be an example of what you say is a false dichotomy? Personally, I don’t think anyone is better.
Oh, I never said we had to choose between individual freedom and bureaucracy. Please read my comments. I spoke about oversight of bureaucracy, as they can tend towards abuse, as we’ve seen recently with covid and energy.
Truss just announced the lifting of the ban on fracking, among other reversals on energy policy. Some would say too little, too late. I would rather be positive and say it’s never too late to reign in bureaucratic mechanisms.
Enjoy the day!
Bill –
> Bureaucracy, however it’s controlled or originally organized, always stands in opposition to the individual.
Seems to me that the “always” there does some heavy-lifting, and thenin lies the false dichotomy.
> Oh, I never said we had to choose between individual freedom and bureaucracy. Please read my comments. I spoke about oversight of bureaucracy, as they can tend towards abuse, as we’ve seen recently with covid and energy.
Tendency (although I’d say arguable) is one thing, “always” is another, imo
Joshua …
That’s what I like about you. Given enough time you will circle around to the rub.
Always is … always. That doesn’t mean bureaucracy can’t benefit individuals. If it didn’t we wouldn’t engage in them (I’m repeating myself.). The same with government, the social contract. What is the nature of that contract? A big topic for a little space. But there are some basics. Without a doubt, safety is one item. We give up a part of our freedom in exchange for protection. That’s a good thing, but it doesn’t change the social relationship predicated on the individual giving away part of his freedom to a social mechanism that not only may protect him, but may also remove that protection and attack him, deeming him a threat. A status he would have limited options under, indeed.
The power relationship is quite clear. The individuals who have direct control of the social mechanism, bureaucracy if you like, are the arbiters of other individuals’ status,. This brings us to efforts to control the mechanism from without. The history of humanity is a story of how much control is ceded, who can occupy the levers of control, efforts to affect limitations and means of redress.
So … given the above, we could start to evaluate left vs right. No? Again, condensing things for space. The right would be for maximizing individual freedom with limited government power. The left would be for unlimited government power emphasizing collective good over individuality.
Agreed?
Joshua – “Are you always so dramatic and alarmist?” I am not, but Joe Biden is:
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fphotos%2Fpresident-joe-biden-delivers-a-primetime-speech-at-independence-1-picture-id1420018789&f=1&nofb=1
The Fuehrer had a similar taste ..
Bill –
> (I’m repeating myself.).
Join the club. To wit:
> We give up a part of our freedom in exchange for protection
I don’t agree that the categorical nature of your statement. It’s too (simple and) dichotomous, imo.
Sometimes we trade off “individual freedom” for safety, but sometimes we’re trading one individual freedom for another. individual freedom in form of increased safety.
> We give up a part of our freedom in exchange for protection.
Again. Categorical and black and white and dichotomous.
A shop slower shop owner loses the individual freedom to discriminate against potential customers who are African American. And an African Americans gains the individual freedom to enter a store in their neighborhood and buy a rose for their spouse.
Again, it seems I see this as much more complicated and less black and white than you. From where I sit, you’re taking a theoretical premise, that has some validity, maybe in general but more so in context, and running with it all the way through the end zone, out of the stadium, and into the parking lot where you spike the ball
Lol. Oy.
Shop slower shop owner = flowershop owner.
One of my better ones.
Joshua …
I wish there was a REPLY on each reply. Oh well.
> A shop slower shop owner loses the individual freedom to discriminate against potential customers who are African American. And an African Americans gains the individual freedom to enter a store in their neighborhood and buy a rose for their spouse.
The AA didn’t gain any freedom. He received protection/enforcement, which he also had exchanged for some of his freedom.
Look at a reverse situation to your example, review Gibson Bakery vs Oberlin College. There an Oberlin dean accused the Gibson Bakery with false accusations of racism against student customers. The owners of the bakery won in court. The judgement didn’t confer any additional net freedom to the owners from false accusations. The court just acted in its bureaucratic/institutional capacity as protector/enforcer. The owners still had to give up freedom to engage in the social contract. In their instance, and yours, the contract was fulfilled. No one got an extra ounce of freedom in their pocket. What they got was justice under a social contract they ‘paid’ for with freedom.
Now I’m sure you’ll agree there are instances where justice doesn’t prevail. Agreed? (By the way that was funny.)
By the way, the flower shop owner didn’t lose any freedom to discriminate. He never had that freedom/right under the particular social contract he signed up for.
Bill –
Unfortunately, your viewpoint hasn’t become clearer to me with your additional comments. I don’t understand how the Oberlin case establishes some kind of “always” condition of relationship between bureaucrscy and freedom. Further…
> He never had that freedom/right under the particular social contract he signed up for.
With the “/”, ” are you in some way merging freedom and right?
Are you saying that freedoms only exist if a person signs some kind of contract?
I surely don’t understand. A flower shop owner in the 1950s had the freedom to tell a black person not to enter her store based on the potential customer’s skin color. There was no contract signed to that effect. The black potential customer was not free (in any meaningful way) to enter the store. No contract was signed.
Shop owner +1 on the individual freedom scale.
Black potential customer, – 1
A law was passed. The shop owner’s individual freedom to discriminate against potential customers, based on skin color, was meaningfully infringed. But there was no new contract signed, nor was any old signed contract destroyed or invalidated. The potential customer’s freedom to buy a rose was enhanced, despite no signed contract either before or after the law was passed.
Shop owner, 0 (net, after the freedom to discriminate was infringed by – 1) on the individual freedom scale.
Black potential customer. +1.
The law didn’t limit freedom in some absolute sense, although it shifted individual freedom as to who was free to do what.
There were trade-offs, made operational by the bureaucratic system.
This all seems very obvious to me, so I guess I just don’t understand what you’re saying. Given that you’ve made multiple attempts to explain, it may be one of those agree to disagree situations.
In both of our examples the social contract was honored. Simple.
If we change the outcomes and the flower shop owner was not stopped from racial discrimination, or Oberlin was not stopped from using race to abuse the bakery shop … now we’ve entered the area you may be calling complicated. But actually it isn’t.
If you want to say the flower shop owner obtained some freedom from the African American, a freedom chip, I’ll go along with the semantics. I would prefer to say advantaged and disadvantaged, but let’s go with the chip.
How was the chip obtained? Or maybe the better question is what enabled the flower shop owner to steal the AA gentleman’s chip? It wasn’t the social contract both exchanged freedom for. It was the failure of the government bureaucracies to enforce the contract.
+600,000 white men died in the Civil War to free Blacks. They died to enforce the contract. When Blacks have freedom chips taken from them then we have a situation where government bureaucracies are failing.
So why do bureaucracies fail?
CRT says it’s white people controlling the bureaucracies/institutions. In fact, the very idea of a bureaucracy is racist … they say … as it is a cultural artifact of white society. (That’s incorrect … another time.)
Well for the past 60 years we’ve been engaged in diversifying the bureaucracies … government, academic, corporate. So it can’t be just as simple as race representation.
That leaves us with just one avenue … it’s in the nature of the mechanism itself.
Sometimes bureaucracies work beautifully. Sometimes they don’t. Yes, they are controlled by humans. And humans have failings. The mechanism only amplifies the human element.
The right says the answer is less bureaucracy, the left more. As I said above, I don’t believe anyone is better, overall, than anyone else. We ALL have our failings, which is why I believe it is best to keep a close eye on our bureaucracies, and limiting their number as best we can.
Thanks for your patience, Joshua.
Joshua …
> The law didn’t limit freedom in some absolute sense, although it shifted individual freedom as to who was free to do what.
There were trade-offs, made operational by the bureaucratic system.
So, the bureaucratic system, in your instance, failed the African American. I agree.
How has the energy bureaucracy failed the average person with pursuit of green energy?
How has the health bureaucracy failed the average person with covid?
Bill –
> How has the health bureaucracy failed the average person with covid?
As long as you define “failure” to be the same as sub-optimal, “failures” will always happen no matter what.
For me, counterfactuals should be considered. What’s the alternative? Democracy is terrible but better than the alternatives.
Public health policy is awful, but…
A lot of people die and they didn’t do enough. Few people die and they did too much.
Sub-optimal is unavoidable, and so therefore unless we’re more specific there’s no possible outcome other than “failure.”
I personally think for all the mistakes (some made visible by hindsight) there’s a reasonable chance that absent our “health bureaucracy” things may have been significantly worse. This is a matter of low probability, high damage risk management in a context of high uncertainty. And counterfactuals are hard; really, really hard.
What we know for sure, is that there are always trade-off, that we know for sure.
Let’s look at China. One might argue they saved millions of lives. Hard to know for sure. For sure we know they sacrificed some “individual freedoms.” But I think most Chinese would say that so did we, and they’d argue that the freedoms they’ve enjoyed during COVID outweighed the freedoms we enjoyed, relatively. Same with the Kiwis.
And so you might argue that we’ve suffered a loss of individual freedoms that I’d argue actually reflected a gain in individual freedoms. I think people wearing masks may have actually increased my ability to freely move about. And maybe you felt the mask as a millstone strapped to your face. And who’s the Supreme Judge of whose views on the cost/benefit ratio is best? I don’t know the answers. But I think it’s complicated.
Joshua …
> And who’s the Supreme Judge of whose views on the cost/benefit ratio is best? I don’t know the answers. But I think it’s complicated.
I appreciate the honesty in that statement.
For me, the ‘health’ bureaucracy failed when it ventured beyond its mandate, which we can argue about but I’ll say was to ‘educate’ citizens of health issues so they could make informed decisions in their lives (they are the judge). If we say there was an emergency and the health bureaucracy became the prime decision maker then we have to grade its performance.
– Children, who never had high risk factors, have suffered from school closures.
– Information on natural immunity was downplayed.
– The vaccine was billed as a means to avoid infection.
– Many of those not vaccinated lost their jobs.
– Many small businesses were lost.
– Any organized efforts to counter the bureaucracy’s claims were not given adequate debate, i.e. Barrington Declaration
This is not a complete list.
As you said, mistakes are always made. We’re human. If we agree on any failings, I’m sure we would also agree that the intentions of the individuals in power were not evil. That leaves us with the social structure of the mechanism. The failings affected individuals who could not resist the power of the mechanism. I ask you to reconsider your comments with respect to China in this light. In our society the individual does have some recourse against bureaucratic rules, and yet we see in covid not much. In China there is absolutely no recourse.
Joshua’s comment – ” I think people wearing masks may have actually increased my ability to freely move about. ”
Two & half years into covid and people still think masks worked to reduce transmission.
The only studies showing masks worked have serious flaws.
Josh – go to the CDC website where they list approximately 30 studies showing “masks reduced transmission”. see if you can find one that is not deeply flawed. Look at the empirical evidence , not the theoretical evidence.
Bill F’s comment –
“Children, who never had high risk factors, have suffered from school closures.
– Information on natural immunity was downplayed.
– The vaccine was billed as a means to avoid infection.”
To add to Bill’s point
The risk to children was extremely low and evidence exists to show that vaccines inhibit the natural development of the immune system. (my comment limited to the ineffective covid vaccine) . As such, there remains significant long problems with children getting the covid vaccine.
Information on natural immunity was not only downplayed, but actively claimed by the CDC and other health authorities that the vaccine provided better immunity, in spite of strong evidence to the contrary. A few very flawed studies were put out making that claim.
Josh’s comment – “I also don’t exactly understand the relevance of Iran either, but on the front I’m interested what evidence you see that “the left” hold Iran in high regard?”
Josh – did you fail to notice Obama pushing the JCPOA agreement with Iran which facilitates Iran developing nuclear weapons (which is obvious to anyone paying attention).
Did you hear or see anyone on the left objecting to the JCPOA – of course not, in fact many on the left claimed that the JCPOA was going to delay the nuclear program and still continue to believe that it is “working”.
As Bill notes, very few progressives grasp the geopolitical ramifications of their belief system,
Joe …
Thanks for the comments.
