JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Lindzen on why the educated elites are so vulnerable to being fooled

So smart and yet so stupid

Richard Lindzen

Global Warming for the Two Cultures by Richard Lindzen

Prof Richard Lindzen, a giant of the skeptical debate delivered the 2018 Annual GWPF lecture this week talking about two cultures of two different educated elites. Those at the higher intellectual level may be more prone to groupthink than ordinary folk…

The two different kinds of elites and a vast gap between them

Lindzen  quotes C.P.Snow who was both a scientist and a writer and who lived in both elite worlds — the scientific and the arts.

C.P. Snow felt only 1 in 10 of the most highly educated in the western world had even a basic grip on physics:

A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?

I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had. — C.P. Snow

Lindzen fears little has changed and warns that the gulf in understanding between each elite culture is open to malicious exploitation. When science is used as a vote winning issue, non scientists have to pick sides and then belief and faith inevitably trump understanding.

The “trivially oversimplified false narratives”  help reassure the non-scientists that they are not completely stupid. Even the smart-but-dumb folk love being told how smart they are. (Don’t we all?) So when a complicated debate is reduced to a binary “yes-no” situation, like renewables “clean”: fossils “dirty”, educated elites get drawn in…

Why the educated elites are vulnerable to being fooled

Richard Lindzen:

… ‘ordinary’ people (as opposed to our ‘educated’ elites) tend to see through the nonsense being presented. What is it about our elites that makes them so vulnerable, and what is it about many of our scientists that leads them to promote such foolishness? The answers cannot be very flattering to either. Let us consider the ‘vulnerable’ elites first.

  1.  They have been educated in a system where success has been predicated on their ability to please their professors. In other words, they have been conditioned to rationalize anything.
  2. While they are vulnerable to false narratives, they are far less economically vulnerable than are ordinary people. They believe themselves wealthy enough to withstand the economic pain of the proposed policies, and they are clever enough to often benefit from them.
  3. The narrative is trivial enough for the elite to finally think that they ‘understand’ science.
  4. For many (especially on the right), the need to be regarded as intelligent causes them to fear that opposing anything claimed to be ‘scientific’ might lead to their being regarded as ignorant, and this fear overwhelms any ideological commitment to liberty that they might have. None of these factors apply to ‘ordinary’ people. This may well be the strongest argument for popular democracy and against the leadership of those ‘who know best.”
To paraphrase Lindzen, educated elites are gullible suckers because they spent too much time at uni, and they are rich enough to afford to hold stupid ideas. They want to believe they understand science but the level of their understanding is “Bumper Sticker 101″. Smart people have smartish friends, and they are very afraid of looking stupid.
Ordinary folk are more immune to it, because they already know university profs look down on them, so they don’t need to impress them. They can’t afford frivolous quests, like trying to change the weather with a light globe. Ordinary folk ask good, basic questions. These are also hard questions which produce waffling, dissembling and running away, or namecalling, and no one needs a PhD to decide which scientist is right then.

His lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (113 votes cast)
Lindzen on why the educated elites are so vulnerable to being fooled, 9.8 out of 10 based on 113 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y8ayk46a

171 comments to Lindzen on why the educated elites are so vulnerable to being fooled

  • #
    Global Cooling

    Discussions with the elites stop fast when you ask simple questions like where and when has the warming happened? What evidence have you support your hypothesis and so on.

    290

    • #

      The inability to provide a coherent answer to how is even more devastating to their rhetoric.

      150

      • #
        Geoff

        The natural order of things is chaos. Energy leads to structures.

        The natural order of things is individual thought. Money leads to structural thinking.

        Structural thinking cannot win over self reliance. Eventually other people’s money runs out.

        70

    • #
      glen Michel

      Or why do you believe.

      60

    • #
      ColA

      When you couple this article and the previous article about AGL and Origin doublespeak and misdirection you start to see why the elite café late leftards can’t get their head around the basics!!

      180

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        The leftarts as you call them, believe themselves smart and never challenge their own beliefs. Thus they never find out that they aren’t as smart as they think they are.

        The common folk are constantly challenging their own beliefs (and being wrong often), so over time become aware of things that make sense and things that don’t. They gain a “common sense predictor”.

        The one thing that convinced me that I wasn’t as smart as I believed I was, was computer programming. That is a merciless environment to learn about the fallacies of logic.

        170

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Funny how this stuff all comes down to a few basic human sins – pride, arrogance, lack of humility

        161

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      I tried that once with my leftie son-in-law. I only got one question out before I was told, very firmly, “I don’t want to discuss it!” Nothing brings on this type of ripost quicker than a simple question like “do you know how much the earth has warmed in the last 100 years?” Or “do you know what the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is?” The frightened look in the eyes is always worth putting up with the refusal to engage!

      170

    • #
      Ted O'Brien

      Elite? By what measure?

      It has been my observation that, especially in the public service, “specialists” protect their own patch by never dipping a toe into somebody else’s patch.