However, this one …
> As Bill notes, very few progressives grasp the geopolitical ramifications of their belief system,
is not a fair criticism, nor correct. If we consider George Bush of the right, then the intelligence bureaucracy’s ‘evidence’ that led to the invasion of Iraq purportedly to keep SH from using weapons of mass destruction was a colossal failure.
I took pains (maybe not successfully) to keep my comments focused on the social mechanism of bureaucracy regardless of which ideology is in control. There is a difference in how the left vs right view bureaucracy. Essentially, the left views it as beneficial to society and so uses it maximally, the right as something to be suspicious even though it has the potential for great benefit.
In the case of covid and George Bush bureaucratic action had substantial negative affects on people. Any entity, human or a social mechanism, that can have substantial negative affects on us is a threat, potential or actual. Pure and simple. And as with any threat, I stand in a social relationship of opposition. That doesn’t mean I wish to destroy anything that has the potential to threaten me. The complicated part Joshua notes is to weigh the circumstances … benefit vs threat. My point with him is to never ignore the threat and treat it accordingly.
Bill I concur with your comment – especially about bush 2 and the gulf war. At the time, I was very much in favor. However in hindsight, I concur it was a collusal failure. Similar to the Libya fiasco, failing to grasp the geopolitical ramifications.
Bill –
> There is a difference in how the left vs right view bureaucracy. Essentially, the left views it as beneficial to society and so uses it maximally, the right as something to be suspicious even though it has the potential for great benefit.
I’m aware that is an article of faith for some folks who identify as being on the right, but again I think the meaningful picture of far more nuanced. Imo, in the US, people’s views about the utility and cosr/benefit of government (ans least some people’s) is largely mediated, if, not moderated, by ideologically-oriented identity, sometimes even on an issue by issue basis, rather than some kind of generic algorithm thar can be uniformly applied.
For example, there are plenty of issues where “the right” is more supportive of, and less suspicious of, government bureaucracy, than “the left.” And then there’s the whole problematic aspect of what it means to break people down into “the right” versus “the left” taxonomy. Perhaps even the whole taxonomy is so flawed so as to result in more noise than signal, what with the whole more diversity within groups than across groups thingy. Even the quadrant-based taxonomies (like those opposing invidualiam vs. comminitarianiam on one axis and and hierarchy versus egalitarianism in the other), while perhaps, better as a taxonomy for how people view government, imo, leave a lot to be desired.
Related links:
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/09/14/americans-views-of-government-low-trust-but-some-positive-performance-ratings/
You can see the quadrant taxonomy I mentioned here:
https://skepticalscience.com/Kahan.html
BTW –
Just sayin’, I disagee with how many “skepticalscience” folks view that taxonomy issue (I think their take reflects am ideological bias just as do the takes of many “skeptics” on this issue) – but that was the quickest link to Kahan’s taxonomy that I could find. I think his application to the climate domain is reflected more generally across the political constellation, but I disagee with his view about the causal role of “worldviwew” in this process. Imo, while worldview isn’t irrelevant, the primary causality is more related to basic attributes of human psychology (identity-aggression and identify-defense) mixed with human cognition (making sense of the world through pattern-recognition).
Josh – you provided a link to Skeptical Science in support of your position
You do realize that Skeptical Science is one of the most dishonest and least science based web sites in existence.
Bill –
Another note – I think that Haidt’s stuff on the kkknk between conservatives and/or Trump supporters and/or authoritarianism is relevant here. I didn’t find any good links quickly, but I’ll link a not so great one below.
I will add, I don’t really buy Haidt’s stuff either, again because I think that it runs afoul of the taxonomy problem and the more diversity within groups than across groups thingy. As I said above, I think that “identify” plays a bigger role than worldview, compared to Haidt’s conceptualization. That said, I do think that people who argue for this left/right split on views about “government bureaucracy” do need to account for Haidt’s data on the link between “conservatives” and Trump voters on authoritarianism.
In my own view, attitudes towards authoritarism often morph based on the ideological “sympathetic vibrations” of the issue involved.
https://righteousmind.com/the-key-to-trump-is-stenners-authoritarianism/
Joshua …
> but again I think the meaningful picture of far more nuanced.
I agree.
I don’t want to reprint Turbulent Eddie’s entire post at the head of this thread, which I thought was very good, but I think he would agree that reality is nuanced. He said:
> Is climate change an example of totalitarian ideology?
Then after:
> Desmet’s condensed theory, inspired by Arendt, is that social isolation leads to anxiety which is relieved by a simple narrative and people adhere to groups supporting that narrative.
The irony being, of course, that this is also a simplified narrative.
This is what got us started. The problem is any discussions of ideology or psychology can become very convoluted and … long. So, I took your comment and tried (successfully) to lure you into a quick (not successful) discussion of bureaucracy and ideology. There is no such thing as quick, not if each of the participants genuinely wants to be honest. And I sincerely wanted your opinion of the health bureaucracy and covid, now that there has been some time passed. Of course covid and the climate/energy have many parallels … bureaucratically speaking.
Thanks for the link quoting Stenner. I guess her outline is fine, although it relies more on historical characters than I, or you, should be comfortable with. It’s easy to point to Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and say this is the essence of the left and then proceed to list psychological traits, etc.
Classical Liberalism, Burke, authoritarianism (both sides have this element) … are nice to review but to apply to Trump … eh. At the risk of being simple, I’d say the best way to see what kinds of people are attract to Trump and why … would be to go out and ask them.
Painting Trump as an authoritarian is a bit much. How so? Did he ever put in jail (let alone charge) any of his political enemies? No. Yet, look at the cascade of charges against Trump since 2016 and his cohorts, much of which is manufactured. His rallies play the song ‘YMCA’ … Biden just gave us a rally in Philly that looked like the second coming of Nazi Germany, complete with hate speech. Then he denies it the next day.
Trump does make use of bombastic language, as most authoritarians do. And that’s what he is … PT Barnum. He also doesn’t control his public emotions well. If you pick a fight with him, he’s a counter puncher … that doesn’t know when to stop, i.e. the media.
But does any of this tell us what a MAGA supporter is like? Not really. If you ask them why they vote for him, I’m sure (being one myself) they’ll speak about his policies and, just as importantly, preventing the policies of the Democrats. It is well thought out.
If you ask me if I … like … Trump, I’d would first point out that I understand Trump’s personality from living in NYC for 35 years. It’s an ‘in your face’ personality, and to make it worse he lacks any oratory skills. I even had the opportunity to work for him in his construction business as I was an electrical contractor and I was friends with one of his helicopter pilots (an ex-Vietnam and CIA veteran) who wanted to introduce me. I respectfully declined. So … I don’t vote for him because of his personality.
Put simply … people vote for him because he addresses their needs. This, of course, brings up the question of what those needs are and why are the Democrats considered radioactive.
One other point … most authoritarianism accusations in the early 20th C involved the working class in one way or another. The working class was/is a mainstay of the Democratic party and the left. At least they were for most of the 20th C. Where are they now? In MAGA land. LOL!. Funny how the authoritarian label wasn’t bandied about when the Democrats supported them, but it has mysteriously reappeared full blown with Trump.
If the Jan 6 ‘insurrection’ was a violent example of authoritarian followers, then how would you characterize the violence of the summer of 2020 riots, +570 of them, where there were no arrests, no convictions yet millions in property damage and tens of deaths?
Reality is more nuanced.
Sorry for the long winded reply.
Joe – the non-climate scientist …
> Bill I concur with your comment – especially about bush 2 and the gulf war. At the time, I was very much in favor. However in hindsight, I concur it was a collusal failure. Similar to the Libya fiasco, failing to grasp the geopolitical ramifications.
The same for me, as I initially supported it and then saw it much differently. A waste of blood and treasure. Anything good that did come out of it could have been affected by other means without the loss of our youth. I’m actually pissed at myself for not seeing it.
This also brings up an interesting point, and I hope Joshua is reading this, MAGA is not Neo-Con. In fact, most Neo-Cons hate Trump. The two look at geopolitics much, much differently.
Bill –
This didn’t get through the filter – so I’m going to try to break it up (sorry, Judith – but this comment filter is just terrible).
> For me, the ‘health’ bureaucracy failed when it ventured beyond its mandate, which we can argue about but I’ll say was to ‘educate’ citizens of health issues so they could make informed decisions in their lives (they are the judge).
I dunno. I get why that would make sense. On the other hand, (1) arguably, that isn’t what the majority of citizens want even in domains such as COVID and, (2) majorities don’t expect/want that type of response when it comes to things like food safety regulation, or providing healthcare to people who have no money, etc. And sure, we could point to “mistakes” in those domains as well, but it’s clear that many Americans want more than just educating the pubic and sitting back to see what happens.
Part II
> If we say there was an emergency and the health bureaucracy became the prime decision maker then we have to grade its performance.
So there we are in agreement.
> – Children, who never had high risk factors, have suffered from school closures.
That, IMO, is a tough one. School closures came about because of, and affect, more than just kids. And while there was some evidence early on that school closures don’t significantly reduce community spread, as with much COVID related, the evidence was, and still is, all over the place. And even the issue of the damage the results has become a political football. So the the “grading performance” aspect, while I agree is key, is also complicated, IMO.
Part III
> – Information on natural immunity was downplayed.
Hmmm. “Downplayed” is a tough word for me there. I think that early on there was a lot of uncertainty about relative strengths/weaknesses of infection-induced versus vaccine-induced immunity. I do think that in hindsight, it’s not unreasonable to argue that the infection-induced variety was not given sufficient attention from the public health community, but I can also see what I’d consider valid reasons for that (based on the simple reasoning that the infection-induced variety implies the risks of a COVID infection). And further
– while infection-induced immunity has clear benefits, it’s also quite variable, more so than vaccine-induced – and that’s an important consideration. Again, the problem for me is the quick politicization of that issue, as I think it gets in the way of grading performance. And the responsibility for the politicization lies across the board, and less so, I think, with the public health community than other contributors..
Part IV
> – The vaccine was billed as a means to avoid infection.
That was definitely over-played, in my view, in that the science should have dictated that a waning of protection against infection was to be expected – even if initial results suggested a robust immunity against infection. Of course, I think the politicization aspect comes into play there as well, as I think that the extent to which uncertainty in that regard was communicated, it is being overlooked by those inclined to attack the public health structure. But at the same time, I do think that the uncertainty in that regard was not sufficiently communicated and the performance grade there is low.
>– Many of those not vaccinated lost their jobs.
> – Many small businesses were lost.
Both of these issues are heavily complicated by the counterfactual aspect, IMO. What would have happened absent what the public health system did? Would it have been worse along those metrics? I don’t know, but I think that anyone who wants to hand out a grade there needs to make a really good effort at handling the counterfactual problem – and I haven’t seen that happen.
Part V
> – Any organized efforts to counter the bureaucracy’s claims were not given adequate debate, i.e. Barrington Declaration
Well, that’s entirely subjective, and again, I think it’s a very complicated issue. IMO, there was much bad information that was infused throughout the whole GBD movement. It’s a long and deep issue, and I won’t rule out SOME validity to claims that some of what the GBD was advocating for should have received more focus (e.g., the value of infection-induced immunity)…but that would be a long discussion. My main point here, is that I think the “grading” is tough here also.
> The failings affected individuals who could not resist the power of the mechanism.
I think that this is the crux of the biscuit – as Frank Zappa would say. Again, a long and deep issue. I’ll just say, in brief, that I suspect that I see it as being more multi-factorial than you, with relevant vectors running in more and sometimes opposing directions – a difference that has run through our views in this entire discussion.
> I ask you to reconsider your comments with respect to China in this light. In our society the individual does have some recourse against bureaucratic rules, and yet we see in covid not much. In China there is absolutely no recourse.
Sure. That’s a troubling component, no doubt. But I don’t know if you ever talked to any Chinese people about something like this? Consider that in the view of some, the “benevolent dictator” aspect gives people greater agency in their lives. Of course, there is diversity in views among Chinese in that respect. And it’s all complicated by the legacy of Confucianism and views on individuality versus the collective good and all of that. And I’m certainly not saying that I would agree with that view if a Chinese person expressed it. But I do believe it is a nuanced and complicated issue.