      It’s called “specialisation”.

      10

  • #
    John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

    Yep, get them all the time. Mainly the female arty types who say to me,’you’re a geologist’ (actually a geophysicist but they find it hard to pronounce). ‘What would you know about climate?’ When I mention Milankovic, that really throws them into a spin.

    433

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Asking the meaning of inertia is good for throwing them into a spin also……..

      180

    • #
      sophocles

      that really throws them into a spin.

      Do they precess as well? :-)
      If they do, they would have to nutate, too. :-)
      Ask them to define them and they are lost. Totally.

      Mention precession and nutation in the same sentence and many have no idea what you are talking about. Yet they are a result of the preservation of angular momentum.

      I quote the first paragraph of Wikipedia’s definitions for precession and nutation. If you had never touched on the subject of preservation of angular momentum and the forces and effects of them, then you would be lost. Yet, in real life it’s delightfully simple.

      Precession is a change in the orientation of the rotational axis of a rotating body. In an appropriate reference frame it can be defined as a change in the first Euler angle, whereas the third Euler angle defines the rotation itself. In other words, if the axis of rotation of a body is itself rotating about a second axis, that body is said to be precessing about the second axis. A motion in which the second Euler angle changes is called nutation. In physics, there are two types of precession: torque-free and torque-induced.

      (from:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession)

      It’s definition of nutation is actually understandable:( cf: Wikipedia

      Nutation (from Latin nūtātiō, “nodding, swaying”) is a rocking, swaying, or nodding motion in the axis of rotation of a largely axially symmetric object, such as a gyroscope, planet, or bullet in flight, or as an intended behaviour of a mechanism. In an appropriate reference frame it can be defined as a change in the second Euler angle. If it is not caused by forces external to the body, it is called free nutation or Euler nutation.[1] A pure nutation is a movement of a rotational axis such that the first Euler angle is constant.[citation needed] In spacecraft dynamics, precession (a change in the first Euler angle) is sometimes referred to as nutation.[2]

      (From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation)

      Now, hands up all of you who didn’t know that about precession and nutation? C’mon, be honest! (It’s an experiment you can do at home with simple equipment :-) )

      171

      • #
        Annie

        Spinning tops an’ all. :)

        60

        • #
          sophocles

          Spinning tops an’ all. :)

          That’s one way. I especially like the demonstration my Physics I lecturer gave our class way way back.
          He arrived in the lecture theatre with a library foot stool, one of the variety which, when you stood on it, could rotate—you could stand on it and turn around. He also had a 600 – 700 mm long piece of 3 by 2 wood which had a bicycle wheel on its axle mounted to one end of it with its axle extending the wood. He proceeded to demonstrate precession and nutation:

          He stood on the stool, took up the wood and held it out at an angle of about 30-45° from the horizontal like a flag staff, holding it firmly with both hands, his left hand holding it hard to his body and the right hand holding it out and up. He then spun the wheel clockwise until it was spinning well, grasped the wooden length again with both hands and then let the wheel drop by about four or more inches, towards the horizontal while still holding it firmly. (It was pivoted from his left hand.)

          The stool began to rotate slowly (to the right, I think). It precessed.
          The wheel and the outside end of the wooden `spoke’ rose and fell slowly while everything rotated on the stool. It nutated.

          The wheel and `spoke’ formed a crudish gyroscope.

          I’ve never forgotten that demo. It was so simple and effective.

          110

      • #
        glen Michel

        Eulers theorem. Faces plus vertices equalas edges plus two. Gee I remember my Geometry from year ONE!

        40

      • #
        rapscallion

        Actually sophocles I do know about these two terms as I’m a sad git and my hobby is astro navigation. When taking astro sights of Polaris (which sits above 89 degrees North (well sometimes), if you don’t allow for precession, the answer is wrong. Indeed, this is why all astronomical tables have to be printed yearly – because of precession and nutation.

        40

        • #
          sophocles

          this is why all astronomical tables have to be printed yearly – because of precession and nutation.

          That’s right. The sun is the core of the Solar System. The Solar System (SS) orbits the centre of the galaxy. It nutates. The path the SS takes rises above and falls below the central plane of the galaxy, with the SS crossing this `line’ about every 32-34 million years. The Galactic Cosmic Ray flux is at a maximum at this `line’ so the

          the 32 million year oscillation of the solar system perpendicular to the galactic plane can clearly be seen in the paleoclimate data.

          See also: http://sciencebits.com/sights-field-trip-milky-way. Shaviv’s original paper can be freely downloaded via links available on the page I have linked to, but bear in mind, his blog page is an extended/expanded version.

          The SS’s nutation cycle is c. 64 MY, with the SS crossing the Galactic Plane every 32MY.

          That’s nutation on the grand scale. It’s accompanied by precession on the same scale.