Bill –
> … are nice to review but to apply to Trump … eh. At the risk of being simple, I’d say the best way to see what kinds of people are attract to Trump and why … would be to go out and ask them.
So as I said, I don’t really agree with Haidt (who has assembled evidence to support his contention about Trump and authoritarianism)… to be clear, IIRC (I could be wrong) he doesn’t so much argue that Trump is an authoritarian as that he attracts supporters who lean towards authoritarianism (I image he doesn’t think there’s some binary, on/off authoritarianism switch).
My own view – is that Trump is transactional. He doesn’t really have an ideology or beliefs, within the more typical range. He moves about on those spectrums as meets his goals at any given time. Of course, the ‘transactional” label is one that some people on the “left” apply to him, but then those same people say that he’s an authoritarian – so they’re inconsistent that manner. Same thing where they say he’s transactional and then say he’s a racist. No – I don’t see him that way. I see him as an opportunist – who’s quite good at reading what to say to achieve certain goals. And I don’t say that merely from observing him – but based on what he as said. He is associated with Roy Cohn, and Roger Stone, and other people who have explicitly outlined a methodology of transactionalism. They didn’t hide it – as indeed, not hiding it is part of the strategy. I’m talking about over decades, and as you can see in how Trump invented the character “John Miller” when he talked to the press.
> Painting Trump as an authoritarian is a bit much.
See above
> Biden just gave us a rally in Philly that looked like the second coming of Nazi Germany, complete with hate speech. Then he denies it the next day.
Well, I think that characterization is a bit strong, but I get your point. And it relates directly to my point. People (of all stripes) pick and choose their authoritarianism, and politicians of all stripes can signal towards authoritarianism to curry support. Trump is not unique in being transactional, and leveraging nods towards authoritarianism. But I do think, arguably, that he’s *somewhat* exceptional in the extent to which he uses transactionalism, and in particular nods towards authoritarianism.
> Put simply … people vote for him because he addresses their needs. This, of course, brings up the question of what those needs are and why are the Democrats considered radioactive.
So this is all getting really long. But I think it’s more complicated than that (surprise!). Yes, addressing needs is certainly part of it. But I think there’s more – going back to my point about the role of “identity” in all of this.
> If the Jan 6 ‘insurrection’ was a violent example of authoritarian followers, then how would you characterize the violence of the summer of 2020 riots, +570 of them, where there were no arrests, no convictions yet millions in property damage and tens of deaths?
>> Reality is more nuanced.
Right, that’s my point! People of all stripes can lean into authoritarianism, or authoritarian-adjacent tribalism.
And so, government Bureaucracy can be leveraged by authoritarians to exploit authoritarian traits in the citizenry. Yes, that’s a danger. And yes, it’s an inextricable *potential* in government bureaucracy. But so is the potential to give people greater individual agency. What matters are the details and the context.
Bill –
In case you haven’t give up yet (or died from old age will reading this tome).
> are nice to review but to apply to Trump … eh.
Right. Keep in mind, I don’t agree with Haidt – who IIRC, has collected evidence to argue not as much that Trump is an authoritarian, but that he attracts supporters who lean towards authoritarianism on a relative scale. IMO, Trump is more a transactionalist than an “authoritarian” per se. Many Trump detractors call him transactionalist and then turn around can call him authoritarian, like they might call him transactionalist and then call him racist. I just think he’s transactionalist, and that he will incorporate or signal pretty much anything as it suit his purposes. He’s not unique in being transactionalist, as transactionalism is an inherent part of being a politician – but I do think that the extent to which he employs transactionalism is *somewhat* unique.
I don’t say that merely from observing him, but also from knowing what he has said on the issue for decades, and from his decade long association with Roy Cohn and Roger Stone, who along with Trump made a point of being explicitly clear about their strategy of leveraging transactionalism. Indeed, being explicit about it is a key part of the strategy. Some might argue that explicitness is a kind of authenticity or honesty; I disagree, rather strongly, but I get why people feel what way.
> Painting Trump as an authoritarian is a bit much.
See above.
> Biden just gave us a rally in Philly that looked like the second coming of Nazi Germany, complete with hate speech. Then he denies it the next day.
Which is largely my point. Politicians of all stripes can wink towards authoritarianism to stimulate a sympathetic vibration to the authoritarian tendencies in pretty much everyone.
> Put simply … people vote for him because he addresses their needs.
So, not surprisingly, I think it’s considerably more complicated than that. I think he addresses their identity-orientation. Just like any politician does. He happens to be quite good at it. That’s mostly what politics is about.
> If the Jan 6 ‘insurrection’ was a violent example of authoritarian followers, then how would you characterize the violence of the summer of 2020 riots, +570 of them, where there were no arrests, no convictions yet millions in property damage and tens of deaths?
Again, that’s my point. These simplistic narratives about how “the left” is this or “the right” is that, are mostly wrong, or at least naive.
> Reality is more nuanced.
Yup.
Which brings us back to the discussion of government bureaucracy. Of course there are ways that politicians can leverage government bureaucracy to stimulate the sympathetic authoritarian vibrations in their supporters. Yes, it’s an inherent *potential* of politics and government bureaucracy. But so is the capacity for government bureaucracy to enhance “individual freedoms.” What matters is the context and the details.
Bill –
Trying to respond to your later comment. This filter is ridiculous. I’ll try again to break it up and see what happens. If that doesn’t work I’ll wait to see if it gets through moderation.
Bill –
In case you haven’t give up yet (or died from old age will reading this tome).
> are nice to review but to apply to Trump … eh.
Right. Keep in mind, I don’t agree with Haidt – who IIRC, has collected evidence to argue not as much that Trump is an authoritarian, but that he attracts supporters who lean towards authoritarianism on a relative scale. IMO, Trump is more a transactionalist than an “authoritarian” per se. Many Trump detractors call him transactionalist and then turn around can call him authoritarian, like they might call him transactionalist and then call him racist. I just think he’s transactionalist, and that he will incorporate or signal pretty much anything as it suit his purposes. He’s not unique in being transactionalist, as transactionalism is an inherent part of being a politician – but I do think that the extent to which he employs transactionalism is *somewhat* unique.
Joshua …
Thank you for the time you took for your responses.
I think we agree on some aspects of Trump – transactional … opportunist … PT Barnum. The first rule about politics is to win the election. Having the ‘perfect/best’ policy platform doesn’t mean you’ll win. That said, I think Trump’s policies are the reason he has such a following. IMHO.
Thank you for your comments on covid/health bureaucracy. Obviously you’re correct about complexity, which is why one must maintain a set of values with which to evaluate, navigate and prioritize our decisions. Maybe Judith can figure out a decent forum/articles for ‘evaluating the covid medical and policy response’? Given your statements here I see no reason why you wouldn’t be able to help her with an outline/suggested articles.
Enjoy your day!
> Since when do psychologists have epistemic authority to speak on climate change, its impacts and relevant policies?
I note the irony wherein certain climate scientists claim the epistemic authority to speak on the psychology of climate scientists, “alarmists,” “activists,” etc.
> Exactly how does civil disobedience get meaningful information out there?
Lol. MLK on line 2.
Against my better judgement: I’ll bite on this.
What is the “meaningful” information communicated by these stunts right now? That we need more of what is turning into a frightening energy failure in Europe? That some activists are still clinging to debunked catastrophism?
The situation in Europe is really serious right now, why aren’t EU scientists taking it seriously and offering actual solutions?
I’ll go even further- between the two of us, you have more reason to want Germany running those nukes than I do this fall and I’m pro-nuke. Why? Because doing so softens the impact of three decades of really bad climate-driven energy policy. And team “existential threat” should be very worried people will notice they’re the cause of this predictable disaster.
People are problem solvers- if you present a problem, you better be willing to talk coherently about a solution. Gluing yourself to art masterpieces isn’t a solution.
Jeff –
First off, I’m not equating politically-focused climate scientists to MLK,
But let’s start by looking again at the original statement (that I took issue with), which is generic in focus, and your refraining which is specific in context. It’s not by accident that you re-framed it in that way (I assume w/o rhetorical intent, but in good faith) as that’s the only way to make the original generic statement.it be basically completely nonsensical.
But let’s go with your re-framing, as it’s a valid topic in its own right:
> What is the “meaningful” information communicated by these stunts right now?
I’m not going to say that (1) it conveys meaningful information on technical scientific questions or that (2) I even think it’s clear that such civil disobedience has the net benefit that the activists intend, but those questions do elude the general focus of civil disobedience – which is to spur action when technocratic processes and powers in opposition prevent achieving the goals of the activists. Isn’t that obvious?
With respect to the more specific aspects of your comment – my own believe is that this is about facing high damage function/low probability risk in the face of long time horizons and much uncertainty. As such, I thknk that if the will is there – which could happen if dramatic and unambiguous impact from climate change becomes unavoidably obvious in the day-to-day lives of people who live in wealthy countries – we can dirge new energy pathways while sustaining social progress. But it would require more equitable redistribution of resources, and that’s not something that goes down easily, particularly for, but not even exclusively for, people who currently enjoy the benefits of relatively unequal distribution disproportionately.
I chimed in because I liked your mention of MLK. My point is that MLK coupled disobedience to a set of achievable, reasonable, demands.
The stunts of the climate concerned are not tied to goals, they are designed to “create awareness” of their often absurdly unscientific doomsday scenarios. Worse, they are tied to a subset of “action” that is demonstrably ineffective.
Back to the crisis in the EU right now. Based on 30 years of press releases and fawning media coverage of the continent’s unquestionable commitment to combating climate change with cheap, effective renewables, no place on Earth should be better placed to shrug off Putin’s fossil fuel stoppage.
Yet… it’s not.
Millions of people, facing a very serious situation, then turn to ScienceTM asking “why didn’t this work as advertised and what are going to do about it” and the answer is “I shall glue myself to the Mona Lisa.”
That is unsatisfying.
Be satisfying.
Joshua …
> With respect to the more specific aspects of your comment – my own believe is that this is about facing high damage function/low probability risk in the face of long time horizons and much uncertainty. As such, I thknk that if the will is there – which could happen if dramatic and unambiguous impact from climate change becomes unavoidably obvious in the day-to-day lives of people who live in wealthy countries – we can dirge new energy pathways while sustaining social progress. But it would require more equitable redistribution of resources, and that’s not something that goes down easily, particularly for, but not even exclusively for, people who currently enjoy the benefits of relatively unequal distribution disproportionately.
I’m also going to post this below as a new comment as it is sometimes easier to keep track of replies.
You say:
1 – … if dramatic and unambiguous impact from climate change becomes unavoidably obvious in the day-to-day lives of people who live in wealthy countries – we can dirge new energy pathways while sustaining social progress.
What is an example/nature of the social mechanism (bureaucracy) which would establish the ‘if’? And, if different, the example/nature of the social mechanism that will establish the ‘then’?
2 – But it would require more equitable redistribution of resources, and that’s not something that goes down easily, particularly for, but not even exclusively for, people who currently enjoy the benefits of relatively unequal distribution disproportionately.
What is the example/nature of the social mechanism that will decide equity? Again, if different, the example/nature of the social mechanism that will affect the change?
The activists are in overdrive because this winter is going to kill their pet “renewables” project as it becomes obvious that they don’t work when you turn off the fossil fuels. Plus, actual science is busy admitting most of the junk you read about Covid really was junk science.
“Climate science” needs to provide an objective, scientific + engineering, review of viable, cost effective alternatives to fossil fuels. What we have is, instead, over 30 years of circular firing squad:
Activists: Let’s do something ridiculous, ineffective and absurdly expensive!
World: No.
Activists: Why don’t you believe in the existential climate crisis?
Repeat.
We all know why no review of alternatives gets media/political attention, even though several have been done. They all endorse functional, affordable CO2 power the activists will never accept. So the carousel goes round and riders complain they never get anywhere.
Western academics arguing for more and bigger government. Bigger government is more corrupt and dictatorial. Lenin’s communism that inspired Stalin, Mao, Castro, Eurocommunism and now, the DC/Democommies always ends in mass killings.