          All the planets of the SS, not just planet earth, have the same effects from orbiting the sun: precession and nutation. For Planet Earth, it impacts us through the celestial navigational `errors’ requiring those tables having to be recalculated and reprinted every year. The stars aren’t as fixed as they appear to be.

          20

    • #
      Robert Swan

      I hate the “global warming is just basic physics” argument. If I bother, I usually respond with something like this:

      Yeah, basic physics — like “warm air rises”. Fair enough. Can you tell me why it gets colder as you go up a mountain?

      That usually stops them in their tracks. Even if they come back with an explanation it shows that “basic physics” isn’t a strong argument. In this world there are no zero size particles or frictionless surfaces. Complexity beats basic physics any day of the week.

      Often their next step is indignation. Not sure if that’s progress.

      230

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Not only “why does it get colder as you go up a mountain”, but “why does water boil at about 96C at the top of the Blue Mountains”, or “why does a 5 minute egg take 6 minutes at 3000ft?’ It brings conversations about global warming to a halt as you point out that if they cannot understand these simple things it is probably not worth discussing “turbulent and chaotic weather patterns”.

        130

    • #
      Hasbeen

      I can’t imagine why anyone would assume the highly educated are smart. If someone spends a lot of time at a university or similar, becoming an expert, [by definition learning more & more about less & less], why would you expect them to have found time to become smart?

      90

      • #
        Rob Leviston

        Definition of an expert.
        ‘x’ is an unknown quantity, and a spurt is a drip under pressure!
        Might explain a few things about our ‘elite’!

        50

  • #
    Yonniestone

    This article is perhaps the most important one for if the described ‘elites’ did not throw their somewhat perceived influence behind the climate ideology it wouldn’t have gained so much traction, this applies to those with higher degrees working in media, politics, public service and big business.

    Its also scraping the surface of the different psychologies involved where innate and learned behaviour influence how a particular person will develop and behave given the opportunity to work within this environment, case in point Prof. Lindzen vs Prof. Flannery.

    This coming from an ordinary smart but dumb person should be taken with a grain of salt on the rim of a Tequila glass.

    190

    • #

      I wonder whether the issue of being ‘liked’ comes into this as well?

      190

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      An important point Yonnie, about environment.

      Most people unconsciously choose an environment to inhabit and being a group species tend to choose the one that makes them feel wanted and valued.
      The alternate path is a life involving contact and direct interaction with the real world or at least segment of it.

      If you aren’t experiencing some “challenges” in daily life it may be that you are in the first group and might tend to trust others too much and then become a passenger on the Good Ship Global Warming.

      This discussion basically points to the fact that leadership in matters of state is vital.

      Leadership needs the strength to take expert advice, act honestly and see things as they really are.

      The U.N.is Not a good example of Leadership.

      KK

      91

      • #

        Where I live and work part-time, I come across all walks of life and it’s surprising how many believe that all of this climate change stuff is crap. These are farmers and tradies and the like, as alluded to by Lindzen, people who think for themselves and have real world experiences and live in the real world.

        The greenies on the other hand are simply afflicted with an incurable disease. They all too often don’t even recognise their own hypocrisy, for example, being totally reliant on modern technology and complaining when it doesn’t meet the demands of their pure lives. When power fails because of their demands for renewables, they’ll be the first to complain widely and loudly.

        182

  • #
    Latus Dextro

    Lindzen on why the educated elites are so vulnerable to being fooled

    Yes, though not by any means the whole story. The “elites” are fooled because they rarely encounter individuals willing, or courageous to openly disagree. I know of many “elites” with PhD’s hard sciences and medical degrees who vacuum up the narrative without a shred of critical thought, and who, when challenged become quite bilious. Their problem often lies around a impoverished knowledge of history and politics. Couple this with “authority” and “consensus” and the belief is reinforced by a culture of politically correct social compliance.

    So no, the ‘fooling’ and ‘self-fooling’ is I consider a consequence of enculturation by political correctness. It has made it (intentionally) difficult to disagree or say no, without giving offence, of disagreeing with a set of subjective premises around “I believe in CAGW.” Disagreement requires the simultaneously slaughter of a camel train of emotional and political baggage. So challenging belief becomes unwise. Just look at the success of The Rainbow Cult and its pernicious and successful challenge of the norms of traditional society and established science.

    The problem lies I believe at the hooves of an uncritical Leftist media, of a Fourth Estate and its dereliction of the Canons of Journalism willing to peddle a vacuous story for political gains. It also lies at the indoctrination that has usurped education both at a secondary and tertiary level. With a PhD and a sixth form prize in physics, one of the hardest things in the World is to engage in a discussion around the damned subject of alleged CAGW and climatism.

    390

    • #
      Tom R Hammer

      So, in summary, the Emperor’s New Clothes is on point?

      150

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Try challenging anything in the legal or medical professions that challenges “common wisdom”.

        Talk about bilious….common it might be, wisdom it isn’t….but peer pressure is a powerful thing…..

        A perfect case in point.