That’s why democracy and the rule of law must prevail.
Wagathon fashions a universal truth from a religious article of faith (in the church of extremist libertarianism). No matter than it’s shown false by centuries of social change (if not thousands of years of societal evolution).
The corruption and dictatorial magnitude of governments are influenced by far more than their size, if size is even an influence at all. But I get it, simplistic rules can be comforting in the face of complexity and uncertainty:
https://judithcurry.com/2022/09/06/climate-scientists-politics-simpleton-versus-wicked-scientists/#comment-979748
Sure corrupt and brutal dictatorial governments can be identified in history. And yet the greatest increase in human welfare comes from free markets.
> And yet the greatest increase in human welfare comes from free markets.
Prolly a little complicated.
We could find a number of correlates (such as spread of civil agency), and places where tremendous progress took place absent free markets (China over the last few decades). Not to say that “free markets” isn’t a relevant consideration, but attribution of cause-and-effect should be undertaken with humility.
Sorry – that’s RIE on Daisy’s computer. Do check out her new blog through.
Oh believe me Joshua I have humbly thought about this for a long time. I think it is all about resources and who controls them. That’s what makes China so dangerous.
In my books – the first casualty of the climate war was science in our internet expanded public arena. In the science world – science is as imperfect and vital as ever. And then truth flew out the window. What appears more often than not is deductive reasoning with little to zilch quantitative validation – the latter only appears in scientific literature. Newton warned us about that. Not science in other words. The culture war drags on. Informed by historic currents in the zeitgeist and powered by memes on the internet – it boils down who is in control – the State or Joe Blow everyman? The economic culture conflict has now subsided to a melee between democratic socialists and the Chicago Boys and friends – progressives and conservatives. Like Hayek I am neither. I believe in democracy, the rule of law and individual liberty. I have my money on business, landowners and economic freedom fighters – to solve climate change and a host of global problems this century. https://watertechbyrie.com/2022/04/13/the-chicago-boys-v-salvatore-allende-fidel-castro-and-che-guevara/
> Western academics arguing for more and bigger government. Bigger government is more corrupt and dictatorial.
Indeed. What was wrong with caves and clubs?
Joshua | September 7, 2022 at 1:19 pm | Reply
> Western academics arguing for more and bigger government. Bigger government is more corrupt and dictatorial.
Indeed. What was wrong with caves and clubs?”
completely false equivalence
Robert –
The comment was mis-nested and not intended for you.
Sorry – that’s RIE on Daisy’s computer. Do check out her new blog through.
Joshua is not above berating a stranger on the economic wonders of China. But not me obviously.
money quote from curry:
“I’m defining ‘simpleton climate scientists’ to be academics, mostly in disciplines that are far afield from the core discipline of climate dynamics, who think that both the climate problem and its solutions are simple. ”
Example 1 – scientists who believe CO2 is the driver of the warming climate.
example 2 – Jacobson and clan who believe the simple solution is renewables
Simpletons are experts on agreeing with the consensus for financial gain. They see no money gained from being contrary. That may be simple, but it is a fact. They are like the scientists that cigarette companies paid to state cigarettes were safe. Now governments and others pay scientists to say CO2 is not safe. So that’s what they say to get, and keep, their job and/or grant.
Governments get the science they pay for.
And then I see this news story.
There is no end in sight to the madness we find ourselves living through.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/05/climate-change-debate-clampdown-proposed-by-australian-academy-of-sciences/
Thanks. Interesting piece.
I’ve never seen this question asked and would like to see if someone in this field could provide a rational answer:
“Let’s pretend that we could eliminate all of the bad pollution that is supposedly causing man made climate change tomorrow. What is the plan for stopping climate change that has happened since the beginning of time that is not man made?
While the various handbag fights continue, please take a moment to consider the actual and undeniable impact of Green Energy Extremists’ (GEE) policies playing out right now in Europe. The GEE convinced Europe to discourage fossil fuel development and production, phase out nuclear, and instead build out unreliable wind and solar. If Europe had ignored the GEE, it would have a greater quantity of locally sourced fossil fuels. Instead, their industries are shutting down. Europe should have adapted rather than mitigated CO2.
The European Union is racing to come up with ideas to keep its energy crisis from turning into an economic meltdown, as energy ministers prepare for an emergency meeting in Brussels on Friday.
Germany wants power-price caps within weeks. Poland is seeking to limit prices on all natural gas imports. Spain says the bloc to needs to make sure utilities have adequate financing. Liquidity is set to be a focus of the talks.
Meanwhile, energy-intensive industries, which have been forced to shutter plants due to soaring natural gas and power costs, have a singular message for officials: Do something — fast.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-06/swiss-extend-credit-line-as-liquidity-in-focus-energy-update
‘…those who have been worshipping so ardently at the altar of reduced carbon emissions — and how quickly they adopted the messianic zeal and intolerance of a religion — may find that they have been deifying not just a false god but a ruinously expensive one, …those who have been worshipping so ardently at the altar of reduced carbon emissions — and how quickly they adopted the messianic zeal and intolerance of a religion — may find that they have been deifying not just a false god but a ruinously expensive one, too. ~Johnny Ball.’ ~Johnny Ball
Deservedly denounced at a fist thumping pontifical pulpit!
It’s always interesting to see people who make a religion out of denigrating others by labeling them with “religion.”
Although not religious myself, I can see many positive attributes associated with religion. It can provide a sense of community and a moral compass.
Of course. “skeptics” also create a community for themselves and share a moral compass, but some “skeptics” interestingly seem to need to deny those religious attributes. They’d rather, without any skepticism or thoughts of circumspection, rather jettison any of the positive attributes of religion, and their own religious traits, and use “religion” as a cudgel for no purpose other than to denigrate this who don’t share some of their views.
“any belief system that purports to tell the future is most likely pathological.” ~Wm Grey
From various numbers scrapped up from the web, it appears Europe has about 170 years of hard coal and 150 years of natural gas at current usage rates. It would have been nice if the governments there had encouraged development and production.
I don’t think it is up to government to encourage oil and gas production – but if it is democratic and legal to do so? Them’s the breaks.
It’s not up to the government to discourage oil and gas development either, but they do it and aren’t shy about it either.
A couple of years ago I read a comment by Professor Curry in which she stated (categorically), that there are only three gases IPCC deals with. All debates have circled around this.
Now, I am not a scientist. I have followed a lot of what is written. I ask myself and you: What do you know about the thermometer?
To establish global warming, we must collect temperature readings from multiple places and then make comparisons.
The thermometer measures the temperature of the gas mixture that swirls around the probe or bulb. How many gases are there and what is their individual impact on the temperature?
I think it would be a good research project (you will not get a grant for this) to identify at least 10 of those gases and the possible impact each gas has to the average air we live in.
Difficult task especially that we do not recognise the destructive power of water vapour (which is removed to get a carbon dioxide reading). Climate change causes floods and droughts. These are two opposite extremes that relates wo water vapour in the air. The IPCC reports do not give any confidence in its writings.
“The thermometer measures the temperature of the gas mixture that swirls around the probe or bulb. How many gases are there and what is their individual impact on the temperature?”
–
The thermometer measures the instant temperature of the mercury in the bulb.
It is mostly influenced by the SW or IR radiation falling upon the thermometer’s body.
The gases around thermometer have very little influence on what thermometer shows on its display.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What you are really saying is that atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide, have no influence on the temperature. Good to learn.
As a retired Master Mariner and a weather observer/reporter, I can categorically say that all the good weather, and some awfully bad ones, water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas in our Nature.
Nature has not boundaries. Scientists create boundaries for hypotheses and respond only to others who stick within those boundaries. In essence I think they don’t respect Nature. In climate change, where only three gases related to industrial activity, and as you pointed out in your response that we can ignore them, why are we even having this debate?
Thank you, Ingvar, for your respond!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We expect climate change will cause floods and droughts, but so far it hasn’t.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep20716
Extreme precipitation is still generally beneficial despite the label. Harmful extremes are way in the thin tails. Flooding hasn’t increased and may even be decreasing.
Land is becoming better at retaining water. “Land water storage trends, summed over all basins, are positive for GRACE (∼71–82 km3/y) but negative for models (−450 to −12 km3/y), contributing opposing trends to global mean sea level change.”https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1704665115
For the big government deniers, the ones who deny big government is an impediment to progress, here is a story illustrating how big government in one country contributed to the European energy crisis. Note the “lifting the ban” part. In other words, the government banned fracking in the UK. If the rest of Europe feels enough pain, it will happen there also.
Lifting a ban on “fracking,” a drilling technique to tap unconventional oil and gas deposits. It had been restricted since 2019 because of its impact on the countryside and potential to cause earthquakes
Speeding up nuclear power projects, which also would require huge taxpayer support and tends to generate opposition from people living near the sites
Licensing at least 100 more oil and gas drilling projects in the North Sea, a policy that seems to rub against a broader government goal to cut net fossil fuel emissions to zero by 2050
A review of energy regulation to “address underlying problems” in the way power and gas companies work
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-08/uk-says-energy-aid-will-cost-treasury-billions-and-cut-inflation
and
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-pm-liz-truss-set-213657371.html
Along with the support for bills, Truss announced more than 100 new exploration licences for oil and gas in the North Sea and the removal of a ban on fracking for communities which are willing to go ahead with it.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-pm-liz-truss-set-213657371.html
Another big government entity is pondering taking the Albatross off the neck of fossil fuels. Can such governments be trusted enough in order for the oil and gas industry to make the necessary millions of dollars investment to produce more product? Probably not.
After years of prospering from Russian energy imports, Germany is convulsed by a debate over how to unwind a business relationship that critics say is financing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia supplies 40% of Europe’s gas needs.
“I think the coalition agreement stipulating that we no longer want to produce oil and gas in the North Sea and do not want to explore new fields is out of time,” Lindner was quoted as saying by the ntv broadcaster, citing The European magazine.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-should-explore-domestic-oil-gas-reserves-stand-its-own-feet-minister-2022-04-06/
With fossil fuels I wonder about demand, supply, price volatility and putting all the eggs in one basket.
With fossil fuels only?
Fossil, nuclear, and maybe some others, but no unreliable, hard-to-manage wind and solar.
It’s good to have some power sources that don’t need water to operate. But just grafting more transmission lines on top of a very old grid is going cost even more over time. I lived through winter storm Uri and it exposed some of the drawbacks of depending exclusively on centralized power distribution. If we are building for the future we need to move toward microgrids. V2G is coming too.
The USA has 5 times the energy of global fossil fuel reserves in ‘nuclear waste’ stockpiles. With – as I specified fossil fuels – it’s decades at best.
With abundant nuclear energy fossil fuels become uneconomic. Wind likewise. Light, flexible, printable perovskite photovoltaics an order of magnitude cheaper than silicon technology might provide very cheap power close to users. What’s not to like about cheap electrons?
This might be something interesting;
“NovaSolix has invented a self assembling antenna array solar cell which will be 2-4 times more efficient at a less than 1/10 the cost per watt of existing solar.”
http://www.novasolix.com/technology
Cheaper solar makes it easier to run remote refrigeration.
https://www.springwise.com/innovation/sustainability/accessible-solar-powered-refrigeration
Install a kinetic energy power source and have a dance party for backup?
https://www.springwise.com/innovation/agriculture-energy/clean-energy-for-rural-communities-sierra-leone
Are you serious? Did you install any of these revolutionary inventions?
You saw the photo of the third world fridge? The party bit was a joke – although I have felt the power. On the Highlands Highway in Papua New Guinea. Almost all the way to the North Fly gold mine we came across a huge stomped flat place scarily vibrating with 1000’s of dancing bodies.
This is beyond a joke. Growing up after the end of WW2, the little refrigerator we had in the apartment used CO2 as refrigerant.
Life brought me to work as a seaman, etc. and on to a ship bringing frozen meat from Argentina to Mediterranean ports. The refrigeration medium was CO2. To navigate the course across the Atlantic meant also to monitor the cooling water. If the temperature went close to 25C, there could be problems compressing CO2 to make our refrigeration system working. Here I am relating to the late 1950s.