        60

    • #
      Rob

      You are spot on Latus.
      I also know many PhDs in hard sciences. Most of them dont look into the data themselves, they just believe that their fellow scientists in climatology cant be wrong, so believe the “consensus”.
      Then there are environmental scientists that I have met; they clearly know on which side their bread is buttered.

      241

      • #
        James Murphy

        Likewise, a disturbing number of PhDs cannot be questioned by mere mortals (child-like tantrums ensue if attempted), and cannot imagine the possibility that other people in their profession could be wrong, make mistakes, or just want to make a name for themselves.

        I’ve seen an international conference organiser reject papers to “their conference” because:
        - They didn’t like the country of origin of some authors
        - The findings of some papers went against the opinions of said organiser
        - The organiser was jealous that they did not think of the topic themselves
        - The organiser did not like one or more of the authors due to some petty disagreement during a social event at a previous conference.
        That’s just the the world of organic geochemistry, which is hardly a head-line grabbing field.

        When I see this idiocy, I’m glad my expertise lies elsewhere, so I can at least pretend that things aren’t as bad in other realms of science/engineering research.

        180

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Good outline Latus.

      For most people, acceptance by their group is far more important than actually knowing and interacting with reality.

      KK

      71

    • #
      el gordo

      Latus Dextro has nailed it perfectly and the only way to achieve some kind of rational order is for the Fourth Estate to wash away the green slime, it has corrupted science, politics and media.

      90

    • #
      wal1957

      The ‘educated idiots’ cannot accept that they can be questioned be us mere ‘bogans’. I class myself as a bogan in their eyes because I left school at 15 and therefore received no further indoctrination in the edumakayshun system. Juliar loved to say edumakayshun you know. These elites seem to forget that a lot of successful people are basically self taught and really very intelligent people.
      Respect is a 2 way process and I do not respect anybody who is not willing to here opposing views especially where ‘settled science’ is mentioned. Gerbil warming has never been ‘settled’, but the elites are unwilling to accept that.

      81

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I’d agree. I have a mate who is a concreter hes the wealthy one.
        The danger with white collar smarts is sometimes it can fool itself into believing pure BS. My mate often says “and you went to uni for 4 years to say dumb stuff like that?” Thankfully I hear that a lot less now, but hes often quick to sigh and shake his head and go back to reading the paper….

        Its a double edged sword – you need tradies and professionals, but often the white collar people don’t have that grounding reality experience of real life, as opposed to the middle class ads on tv that exclude all the real world stuff.

        First job out of uni was working in a large car plant as an engineeer, you lived and died by your people skills and being a tech backstop for the sparkies and fitters, but you also got a verbal hiding from them if you did anything dumb, which is actually a good thing. Looking back on it, I’m glad I had that, I cant imagine the number of engineers who must have almost slapped stupid by ticked off tradies , after the engineers have done something impractical….

        111

  • #
    Dave in the States

    Very on point. Elite’s fear of being mocked is why AGW proponents resort to mocking those who disagree with them. It also explains why they despise people who don’t care if they are mocked, or throw it right back at them, such as Trump.

    I think the conditioning goes back much farther than university. It goes all they way back to grade school when they were presented with such exercises as “circle the one which is not the others.”

    120

  • #
    Ray Warren

    Please tell me that this is a simple typo and that the reference should be to C.P. Snow.

    [It is. Typo. Guilty! Sorry. Fixed. :-( -- Jo]

    50

    • #

      It’s such a well-known quote from C P Snow that there can’t be any doubt it’s a typo or mental slip. But I think you already know that.

      80

    • #
      sophocles

      Okay Ray, I will tell you it’s a simple typo which happened twice. Happy now? :-)
      I hasten to add, that they’re not my typos so please don’t yell at me …

      (You’re correct that C. P. Snow should be the intended target, Physicist, Chemist and Novelist and all-round bright guy who was promoted to a life peerage as Baron Snow, of the City of Leicester, in 1964…) The quotation used in the post above is from his 1959 Rede Lecture called The Two Cultures which really stirred up the academic and political ponds. In it, he argued that the breakdown, lack, or failure of communication between the “two cultures” of modern society – the sciences and the humanities – majorly interfered with and hindered solutions for global problems. He also took a shot at “declining standards” of education. A pretty good broadside for 1959 or it’s gotten worse!

      It’s a great pity that nothing has changed.)

      130

  • #
    Another Ian

    R.V. Jones in “Most Secret War” points out that Churchill was the only British prime minister that had any appreciation for science up to its publication in 1978.

    And I’d guess that Margaret Thatcher might be the only one since

    170

    • #
      diogenese2

      Margaret Thatcher was the only world leader at that time who was actually a trained scientist having a degree in Chemistry and having worked for ICI. She became attracted to the Global Warming Narrative as her bruising encounters with the coal miners left her with a desire to replace coal with nuclear power. However she realised how piss-poor the actual scientific evidence of “global warming” was and so created the Hadley Centre for Climate Research in 1990 with the express mandate to find (or create) the evidence.
      She promptly fell from power (1991) and had no involvement
      in the 1992 UNFCCC.
      In retirement she admitted and regretted her error.