I understand that this means nothing to you, but your ignorance of Nature and failing to personally investigate and challenge your experiences in Nature makes me feel, as a tradesman you have lost the plot.
Agree – it means less than nothing.
https://watertechbyrie.com/about-4/
Thank you, Robert, for even considering my little remark. I am a Simpleton, in the sense of science, but observing and experiencing Nature “in its flesh” is daunting. It teaches you a lot, that no book will tell you.
I am really pleased that you have acknowledged my little input. Kind regards, Mate.
With gas, yes. We should not be relying on gas for baseload, heat, and managing variability. Nuclear should be doing the heavy lifting on baseload.
#AntiFragileEnergy #GreenNUCLEARDeal #HighlyFlexibleNaturalGas #IncineratePlasticPollution #WasteToEnergy #FissionFuture
Climate change research has been plagued since the days of hysterical fears of imminent cooling in the 1970s. Western climate science has become a pathological religion and should be taken with the seriousness that many outside Western academia compare to the science of ancient astrology.
No where have hysterical fears of immanent cooling been more welcome in recent days than in WUWT proprietor Anthony Watts back yard in the temperate Sierra Nevada foothills of Chico, California, where the overnight low Tuesday fell to 104 F.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/09/not-in-his-back-yard-northern.html
You want to show me that on this chart?
https://weather.com/weather/monthly/l/964efdf593907806f032124cb9e16209b90d023389785d478dfc27b50f859160
I just showed you an image capture of the chart from Chico’s newspaper of record.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/09/not-in-his-back-yard-northern.html
Don’t be a Enterprise-Record denier, Jim, It hit 111 in Watts back yard Monday and Tuesday, and the respective overnight lows were 102 and 104.
Note: Watts no longer lives in Chico
Thanks for the update Judith: the Wiki still has Watts down as:
“chief meteorologist for KPAY, a Fox News affiliate based in Chico, California”
I just showed you an image capture of the chart from Chico’s newspaper of record.
Confirmation bias does things like this to us.
Russel is as full of red herrings as a fish farm. But there is a paradox in transitions from warm to cool states. Why do warm states become cool?
Because President Trump moves there?
And their colour depends on the polling register. Amazing but not the question asked.
They farm herring ?
Who knew?
The paradox is that Chico’s resident weatherman failed to mention its record-breaking, headline-making temperatures in his climate blog.
Look’s like Russell’s never been to Texas.
Beats hunting them down one by one.
Climate science has a credibility problem. The activists have exacerbated it, but mainstream climate science did it to itself. They have allowed the GretaGroupies to hijack the debate filled with emotion and hysteria about some ephemeral target of temperature rather than framing the issue with logic and reason about what science knows versus what it thinks it knows.
Science knows that Jakarta is sinking….glub, glub. Even with 1850 levels of CO2, Jakarta would be sinking. Pakistan would be flooding with 1850 levels of CO2. Hurricanes would threaten coastal communities had there been no rise in CO2. Droughts would have been in our future regardless. The same for heatwaves and massive fires. All these events during the Holocene are well documented in the literature. Ben Franklin could have predicted what is now happening. Climate scientists didn’t have to tell us.
What is needed is for climate scientists to speak as adults to adults about what we know instead of about what we think we know. They need to state the obvious. They need to state what skeptics state. That the problems of extreme events predate CO2 issues. That we know enough about the nature of the problem and the nature of the solutions to act now.
By doing this we can end the interminable wrangling of radiation and feedbacks etc, and focus on what we know to be problems. Skeptics can’t deny Jakarta and communities across the globe are sinking, in some cases at rates multiple of GMSLR. Skeptics can’t deny that Pakistan and Bangladesh and communities across the globe are inherently at risk of flooding. Skeptics can’t deny that communities are threatened by hurricanes and forest fires and heat waves. There is consensus on these issues.
All of these events and threats predate the CO2 freak out. So, policies and actions should be oriented toward what can be done today, right now, to adapt to a certainty. Don’t fall into the trap of having an endless list of failed predictions just get longer and longer. Support what can be done to solve knowns not maybes.
The governor of Michigan had a campaign slogan that she was going to “fix the damn roads”. So, climate scientists, join the efforts to fix the damn roads. Just do what we all agree needs to be done. Not very complicated.
Kid –
There is, actually, some room for common ground there – and it is only from common ground that these problems will be significantly addressed. Unfortunately, the ideologically-based tribalism that regularly infuses your comments is a symptom of the disease that blocks reaching common ground:
https://www.dawn.com/news/1707530
Well said. One aspect of climate change is to theorize, thinking there is a problem. The other aspect is “living it out” and ask yourself why did this happened.
There is a yawning gap between science and reality. My son tells me, he is a scientist, that scientists don’t produce facts.
Politicians promise lots of things that never happen.
And here is no free lunch — someone pays if promises are kept.
For federal promises kept with deficit spending, we get the inflation tax.
Here in Michigan, suffering under Governor Witless, we realize she wanted a 50 cent per gallon gasoline tax to fix the damn roads. We opposed that tax, so the roads remained bumpy.
The wife’s Toyota Camry SE has a stiff “sport suspension” that lets us feel the bumps every day. I actually reduce the tire pressure below the recommended 35lbs, for less suffering.
Road repair here was much greater in 2008 and 2009 with Obama subsidies. Have lived in SE Michigan since 1977 with much experience on roads in the Detroit suburbs.
Californians display their innovative genius.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcNeUsRWAAQLrc4?format=jpg&name=small
On the topic of freedoms, China ranks about 15 out of 100. I recall China was actually sealing doors to private residences there during some phases of the pandemic. They still are locking down cities.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/these-countries-losing-democratic-freedoms/
Here is a interesting comparison between China and the US.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/China/United-States/Crime
If you live in America you are almost 5 times more likely to be murdered. If you are murdered don’t you lose all your freedoms?
Here’s an interesting analysis of people killed by the Chinese government. With a government like that, murder is a minor issue.
Owing to difficulties that scholars in and outside China encounter in accessing “state secrets,” the exact figure of the “abnormal death” has become a recurring debate in the field of China studies. Estimates by various scholars range from one-half to eight million. According to Rummel’s 1991 analysis of, the figure should be around 7.73 million (Rummel, 1991: 253). In the following year, however, Harvard scholar John K. Fairbank arrived at a rough estimate of around one million (Fairbank, 1992: 402). Several years later, Ding Shu, an overseas Chinese scholar, disagreed with Rummel’s conclusion by using diverse analyses, and estimated the figure to be around two to three million (Ding, 1999: 214). Recently, Andrew Walder and Su Yang contributed a much more detailed analysis of the death toll in China’s rural areas based upon statistics drawn from 1,500 Chinese county annals. In their estimate, “the number killed [was] between 750,000 and 1.5 million, with roughly equal numbers permanently injured” (Walder and Su, 2003). In a newly published biography of Mao Zedong by two UK authors, the estimated totality of death is discussed: “at least 3 million people died violent deaths and post-Mao leaders acknowledged that 100 million people, one-ninth of the entire population, suffered in one way or another” (Chang and Halliday
https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/chronology-mass-killings-during-chinese-cultural-revolution-1966-1976
What’s even more alarming is they actually execute billionaires in China!
https://www.thewesterncritic.com/post/china-kills-more-billionaires-than-any-other-country-in-the-world-and-it-s-a-good-thing
“The people’s republic of China is perhaps the only country in the world that kills members of its ultra wealthy capitalist class. Many countries particularly those with the death penalty have the authority to execute their citizens in the case of crimes but in practice it is incredibly rare.
Since 2008, China by contrast has executed 14 billionaires, more than any other country in the same period. Such a death toll from the rising superpower triggers the fears of the American one percenters who, for obvious reasons, have compared such treatment to the chaos of the French Revolution. However, unlike the French revolution the slaughtering of the elite has a practical purpose ensuring they are kept in line.
‘In-line’ meaning they do not believe themselves to be above any law just because their money gives them privilege. These Chinese titans of industry were no saints and caused harm to their community. In 2015, a Chinese court sentenced mining tycoon and billionaire Liu Han to death after it was discovered he ran a mafia style gang that engaged in extortion and murder. Others executed have been provably been engaged in rape, large scale bribery, manslaughter or sometimes a combination of all three. These people were from the darkest recess of humanity and did all manner of vile things to achieve power and prestige.”
jack – I’m sure that description of billionaires is the Chinese government approved one. The people they murdered can’t speak for themselves, can they? So, we get only the Chinese government’s “narrative.”
Europe listened to the Green Energy Extremists, and now faces deindustrialization. Or, Big Government take Europe back to the Dark Ages.
Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo warned that Europe needs to act immediately to address the energy crisis or risk the kind of fundamental economic shutdown that the bloc would struggle to recover from.
“A few weeks like this and the European economy will just go into a full stop. Recovering from that is going to be much more complicated than intervening in gas markets today,” he said Thursday in an interview with Bloomberg News. “The risk of that is de-industrialization and severe risk of fundamental social unrest.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-08/energy-crisis-may-bring-eu-economy-to-full-stop-belgium-warns
Maurice Strong, UN official, saw the potential of using climate change as a vehicle for the redistribution of wealth. The purpose of the IPCC has always been to collect evidence that CO2 impacts our climate. The scientific role of CO2 was a given, no study necessary. Together with the WMO who report on the crisis and the WCRP who coordinate the models, the UN has all the agencies needed to choreograph the COP meetings to do the redistribution.
The UN warns of climate catastrophe happening. The poor countries claim devastation, flood, drought or plagues of locusts. The models warn of much worse to come and the IPCC confirms the alarmist science. Each year, the alarmism gets racheted up to encourage the governments to face up to climate justice, aka reparations.
I used to wonder why the CMIP models were never cooled down,but always made hotter. They support the UN project, of course. More alarmism drives the redistribution of wealth.
Amazingly, about 145 governments have signed up to the UN climate change program. So each year, the crisis will ramp up whatever the weather is doing. All the academics will accept the IPCC science because their funding depends on it. Governments have effectively adopted IPCC assessments to drive their climate policies and adopt UN policies such as Net Zero.
The obvious consequence is an ever increasing “crisis” for countries to deal with.
The UN is pleased that their redistribution project is also driving government climate, energy and CO2 reduction policies. The UN always did harbour ambitions to play a greater part in world governance, especially control of global resources such as energy and environmental taxation.
Those who seek to use climate change to manipulate global trends do not always get it right. The WEF, Davos community and huge corporations such as BlackRock used the investment initiative known as ESG to kill off investment in oil and gas.
Unfortunately, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine caused Germany to panic. Why would a country with more than enough wind turbines worry about gas? When the wind is strong, Germany can end up with negative prices in the electricity market in order to get rid of the excess.
Renewables do not replace gas, they make it indispensable in order to run the grid. This devastating truth has changed perceptions. Intermittency is a massive problem. Gas makes renewables tolerable.The importance of gas has shot up, together with the price. But with investment killed off, the industry is unable to respond without massive new investment. Too bad for ESG banking.
The reason climate change is so devilishly effective as a mass movement is that as with religions, it can brandish uncertainty about a future state ( heaven or hell ) with a simpleton course of piety ( reduce your carbon footprint ).
The complexity and uncertainty of climate, irrespective of co2, is probably too much for people to cope with.
If Desmet and Arendt are right about atomization of people leading to mass movements and modern life environment is a strong atomizer, then the outlook is not good, though probably from movements other than climate change.
Indeed, Europe is now the cautionary tale. People will be protesting not having energy at all rather its source.
The latest human-caused disaster –
Biden, Newsom and all the DC/Cali-Democommie’s climate policies are promoting the opposite of unity and prosperity. The time has come for voters to acknowledge failure!
All considered, Western academia has been complicit in causing a human-caused crisis by promoting global warming hoax and tactics to help promote a Leftist takeover of the economy.
It’s the old struggle of left and right over resources. Private ownership and free markets – everyone in other words. Or the ruling class – meaning them.