      210

      • #
        rapscallion

        . . . and unlike so many other politicians, she could hold her hands up and say that she was wrong as she did on AGW. She did the same when she realised the direction of travel of was then the EC (EEC – EC – EU), It was why the traitors got rid of her.

        30

  • #
    FrankSW

    Privilege is sin

    Lindzen mentions the right but surely the majority of Climate Alarmism comes from the left, not the right, and the alarmism is not just in climate science, there are also similar problems to the absurd climate belief in many other fields. It also occurs directly in politics, how often have we heard the left “supporting” the workers and demonizing the “toffs” or the “rich”.

    The Grievance studies hoax earlier this year was interesting in highlighting the religious component to their gullibility ( https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/04/feminist-journal-published-hoax-paper-about-dog-rape-culture/ )
    In the video released the hoaxer explains that initially they were having problems but reframed their submissions so as to gain acceptance. At 3:10 the hoaxer explains how they fooled the editors

    There is a religious architecture in their minds where privilege is sin, privilege is evil. They identify where the problem has to be fixed and If you then come up with nasty arguments (eg chaining schoolkids to the floor) and if you frame the victims negative response as because they are privileged and weak then you are right in past the editors and peer reviewers defences.

    What could be more privileged than being able to use almost unlimited cheap freely available energy without guilt. And what could be more gullible in believing that a 2% control is as powerful as a 98% control. Deniers really are privileged bastards and they need fixing,

    100

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Making privelege a “sin” makes socialism a religion…..

      Speaking of dumb things, a few related thoughts about the Kavvangh circus last week to understand the loony Left:

      ” If a wise person goes to court with a fool,
      the fool rages and scoffs, and there is no peace.

      10 The bloodthirsty hate a person of integrity
      and seek to kill the upright.

      11 Fools give full vent to their rage,
      but the wise bring calm in the end.”

      (Prov 29:8-11)

      60

  • #
    diogenese2

    This brief paper should be spread as widely as possible as the most succinct précis of the subject embracing all the relevant issues. I have only one dissention.

    “1. Scientists are specialists. Few are expert in climate. This includes many supposed ‘climate
    scientists’ who became involved in the area in response to the huge increases in
    funding that have accompanied global warming hysteria.”

    As the Professor has already acknowledged, study of the “climate” requires cutting edge expertise in a score or more speciality fields of study, beyond the capacity of any human, even Prof. Lindzen. Therefore NO ONE can claim expertise in “climate”. The plus point being the obvious inanity of politicians, celebrities and commentators spouting
    received opinion with blatant ignorance of that of which they speak.

    The most profound insight in the lecture is at the end;

    “There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies
    will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the
    one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role
    as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC
    is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has
    occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history.
    As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’.”

    and the reversal of that, of course, is the prime objective of the rainbow coalition of misanthropists and kleptocrats who have driven the narrative for so long.
    However the apotheosis has now been reached. The IPCC have now jumped the shark and revealed the true extent of what their objective is;

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/10/09/un-calls-for-2-4-trillion-a-year-to-be-spent-to-save-us-from-global-warming/

    Even “chutzpah” cannot convey the shear stupidity of this report. Every “policymaker” has now been confronted with a challenge that will compel a flight to the exit.
    I look forward to COP24 at Katowice or as it was previously known “Stalinogrod”.
    I wonder if the Pope will attend and his holiness reflect on the last such visit and its consequence.

    “Although there was plenty of work in the mines and steel mills, popular unrest with the communist system was growing fast. Living standards had plummeted, with empty shop shelves and round-the-block queues a common sight. In 1980 a series of strikes inspired by the Gdańsk-born Solidarity movement quickly spread around the country. Demands for better living conditions were initially met, but Solidarity continued to lobby for further reforms and free elections. The Kremlin was furious, and with Soviet invasion a looming threat, appointed communist president Jaruzelski declared a state of martial law on December 13, 1981. Tanks roared into the street, subversives were arrested and telephone lines were cut. On December 16 a military assault was launched on striking miners in Katowice’s ‘Wujek’ mine, resulting in the deaths of nine workers. With Solidarity officially dissolved and its leaders imprisoned, discontent was growing. Pope John Paul II visited Poland, and Katowice, once more in 1983, his mere presence igniting hopes and unifying the people in popular protest. The people would not back down. Over the next few years – buoyed by a Gorbachev-inspired relaxation of Soviet foreign policy – the Polish people continued to batter on the door of freedom.”

    Ah, those were the days!

    100

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      “1. Scientists are specialists. Few are expert in climate. This includes many supposed ‘climate
      scientists’ who became involved in the area in response to the huge increases in
      funding that have accompanied global warming hysteria.”
      I would add that most of the AGW critics are not climate scientists but other physicists, from other disciplines, many from astrophysics and chemistry. Many climate scientists (not all) are poor in atmospheric physics. Equivalent to geographers.

      (me:having worked with atmospheric physicists).

      70

  • #
    NB

    ‘educated elites are gullible suckers because they spent too much time at uni’
    Yes. But not quite. They are selected for being gullible. In fact, this process begins quite early in life. Even when children, those who are at ease with existing social norms, institutions, and knowledge structures are those who are selected for leadership positions. This process is accelerated at Uni, particularly in selection for higher degrees.

    60

  • #
    Drapetomania

    “Bumper Sticker 101″

    Yes..like people that drive cars..are connected to the grid..but have bumper stickers talking about how evil fossil fuels are.
    And sincerely believe co2 taxes and trading bits of paper that represent co2 credits..will make the weather “better” in 200 years.
    THe majority are dumb sheep..we are doomed..sorry..

    110

  • #
    trevor

    Some great insights by the great prof Lindzen and real useful contribution to the ‘debate’. This has increasingly been my experience in participating in the ‘debate’ as an industry geologist and somebody who does delve into science and try to understand things – so I often marvel at Jo Nova how she continues to go fighting.

    If I comment on a post by an ABC leftie journo re how come conservatives don’t just get with them and conserve the planet, with obvious answer, because the recent IPPCC’s announcement has buggerall all to do with conservation – I get eye roll emojis. When we all know, if they took a minute analyse the arguments the premise that man’s CO2 missions are destroying the world is ludicrous. Yet on it goes and a big part is due to intellectual laziness, people just will not think for themselves, and then they compound the laziness by childish approval seeking behaviour and virtual signalling about their profound grasp of the ‘Science’ and what needs to be ‘done’ about it. It’s a heady mix, we need a Solzhenitsyn to skewer it, but if the climate racket it allowed to go too far we will have the gulag to deal with first. We need to fight with humour but actually this fight is a serious one – especially when we have a government funded media juggernaut turn propaganda arm ready to prosecute doomsday rubbish like the IPCC rolled out the other day. More power to you Jo.

    81

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    Not all elites are created equal.

    One genius twin goes university.
    The other genius twin goes business.

    Circumstances tend to force the first to become a specialist.
    Circumstances tend to force the second to become a generalist.

    The first is evaluated at dissertation time, and at tenure time. He is then set for life. If reviewed, it is by peers he gets to pick.
    The second is evaluated every day by the market, and every quarter by shareholders.

    The first lives in a world of like minded individuals.
    The second also lives in a world of like minded individuals.

    The first is richly rewarded for conformity. Everyone supports his ideas in his specialty, and he supports everyone else in theirs. The lot have contempt for everyone not in their circle. Once sinecured, there is little movement.

    The second is rewarded for conformity, and adaptation and innovation. If you have to jump ship to get rewarded, go for it. Its OK to start your own business. (nobody ever starts their own college).

    The elites in the first case never have to solve problems. They can be wrong without much consequence. They can always rationalize wrong to right and vice versa, and write off non-rationalizable errors as learning experiences.

    In the second case, failure is an unpleasant experience. Writing something off has a different meaning.

    Thus, the essence of the difference is this: you can get through to the elites in the business world, although sometimes it takes a 2X4 up side the head. The elites of the academic world are impenetrable.

    It is fair to assume that elites in academia believe what they believe.
    They can be fooled because of the comfort of their beliefs, and superiority, and lack of connection with reality.

    It is fair to assume the elites in the business world don’t believe most of what they believe.
    If a true belief impacts profit, it is likely honorable; we can tell what the prior management of Whole Foods believed in part by noting the changes under new management. We also note that the prior management ran a successful grocery business, and admitted to some compromise. Even elites are harder to fool if they are immediately and regularly accountable for their actions.

    Of course, the elites who go into politics are in the business of fooling people. As one feels superior to the people one is fooling, and thus immune to being fooled oneself, one is easily fooled when a bigger liar comes along, and there seem to be a lot of those around.

    But of course, none of us is fooled, and that is why it is so much fun chatting among ourselves here.

    Cheers, all.

    140

  • #
    PeterS

    A very similar situation exists in Western politics and are probably linked. The Deep State in the US is being exposed and it will be earth shattering. I expect a soft coup in the US to continue until those responsible are arrested and charged, end if found guilty put behind prison for a long time. I look forward to a similar process with regards to the CAGW scam.

    Overwhelming Evidence of Trump Coup

    111

  • #

    On a non-intellectual basis: anyone who watches the British version of The Chase would notice that university students, who could be classed as educated elites, rarely get past the first round. Their knowledge of real life is sadly lacking.

    70

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/Topic – Youtube is going after one of our locals (Gary Orsum). His videos have been set to private, so they are no longer available. Clearly he is guilty of wrong think. In the meanwhile you may wish to consider the growing alternative video site that is Bitchute:

    https://www.bitchute.com/

    70

  • #
    Ruairi

    Real professors would encourage dissent,
    So that students could feel free to dent,
    All untouchable theories,
    With their logical queries,
    Through debate and sound argument.