I am working on a theory that the climate war – with climate science the first casualty – is the latest manifestation of western economic conflicts between left and right. The culture war is now fought out on blogs –- or symbolically in the streets at rallies and riots. In politics it is a pantywaist slapfest between progressives and conservatives. On the streets it is a consilience of many colours from anarchists to ecowarriors burning cars and looting businesses. Thankfully though not so much these days as thuggery, murder and genocide. On climate blogs it is fought in science memes. Factoids of more or less obscure origin fired at the drooling idiot on the other side. From extreme ends of the spectrum. That CO2 emissions are cataclysmic to CO2 is a great boon to humanity, nature and the planet. The 10% – split about evenly left and right – fringe of the population who give a damn anymore.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2022/04/13/the-chicago-boys-v-salvatore-allende-fidel-castro-and-che-guevara/
And if both sides want optimal economic growth what’s the problem?
The first law of asset price inflation is that economic growth is forever but that all bubbles burst.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/03/11/all-bubbles-burst-laws-of-economics-for-the-new-millennium/
Leading straight back to classical supply and demand.
If one engages in what they delusionally convince themselves is “Civil Disobedience”, yet they keep their jobs and spend little to no time in jail-
well, congratulations- you are engaging in civil obedience, i.e. excercising your freedom to participate in a cause that the extant powers support and promote and need fools like yourselves to bring press to and form a narrative around.
We see this over and over, and, for some reason, the participants never seem to get it and appreciate exactly what tools they have allowed themselves to become.
Now try protesting abortion or a stolen election- you will find that you do not get the press – that the fbi hunts down your employer, your bank, your creditors and destroys your life- that you spend years in prison and no NYT editors clamber to interview you.
If you find yourself protesting an unpopular American war in the 1960s don’t be surprised if the government covertly funds an entity like the Grateful dead to turn all your supporters into deadheads with state of the art psychedelic drugs and derail your entire movement.
People seriously need to wake up.
Political Climate Science(tm):
https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2022/09/Screen-Shot-2022-09-03-at-7.55.21-PM-1.png?ssl=1
And some Climate Scientists(tm) wonder why The Climate Crisis(tm) can’t get traction with the hoi polloi.
By my lights, part of “Big Government” is the accumulation and execution of power, “legal” power. South Africa have had an “energy crisis” going on decades now. The government there is the dominate player in the electricity market. Of course, corruption is also involved, but many times that comes with the territory when a government entity is almost the single point of contact for huge money flows.
It said that South Africa’s electricity sector sits with the challenge that Eskom has close on a vertically integrated monopoly in which it accounts for 95% of all generated energy, owns and operates the transmission grid, and accounts for about 42% of the distribution sector.
South Africa’s Energy Minister also has complete control over who gets to build future generating capacity, with decisions informed by the 20-year energy plan (IRP2010).
“These two factors combined mean that all competitive market forces are squashed and there is no real market for energy in South Africa,” the DA said. “In order to change this situation, a number of reforms will need to be instituted and the ISMO is only the first step.”
According to the DA, the ISMO Bill is needed to level the playing field for independent power producers, creating some of the conditions necessary to encourage them to invest.
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/government/115577-fixing-the-eskom-crisis-easier-said-than-done.html
Try this;
At the bottom of each post the is a wordpress option:
“You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )”
To get my comment posted I select ‘Change’ and re-enter my logon email address, nickname and check the ‘save my data’ option. Works for me most of the time but the problem is with this blog because I use wordpress on other sites without this hassle.
Check out the latest energy crisis hobbling California: Smoke from fires triggered by an extended drought is obscuring the sunlight needed to power solar panels.
But, at the same time, a tropical storm is generating rain and clouds, which are also hampering solar generation. Shouldn’t the storm be dousing the fires?
Renewable energy, it turns out, is not only unreliable; it’s downright confusing.
What else can go wrong in the Golden State? In a word, plenty. California is suffering an energy catastrophe that is almost entirely self-inflicted. Bad policies (including decades of sloppy forest management) have exacerbated the impact of a dire drought, while green mania has stripped the state of the kinds of back-up solutions that are critical to shifting to renewable energy.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3636693-biden-white-house-loves-californias-energy-solutions-shortages-and-high-costs/
@ jim2 | September 10, 2022 at 10:49 am trapped in moderation.
The Green Energy Extremists are trying to do to the US what they did to Europe – it will help exacerbate our current energy woes.
Environmental advocates are asking the Biden administration for a federal ban on new natural gas-powered heating appliances in homes and commercial buildings.
In a petition submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Tuesday, 26 health, environmental and consumer protection organizations asked the agency for the ban.
Environmental and health advocates have fought to bar natural gas appliances in homes and buildings at the city and state levels, citing health and climate impacts.
The natural gas industry has pushed back on such efforts, making consumer choice and cost arguments.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3612855-greens-ask-epa-to-ban-new-natural-gas-heating/
Policies Pushing Electric Vehicles Show Why Few People Want One – Bjorn Lomborg
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-other-doomsday-scenario-looming-over-markets-11662212004?st=ji5kufzve1r6lzc&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
ooppss … wrong link.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/policies-pushing-electric-vehicles-show-why-few-people-want-one-cars-clean-energy-gasoline-emissions-co2-carbon-electricity-11662746452?st=c4indjrry3acayz&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Bill one point made in the article is the need for subsidies in order to sell EV’s.
As a refresher for those that forgot their micro economics course – most, but not all, of the subsidies in the form of income tax credits go to the benefit of the seller contrary to perception that the buyer receives the benefit of the tax credit. A tax credit for the buyer artifically shifts the demand curve upward resulting in a higher sales price, while the equilibrium market price remains at the gross sales price less the tax credit. thus the higher sales price goes almost all to the seller.
Hey Joe … If you’re saying that the difference in the gross sales price and the equilibrium market price goes to the seller, as revenue, I agree. If you’re saying all of that difference in revenue is profit then I would say I’m not sure I can agree as I would need to see more information. The tax credit better shift the demand curve upward or two things will occur: the company will have to beg for an increase in the subsidy, or it will go out of business. Assuming the subsidy is needed, of course.
I believe the subsidies are tied to production numbers? If they do stimulate demand, as expected, then the market should produce EVs at a cheaper rate, otherwise they will not penetrate the market much at all. Here’s a piece that seems to reflect that:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gm-courts-mainstream-buyers-with-30-000-electric-chevy-equinox-11662642001?st=r72svdakijskg7w&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I do think they are here to stay for the next decade, if not longer. If that’s true, then you will see more mining of raw materials and production here in the USA.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-is-getting-battery-plantswhat-about-mines-11662035110?st=915xf55bzc6ld6p&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
The shift in the demand curve is a function of the market absent the subsidy/tax credit. If demand is weak, then the shift in the demand curve is high. If demand is strong, then there is small shift in demand curve. A good example is the investment tax credit for business use of auto’s (pre 1986 tax reform act). Since there was a strong demand for auto’s without the tax credit, there was little shift in the demand curve and the seller had little room to raise prices.
Subsidies must end sometime. Sink or swim for EV’s? I put my money on swim. Keep it for the school run and have power for emergencies and activities. It means more electricity. Nuclear power and EV’s go together like horse and carriage.
https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/2023-mg4-detailed-why-it-could-be-australias-cheapest-electric-car-and-undercut-the-byd
I agree that they’ll swim … but I’m not sure they’ll win the meet. It’s essentially a suburban phenomenon with heavy commercial interest (delivery, certain construction, etc.). They won’t make it in cities like Manhattan where you have large populations in apartment buildings. If you have a garage, preferably your own, then you have the physical ability to have one. In rural areas it will be an oddity.
If they penetrate to 20% of the market, that would be a win.
certain applications EVs will never work – good example is farming. Both planting and harvesting occur over very short time periods. Harvesting needs to be started and completed in just a few days. 16 hour days over just 2-4 days to harvest the crop at the prime time. Cant squeeze 16 hours of harvesting into one day when 18 hours is spend recharging the battery. In that situation, 1/2 to 2/3 of the crop is lost. Bad outcome unless your trying to fulfill Paul Ehrlich prophecy.
Be careful to claim batteries will never work in farm applications. What about the potential for quick change batteries in farm vehicles?
Having to spend an extra 40-80 grand on extra batteries is certainly going to help hold down the price of food. Anyway, you would have to use two tractors instead of one. One for the farming implements and one to carry the battery pack.
I’m a fan of synthetic fuels. Costs are getting better.
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/filling-it-up-green-efuels-explained
Robert, whether the fuel is synthetic or natural, the source is the same NATURE.
Jim and Rob
My response appears to be stuck in moderation.
My point in the response is that EV’s are implemented in farming operations, then there will be a need for 3 sets of battery packs plus one extra in case of a failure. The reason is that harvesting is done over an extremely short time period. You simply cant harvest for 3 hours then, wait 6-8 hours to recharge. Harvesting is often done for 12-15 hour a day for 5-7 days.
As jim2 notes, that is 40k for a battery pack x 3 batterypacks per harvester. (math may be off, though everyone should be able to grasp the engineering and cost hurdles) .
As someone once said – everything is easy if you dont know anything about it. Marc Jacobson is a prime example
The battery pack cost was based on some auto batteries. Tractors are heavy and do hard work (large size range with tractors) so the batt packs for them are likely larger and more expensive.
The best technology for renewable generation is would be hydrogen power. Excess windmill or solar electricity can be stored as hydrogen (and oxygen) by electrolysis in salt water with platinum plated (insoluble) anodes.
The advantages are:
1) No mining for expensive battery metals for storage when grid is not running.
2) Hydrogen, with or without oxygen, can be used to power fuel cells to assist the grid rather that battery power.
3) The renewable electricity source does not need to be in location connected to the grid since hydrogen can be transported.
4) Vehicles could be powered with hydrogen fuel cells with heavy compressed hydrogen tanks in lieu of heavy batteries.
5) The vehicles could be refueled quickly, by swapping standardized tanks instead of charging an onboard battery.
6) Elon Musk would be very interested because this would be very useful technology for powering a community off planet with the only ingredient needed to be mined being water, which could be continually recycled in closed systems.
Here is how close we are currently according to the US DOE.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/physical-hydrogen-storage
Ron – the 700 bar hydrogen tank translates to > 10,000 psi. Not something I want on board in a crash.
Jim2, in a car crash if I had a choice of having 20 gallons of gasoline (80 liters of petrol) in a 14 gauge steel tank, a large 80 KWH battery covering the base of the car, or a hydrogen cylinder with walls thick enough to contain 10,000 psi, I would choose the later.
Or, we could suggest Jamie and Adam do a Mythbusters episode to see what happens in actuality.
My guess is that the compressed gas cylinder would be the last part of a car to show damage in a crash, even if the car flew off a cliff.
EVs aren’t really climate policy, they’re “peak oil” theories masquerading as such. Once you get that EVs reduce oil demand, they make (some) sense. Personally, I think the growth of golf carts on suburban streets and ebikes is more interesting than the pretense that a large all-electric sedan for long distances is the answer.
Synthetic or crude? One needs cheap power – lots of it – it’s known how to do that – and produces only water. And is endlessly recyclable and scalable. And can use existing infrastructure with nitrogen as a carrier. Ammonia can be used in fuel cells or the hydrogen recovered and used in synthetic fuels of any kind. Synthesised using carbon dioxide from industrial sources at first. With, unlike fossil fuels, a predictable supply line. But cheap power, even wind and solar, unlocks vast potential and it matters not where it comes from in the transition. It’s une part de gâteau as a buddy says.