    90

    • #
      PeterS

      Indeed. However, the violent left will not allow it.

      Fake professors would encourage consensus,
      So that students’ thoughts are reckless,
      All untouchable theories,
      With their illogical furies,
      and violence and loud protest.

      90

  • #
    PeterS

    The display of consensus science as exhibited by the CAGW community is not real consensus in the spirit of true science. Real consensus is requires a sound analysis of real evidence, not the fake analysis we keep seeing from the climate change scientists siding with the CAGW scam.

    Dr Michael Crichton studied the “notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science.” See link below. He concluded that consensus science is “an extremely pernicious development” because historically “… the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other … you’re being had.”
    He condemns consensus science because the role “… of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.”

    Crichton added that “in science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.” This is backed up by the fact that the “greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus”.

    Aliens Cause Global Warming

    60

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      That link (aliens cause global warming) you have is a good article., thanks)

      30

    • #
      Annie

      Excellent article…read it on the train into Melbourne. Some of it seemed familiar so must have seen parts of it previously.

      00

  • #

    The definitions are a bit hazy here. “Elite” is problematic at the best of times as it is just used as name calling without much meaning. The above reads a bit like if you are educated you become an elite or maybe the elites are the people who don’t understand science or something. I reckon a rewrite of the whole article with the hazy and lazy “elite” replaced by solid characterisations of people would make this a very marketable article.

    55

    • #
      el gordo

      Pedantic as per usual Mr Leaf.

      There are the financial elites like Rupert Murdoch, who is a renown sceptic, and his organs adopt the same point of view. In my mind his journalists and commentators are the intelligentsia because they see reality.

      University educated people, the so called elite, are just as restrained by political correctness as the population at large. On the issue of climate change they bury their heads in the sand because its outside their discipline, avoiding the wrath of the women folk who are completely clueless on the science.

      Do you believe carbon dioxide causes global warming?

      71

      • #

        If I am to be pedantic then I’d be pointing out that you misused the word pedantic.

        I was seeking clarification not making a correction. You’ve used two definitions of elite yourself. Rich person with power and university educated. The latter is risible. I, along with a great many of my friends, worked my way through university from working blue collar family that had no one ever to graduate from a university. At what point did we fit your definition of elite? When we got a mortgage? When we shed our blue collars? You and Jo are calling 10 different things elite and it makes it hard to read.

        I get the feeling that your use of elite is to apply it to people who have done well who did it a different way to you.

        72

        • #
          robert rosicka

          So you’re being Pedantic about being Pedantic?

          50

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘At what point did we fit your definition of elite?’

          Most of the reporters at Jo Nova’s blog are university educated, we are not the elite. The true elite in Australian society are the one percent who earn more than 70% of the bulk.

          We have no gripe against people who have done well, but we are extremely angry with the stultifying ignorance.

          Do you believe coral reefs are being destroyed by global warming?

          61

          • #

            so just to recount. It is not a university education as you first claimed since, that would make Jo and her husband elites. The actual elites who you characterise thus (plus a lot more elsewhere)

            On the issue of climate change they bury their heads in the sand because its outside their discipline, avoiding the wrath of the women folk who are completely clueless on the science.

            are the 1% who “earn” (or posess?) 70%. Even accepting your dodgy numbers, how does this make them elite exactly. Do they stop being elite if their income drops or they happily retire on their earnings? Why do they switch from being non-elite to elite on the basis of their increased earnings? Why do you presume to know the earning of people here and how do you know the earnings of the people you call elite? Tree hugging greenies are hardly in the top 1% of the university educated wealthy- so they are NOT elites.

            And now we have plain elites and true elites. Are there yellow elites and blue elites? Where is the green elite? Oh there she is fast asleep.

            42

            • #
              el gordo

              The true elites are definitely the one percent, the wannabes are the 30% looking down on the 70%.

              All the Greens I know are university educated, but they are not the elite.

              Anyone spreading false rumour and terrifying people into thinking that the world is coming to an end, is a sign of elite status. The intelligentsia in the newsrooms of the ABC, Fairfax and Guardian see themselves as the elite, go figure.

              Now that global cooling has begun, will you concede that CO2 is not a threat to life on this planet?

              81

      • #
        sophocles

        Okay, listen up you two: I’m being a pedant here, by being pedantic. I’m also going to correct a minor error as an example of being pedantic although the correction is not necessary to the condition.

        According to my Concise Oxford Dictionary:

        pedant n. a person who is excessively concerned with minor detail or with displaying technical knowledge.
        Derivatives pedantic, adj, pedantically, adv,pedantry, n.

        Nowhere in that definition is pedant, pedantic, pedantically or pedantry pinned to making a correction. However, the act of making a correction, depending on how minor it is, can be pedantic.