‘In the above listing of hydrogen carrier candidates, ammonia is unique in that the non-hydrogen
part of the ammonia molecule (i.e., the nitrogen) has no carbon and, very importantly, does not need to be directly recovered and recycled after the dehydrogenation step (to release
hydrogen). The nitrogen originally comes from the atmosphere (of which it makes up 79%) and is returned to the atmosphere after the hydrogen has been extracted. So, providing the ammonia is generated renewably in the first place (from renewable hydrogen), there is no need for any of the above specified carrier “recycling” processes for ammonia to be a truly zerocarbon hydrogen carrier. Moreover, the process of production of ammonia with nitrogen taken from the atmosphere is highly efficient and far easier than taking carbon from the atmosphere by any route. Liquid ammonia has several key merits, including its high hydrogen content (18% by mass), ease of liquefaction and similar physical properties LPG providing an opportunity to use existing storage, transport and terminal equipment. Ammonia also has a long history of large-scale, cost optimised industrial production and its global use as a fertiliser, chemical raw material and refrigerant. As well, liquid ammonia is already transported over large distances with good economics.’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/880826/HS420_-_Ecuity_-_Ammonia_to_Green_Hydrogen.pdf
Thanks Robert. Ammonia is a good alternative but it does have some downsides too. As you mentioned is only 18% by weight hydrogen, it’s a hazardous gas and it is flammable and explosive, though much less so than hydrogen. One positive is that its strong and recognizable odor could provide quick leak detection.
Hydrogen fuel cells are more powerful but perhaps a touch of ammonia could be added for leak detection.
Ammonia is a carrier for hydrogen – making it easier to transport. Hydrogen is driven off at the destination one way or another.
Pingback: Climate scientists & politics: Simpleton versus Wicked scientists – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Simpleton versus Wicked scientists – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: Simpleton versus Depraved scientists – Watts Up With That? - news page
Pingback: Simpleton 대 Wicked 과학자 – Watts Up With That? – Blog Ciencia
Pingback: Climate scientists and politics: Simpleton versus Wicked scientistson September 10, 2022 at 10:00 am - Always Bet On Black
“We need to acknowledge that control is limited, the future is unknown, and it is difficult to determine whether the impact you make will be positive. We need to accept that climate change will continue to disrupt natural systems and human well-being.” As I’ve been arguing, with little success, for over 20 years.
Pingback: Climate scientists & politics: Simpleton versus Wicked scientists - Climate- Science.press
Pingback: Glibertarians | Sunday Morning 9/11 Links
Joshua …
> With respect to the more specific aspects of your comment – my own believe is that this is about facing high damage function/low probability risk in the face of long time horizons and much uncertainty. As such, I thknk that if the will is there – which could happen if dramatic and unambiguous impact from climate change becomes unavoidably obvious in the day-to-day lives of people who live in wealthy countries – we can dirge new energy pathways while sustaining social progress. But it would require more equitable redistribution of resources, and that’s not something that goes down easily, particularly for, but not even exclusively for, people who currently enjoy the benefits of relatively unequal distribution disproportionately.
I’m also going to post this below as a new comment as it is sometimes easier to keep track of replies.
You say:
1 – … if dramatic and unambiguous impact from climate change becomes unavoidably obvious in the day-to-day lives of people who live in wealthy countries – we can dirge new energy pathways while sustaining social progress.
What is an example/nature of the social mechanism (bureaucracy) which would establish the ‘if’? And, if different, the example/nature of the social mechanism that will establish the ‘then’?
2 – But it would require more equitable redistribution of resources, and that’s not something that goes down easily, particularly for, but not even exclusively for, people who currently enjoy the benefits of relatively unequal distribution disproportionately.
What is the example/nature of the social mechanism that will decide equity? Again, if different, the example/nature of the social mechanism that will affect the change?
For reference see above post: jeffnsails850 | September 7, 2022 at 11:45 am | Reply
The climate always has, and always will continue to change.
The question is how much of any climate change is due to human released CO2.
Climate activists claim and the media supports the notion that any adverse weather is due to human activity but that is unscientific dribble. The real answer if far more complex.
I agree to a certain extent.
What is the definition of weather and then climate? The crude definition of climate change is that first, there is global warming, second it is caused by these dastardly “greenhouse gases”.
As I stated at the start of this string, I am not a scientist, but a Master Mariner, long retired. I know about weather; when it gets bad, I have a duty to do the utmost to protect the ship, crew and cargo. I was not relying on what was written in blogs. I still remember from the second half of 1960s and well into the 1970s when we in return for our weather observations in the North Atlantic, received by morse a synoptic chart.
Upon laying out all the information, the Captain, I was chief officer in the early years, made decisions whether to steer for Belle Is sound (north of Newfoundland) or go south. Early in the year, it was this ice “nuisance”.
This climate change debate, and I have followed it from the mid-1980s, shows to me a total disrespect, by the science community, for Nature and its forces that works uninterrupted day in, day out. The notion that humans can control “the Earth’s destiny” and we can change the course is plain stupid.
The last count of the Australian Greenhouse Office database, there were 32 reportable greenhouse gases. It still failed to register water vapor. Oh, I am sorry, it is a natural greenhouse gas that does not count when the air sample is tested for the presence of carbon dioxide and other stuff.
My apologise for boring you.
The other question is how much it will matter. The impact will probably be very minor compared to the impact of, e.g. Russian and Chinese aggrandisement. The West’s climate policies have reduced, and will further reduce, their capacity to deal with events, e.g. the 2008 GFC, the pandemic, shifts in political power, with-holding energy supplies as a weapon …
Ingvar, I agree with what you say!
The CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere is 400 ppm (parts per million) – or 1 molecule CO2 for 2500 molecules of air!
–
Also, it should be mentioned again – Earth’s atmosphere is very thin!
–
Thus, the CO2 content is 400 ppm (parts per million) in a very thin atmosphere.
–
Ingvar, “The notion that humans can control “the Earth’s destiny” and we can change the course is plain stupid.”
Yes, it is stupid! It is plain stupid!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘By ‘Noah Effect’ we designate the observation that extreme precipitation can be very extreme indeed, and by ‘Joseph Effect’ the finding that a long period of unusual (high or low) precipitation can be extremely long. Current models of statistical hydrology cannot account for either effect and must be superseded. As a replacement, ‘self-similar’ models appear very promising. They account particularly well for the remarkable empirical observations of Harold Edwin Hurst.’ Noah, Joseph, and Operational Hydrology, 1968, Benoit B. Mandelbrot, James R. Wallis – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/WR004i005p00909
Probabilistic forecasting supersedes statistical hydrology – empirical observations feeding into real time updated and educated models AI analysed. Models continue in simulation time. Climate is dynamically self similar with all that implies about sensitivity and emergence of attractors in a dynamically complex system. It shifts within the limits of physical laws – at decadal scales with shifting global wind and current patterns – and gets more extreme the deeper the past. As Harold-Hurst discovered in the millennial Nile River series.
OMG – I lived and died on the weather. Only on occasion nearly literal – waited cyclone Marcia out at a shelter. So much time spent planning, designing and building flood engineering and coastal defences.
1. Do things that make a difference and a profit.
2. Needs a change of attitude.
https://foolfoundation.org/
Sorry – posting on Daisy’s machine again. Desk, gaming monitor, printer, sea view. Think I’ll replace her old laptop with a house computer.
But if the social mechanisms mentioned above are not democracy, the rule of law and private enterprise count me unimpressed. It’s our well paid – relatively – job to get up every morning and make the world a better place. One way is if the financially invisible become visible.
”We aim to make the world smarter, happier, and richer every day and in every way we can. It’s our purpose here at The Motley Fool. It’s what inspires us to get out of bed each day and deliver for all of our stakeholders.’ https://foolfoundation.org/
Motley Fool has stakeholders – including me. Motley Fool is a portfolio philosophy. Hold positions in 25+ companies for at least 5 years. As of recently I have 30 positions in growth markets – more than a few Motley Fool picks. Some big miners of metals and fertiliser – proven low cost, reliable suppliers with the market around them expanding with population, technology and income. A few rare earths and strategic materials producers who have massive reserves and are active selling finished product in markets – or with a good idea and nearly active. Positions in most of the tech giants who are building the cloud computing server farms. With smaller and more nimble fish at the other end of the digital ocean who are into machine learning and artificial intelligence for banking, insurance, accounting, science, gaming… Plus Moderna, Air B&B, Etsy, Spotify, NIO and the Australian Agricultural Company. All fool picks other than than AAC – a big northern cattle concern and Australia’s original company. Sony I bought into on the mention of an augmented reality headset. Although they do have a more than solid history of growth and an amazing balance sheet.
I was looking for growth looked up and had a balanced, diversified portfolio. My ASX portfolio is holding up – despite a massive hit recently to Australian Strategic Materials. They have a massive reserve of rare earths at Dubbo and are commissioning a high purity refinery in Korea. They have ambitions to build refineries producing materials to high purity specifications – with their patented technology – around the world. The mine is gearing up to go. They had a change of CEO – the woman they have now has been involved in both the mine and the processing and she has the industry background. Behavioral finance describes the difference in trading behaviours of men and women. Most trades are net losses – picking good positions and hanging on for the ride is the court jester – a motley fool – style. Women act on fewer bad ideas. I think I’ll buy a bit more ASM.
Bill –
> What is an example/nature of the social mechanism (bureaucracy) which would establish the ‘if’? And, if different, the example/nature of the social mechanism that will establish the ‘then’?
I think the war effort is a good example is a good example of the “if” and the “then.” I think of what took place in South Korea, a collective sacrifice for the sake of societal progresss.
I wouldn’t claim was perfect; certainly there was a form of corruption in Korea connected to the Chaebols – but expecting perfection is sub-optimal.
> What is the example/nature of the social mechanism that will decide equity? Again, if different, the example/nature of the social mechanism that will affect the change?
There’s not a “decision” to be made. There is or isn’t sufficient will to create some change to some effect. We saw, to some extent, that take place with the Civil Rights movement in this country. There are plenty of other examples
Your answers to:
1 – A war effort. I assume you mean that in reference to ‘ … if dramatic and unambiguous impact from climate change becomes unavoidably obvious in the day-to-day lives of people who live in wealthy countries – we can dirge new energy pathways while sustaining social progress.’ Interesting, as in a war we can say our lives are immediately threatened. In that case the enemy is pretty clear. How will it be clear with climate? Considering we’re not anywhere near an emergency like war it’s interesting you would choose that scenario.
My question was which social mechanism would make that call. With war it is fairly clear. But with climate would it be the IPCC?
And the next question was, once the ‘if’, or the emergency, was established by some social mechanism (bureaucracy), what social mechanism would carry out the ‘then’? Your answer is that ‘There’s not a decision to be made.’ Curious. Is that because the social mechanism that establishes the emergency is of such a nature that its findings should be accepted without debate, and thus acted on? You gave as an example of the Civil Rights Movement. That social event was codified through law, which requires a government action (bureaucracy) of elected officials. I would say even wars follow the same procedure, but alas we know that some wars are fought without legislature approval, which I’m sure you would agree should be condemned.
If my questions seem a bit odd it’s because of my observations on what is happening in Europe with regard to energy and the coming winter. Germany has certainly gotten itself into a pickle relying on Russian NG and not developing its own fossil fuel resources. You mention war, and it is plain that a war can cause an immediate difference in our lives. However, Germany has no immediate response to its energy problems. It would seem that their energy policy was severely faulted, which we’ll find out this winter how bad or not, but it doesn’t look good. Climate/energy doesn’t seem to be something decided such as a war is. Given that there is no immediate need/danger, particularly if we go back 10-20 years when their polices were initiated, it seems it would have been prudent for Germany to have developed fossil fuels along with other sources addressing the supposed cause of climate change. That process would have needed a social mechanism(s) that took into account many different views/sources of opinion. Another word that seems to have gained traction the last few years is stakeholder, a word I’m not overly impressed with. Yet, I wonder how many different stakeholders were consulted for the German energy policies?
Daisy’s going home for Christmas. Talk about haves and have nots. A 5 star hotel in Brisbane to overnight in Port Moresby and to Alatau in eastern Papua New Guinea. Her place is Ewena on Misima – a volcanic island a couple of hundred k off the mainland. Grass houses. No electricity. Not a scientist – simpleton or not – in sight. She’ll take a coastal trader with some cargo for a feast. Overwhelmingly burning fossil fuels just to live. Replacing these needs nuclear power and synthetic fuels.
I’ve been planning a Christmas present to be sent to Alatau. Daisy was delighted when she saw it. Life jackets and a couple of biolite camp stoves to power Daisy’s ipad and iphone, some lights and a blue tooth speaker. A AU$1307 cost. And a stove for making her coffee or noodles.
Western toys that could be useful back in the village.
Ewena could be electrified easily. They have streams springing out of the mountain every 50 or 100 m. Micro hydro is possible – even a standard design… Takes money and expertise. And it isn’t sustainable if people don’t do it themselves.
Pingback: Climate scientists and politics: Simpleton versus Wicked scientistsHome - Energy News Beat - Sandstone Group
Energy alert, India …
Energy officials in India are considering whether further coal imports may be needed to avoid any fresh squeeze on the nation’s power supply.
Stockpiles of the fossil fuel at power plants have fallen about 11% since mid-August, meaning utilities have an average of 10 days supply, well below required levels of more than three weeks. Coal helps produce about 70% of India’s electricity.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-09/india-considers-new-coal-imports-as-energy-supply-concern-grows
A top scientific journal places political correctness above the search for truth.
https://www.city-journal.org/nature-human-behavior-editorial-is-anti-science
Bill –
That article looks pretty much like a hack job:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/01/05/authors-retract-the-nature-communications-paper-on-female-mentors/
Regarding what the journal said about the retraction of the article given as an “example” of an article being pulled pulled for political reasons – pretty much the exact opposite of how the article you linked said the journal’s policy is “in short.”
Simply being uncomfortable with the conclusions of a published paper, would and should not lead to retraction on this basis alone. If the research question is important, and the conclusions sound and valid, however controversial, there can be merit in sharing them with the research community so that a debate can ensue and a range of possible solutions be proposed. In this case, the conclusions turned out not to be supported, and we apologise to the research community for any unintended harm derived from the publication of this paperii
It’s legit to question this policy, imo, but it’s not cool to be so dishonest when doing so. You can’t get to a reasonable discussion of the issues involved by lying about what people say.
Joshua … You may have missed this:
Consider two recent examples. One study suggested that junior female scientists benefit from collaborating with male—as compared with female—mentors. The publication of this article in Nature Communications—another journal in the prestigious Nature franchise—resulted in a social-media firestorm and prompted angry demands for retraction. Under growing pressure, the authors caved and “agreed” to retract the article on methodological grounds. As the psychologist Chris Ferguson noted, the issues discussed in the retraction note were limitations “typically handled in a comment and response format, where critics of the article publish their critiques and the authors can respond.” The authors of the mentoring study had published an earlier study in the same journal showing evidence that “ethnic diversity resulted in an impact gain” for scientific articles. This un-retracted study had used a similar methodological approach as the retracted one, but nobody objected.
… the point the author made was that the methodological approach was the same.
Or, were you referring to this part:
Another study, published in 2019 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found no evidence of anti-black bias in police shootings. Initially, the editors of PNAS were unwilling to entertain calls for retraction or even a correction. But after a critique in Science, they relented and published a reply-and-response debate. The problem had to do with a poorly worded “significance statement”—a public-facing research summary appearing outside the body of the article itself—claiming that “White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.” Following additional scrutiny, including a Washington Post op-ed, PNAS published a correction in which the authors admitted to misleading language in one part of the significance statement but stood by their research findings. But in the feverish summer of 2020, and following extensive citations by City Journal’s Heather Mac Donald, the paper became dangerous and had to be eradicated. More than 800 academic luminaries, including Susan Fiske, a Princeton psychologist and wife of the relevant PNAS editor, signed a petition attacking the paper, causing the authors to agree to retract the paper that they had vigorously defended. The PNAS editors admitted that their concerns were political: “The problem that exists now, however, is outside the realm of science. It has to do with the misinterpretation and partisan political use of a scientific article after its publication.”
… the author’s point was:
Why was the wording of the significance statement such a big deal? The authors themselves had already acknowledged that the summary statement overhyped the results. If this is sufficient to retract a paper, then the wider body of social-science research is in danger. Consider a recent sociological study linking dog-walking to neighborhood rates of violent crime. Published in a top journal of the field, the study is entirely correlational and does not provide causal evidence. Yet this did not stop the press release from declaring that dog-walking helped reduce street crimes.
I’m not sure why you cast this article as a hack job? Sorry if it offended you.
Bill –
> Sorry if it offended you.
Lol. Just when I thought we could engage respectfully over an extended period, you throw out silliness like that?
I gave the quote from the editors, where what the editors state is the exact opposiite of what the author of the article said they said, “in short.”
Once again, like your throw away line (no, it doesn’t “offend” me if you say something silly or the author mischaracterizes the journal’s position – I’m not offended by banality, but it is what it is – which is mostly just unfortunate), you can’t get very far in a meaningful discussion of these issues when people aren’t engaging in good faith.
And Bill –
Not only does the statement of the editors not along with how their position was characterized by the author, in the link I proved there was an actual discussion of the merits of the article that was retracted. Which again, make it clear that the article you linked was a hack job.
If you don’t see it that’s fine – but why would you just re-quote the article as if doing so actually responds to a criticism of what the author wrote (which.i obviously read already). And why would you ask me about the second “example” when it should have been clear from my response, with the link I gave and the quote from the editors, that I was referring to the first example?
Joshua …
I restated it because I thought your response didn’t make sense. I still don’t … but hey … it is what it is.
Your ‘oh don’t be silly’ answer is very much an East Coast mannerism. To be honest, my statement on offending you was … ever so slightly … sarcastic. :-)
Enjoy your night.
Bill –
How the author characterized the journal’s position:
> ” What did the editorial say?
>> In short, it took the position that scientific truth should defer to politics.
What the journal editors said in the retraction, that was provided as an example:in the Manhatten Institute piece.
> Simply being uncomfortable with the conclusions of a pu blished paper, would and should not lead to retraction on this basis alone.
The blog post a Gelman’s blog did a good job of offering significant criticism of the article in question – even though the author questioned whether the flaws would merit a retraction.
Indeed, I think these are legitimate and important questions and should be discussed. Is the retraction because of politics despite what the authors said? I don’t think it’s a black snd white situation. It’s interesting.
Question thus all you want, but you can’t get to the heart of the matter by misrepresenting the editors’ position.
I happen to think that the reaction (from Pinker et al.) is way overblown, but I think there are important questions and issues to be interrogated. Which is why I think hack jobs are harmful.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy New Roundup #519 – Watts Up With That?
Europe listened to the Green Energy Extremists, now pays the price. And it’s not pretty.
Germany is considering direct intervention in the energy market to avoid a wave of insolvencies amid soaring gas prices, said a key lawmaker from the ruling Social Democratic Party.
“We have to pay the bill anyway. The question is whether we do this now at the beginning, by intervening in the markets and by cushioning — or whether in the end it is insolvencies, it is unemployment,” said Lars Klingbeil, co-head of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s SPD, told the broadcaster ARD on Sunday. “I want us to take the first step, to intervene now.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-09/energy-crisis-pushes-germany-to-lock-in-lng-for-decades
The Green Energy Extremists don’t give a d*mn about you, your family, your job, or your country. These people need to get the boot!!!
In the face of soaring energy prices which threaten to impact the most vulnerable as winter approaches, some EU member States are turning to investments in fossil fuels infrastructure and supplies. While that impulse is understandable, I urge the EU and its member States to consider the long-term consequences of locking in more fossil fuel infrastructure. It is essential to accelerate the development of energy efficiency projects and renewables. There is no room for backtracking in the face of the ongoing climate crisis.
In line with their international human rights obligations, I encourage all States to seek an ambitious outcome at UNFCCC COP27, including to address loss and damage and meet and increase climate finance commitments.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/09/global-update-statement-nada-al-nashif-un-acting-high-commissioner-human-rights
@ jim2 | September 12, 2022 at 12:02 pm trapped in moderation.
sept 13 12:27 pm trapped in moderation.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy New Roundup #519on September 12, 2022 at 2:00 pm - Always Bet On Black
Excellent summary and comment.
It would be nice if scientists worthy of the name would recognize and affirm that:
Further global warming is undesirable.
Significant global cooling is undesirable.
We should do whatever we can to mitigate both.
CO2 at this time at these levels is not a controlling factor in climate change.
Mitigating CO2 creation by humans will have no effect on a) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (cf: 1929-1931, 2020) b) the temperature of the planet and c) will have very undesirable effects on human welfare.
It is true that we have an influence on climate, as do other animals, birds, and insects. It is not true – that is, there is no evidence – that we have any means to control climate. We may have a bit more influence than termites because of our paving and clear-cutting activities, but not much.
The current fetishizing of CO2 is totally understandable – it is the only one of the 9 major forcings that we have some measurable influence on – but alas not much.
The facts are that:
1. CO2 at this time, at these levels, is not in control of climate and
2. We are not in control of CO2.
We produce around 4% of the annual contribution to the atmosphere. Notable are:1929-1931; and 2020 – when Arizona State University climate scientist Randall Cerveny, unaware of 1929-1931, expressed his disappointment that “We had had some hopes that, with last year’s COVID scenario, perhaps the lack of travel and the lack of industry [~10% drop in output] might act as a little bit of a brake. But what we’re seeing is, frankly, it has not.”
The 1929-1931 30% drop in human output did not alter the languid rise of CO2 in the slightest. WWII and postwar reconstruction did not alter the slope of the rise of CO2 and was associated with a slight decrease in global temperature.
Nor is there any evidence in history, as in the last million years we have had 8 glaciations and 8 interglacials including this current, none of them preceded by a CO2 change. Indeed, in the last 550 million years, there has never been a temperature reversal preceded by a CO2 change. Emergence from the Last Glacial Maximum was not preceded by CO2 change, nor was the Little ice Age. 140,000 years ago, the Eemian, had temperatures about 2C higher and sea levels at least 6m higher and CO2 around 280ppm.
And then on the academic side, there is the exponential decline of CO2 GHG effect first noted by Arrhenius (50% of its GHG effect in the first 20 ppm), and the math is now correct – see MODTRAN at U of Chicago. Modern calculations suggest that the next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 2%. Meanwhile, the beneficial effect of CO2 on plant life is linear, and has been credited with at least 30% of the increase in agriculture since 1950. Plants grow bigger and faster and are more drought resistant. CO2 is consumed in vast quantities by algae and plankton in our Oceans – these micro-organisms feed the small shrimp and krill that sustain the baitfish, who in turn are prey for the larger ocean predators that feed us. Coccolithophores love CO2. USN submarines do not take anti-CO2 measures until it reaches 8,000 ppm.
Now consider the actual toxic pollution associated with lithium and rare earth mining, processing, and disposal; the fragility of a transportation system dependent on the electrical grid; the land use of solar panels and wind turbines; the raptors and bats killed by turbines; the catastrophes that could ensue with hydrogen power production; the less than perfect reliability of these systems and susceptibility to hackers and sabotage not to mention terrorists and wars. Fossil fuel use is individualized and fungible.
Nuclear power seems like a much more desirable alternative, if indeed one is desired.
Or perhaps we could take on a more benign project – like decreasing the amount of water vapor and controlling the formation and distribution of clouds.
This is rubbish, the first paragraph epitomizes it. It also emphasizes that scientists in this field have little and no respect for Nature. Nature is a thorough recycler and produces renewables, like humans, animals and amoebas, to point out a few living creatures.
All we humans do is that we use elements in Nature’s larder to produce things that are either good or bad. It is up to us to decide whether our actions are beneficial towards future life.
Why don’t we see any dinosaurs today? They are supposed to be extinct. Did humans cause that? I think hysteria is taking hold on the debate, and as we are not dealing with truths or facts, I think we should get on with a life without twaddle (like my input is).
Let us get practical and leave science and psychology out of it.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy New Roundup #519Home - Energy News Beat - Sandstone Group
Argentina raises their interest rates to 75%, dwarfing the 20% that Paul Volcker implemented 40 years ago. The debate now is whether the Fed gets to 4%.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-15/argentina-central-bank-to-raise-rates-by-550-basis-points-to-75
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS
Very informative post, thanks for sharing!
Am I correct in saying “a wicked scientist” = devil’s advocate?