        For example: Gee Aye, you made a common English grammatical error by saying: … to people who have done well who did it a different way to you..
        Your error was: a different way to you.
        It should always be different from thus the sentence should read to people who have done well who did it a different way from you.

        In the context of this discussion, I was pedantic by correcting a trivial error. In another context, such as an English grammar class, it wouldn’t have been pedantic but necessary.

        :-)

        90

        • #
          Annie

          Now then Sophocles, when did we have to be admonished to ‘listen UP’ rather than just listen? How did that redundant extra small word creep in, in the manner that ‘continue ON’ did instead of continue?
          Pedant Annie, just for the h*ll of it. ;)

          80

        • #

          Thanks Sophocles, I do that “different from” thing all the time.

          Re pedantic, the point I was making to El G was that I was not trying to nitpick a definition by making sure it was done right. I was actually wanting to understand what definition was being used and was suggesting that it appeared that the definition was moving about within the text in the fashion demonstrated by the posts either side of this one.

          My suggestion was dumping “elite” for clarity and instead defining the people more precisely. I really think that the term elite has become a blancmange of all sorts of people’s ideas of who is included. A consequence of this is that none of the people being targeted by Jo’s critique would have any idea that she is writing about them.

          61

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I’ll start with my layman’s definition: An elite is an intellectual or specialist who is asked or gives advice about a given subject with some authority to do so.

      Now some other definitions:
      Google: A select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.

      Cambridge Dictionary: The richest, most powerful, best-educated, or best-trained group in a society:

      Collins Dictionary: Elite people or organizations are considered to be the best of their kind.

      Merrium-Webster: A group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence.

      50

      • #

        Greg- those are fairly simple and to the point but they miss the nuance. With what Jo wrote and with comments above and below the elites are a connected group. Those dictionary defintions don’t imply in any way that a top neurosurgeon, a merchant banker and a high court judge are part of a connected thing called “the elites”.

        They share a high income and education but why link them together in politics, philosophy, social attitudes, belief in climate science or whatever?

        30

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          I’ve re-read Jo’s post, but I can’t find anywhere where she groups the elite.

          Lindzen fears little has changed and warns that the gulf in understanding between each elite culture is open to malicious exploitation.

          If anything; she states there are several (i.e. more than one) elite culture.

          60

          • #
            el gordo

            The cultural elites are the most dangerous because they have been responsible for the propaganda.

            ‘During the past three decades, elite news media have become influential translators of climate change linking science, policy, and the citizenry.

            ‘Historical trends in public discourse—shaped in significant part by elite media—demonstrate news media’s critical role in shaping public perception and the level of concern towards climate change.

            ‘Media representations of climate change and global warming are embedded in social, cultural, political, and economic dimensions that influence individual-level processes such as everyday journalistic practices.’

            Boykoff and Luedecke

            Climate Science / Oxford Research Encyclopaedias

            40

          • #

            I reckon you missed the other 11 mentions of elite and their different descriptors… educated, science, arts etc. When a descriptor is repeated the implied meaning of elite is not the same.

            41

            • #
              el gordo

              You’re good at splitting hairs, we could do with you on our side.

              Thinking about elites in society I checked out our biggest trading partner.

              The consulting firm McKinsey categorized three percent of the total 256 million urban Chinese households as affluent, 14% as upper middle class and 54% as mass middle class, with the rest defined as poor.

              40

      • #
        Roger Knights

        Instead of elite, a better term for our would-be minders and binders, our preening would-be opinion-leaders, is “the clerisy,” a term Tom Wolfe used.

        00

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Special forces such as the SAS are called “Elite” and to them it’s a statement of being the best of the best so not exactly a name calling exercise !

      50

    • #
      Mark M

      Elites self-identify:

      “DAVOS, Switzerland — At a closed-door session at the World Economic Forum, one of the panelists asked the self-styled global elite in the audience a question: How many of you think Donald Trump won’t even finish one term in the White House?

      https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-fear-and-loathing-in-da*vos/

      And Hillary further defined the difference between the elites and the deplorables in her election defining speech:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZHp4JLWjNw

      There’s no where to hide anymore. Either you are an elite believer in failed doomsday global warming, or you are deplorable.

      Colour me deplorable.

      And winning.

      51

      • #

        yes, another definition. On the evidence of this thread, El Gordos confusion not withstanding, an elite is someone with some form of power that you choose to label elite to distinguish them from other people with power who you like.

        40

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Yep.

          Delete elite as a descriptor.

          It’s meaningless in the context of global warming alarmism.

          The alarmists are anything but elite.

          Dumb, maybe; but elite? Never.

          50

      • #
        Hanrahan

        one of the panelists asked the self-styled global elite in the audience a question: How many of you think Donald Trump won’t even finish one term in the White House?

        According to the link, half thought so. My guess is that many of those would be saying to themselves “Hopefully, someone will bump him off”.

        30

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Sometimes peoples arrogance is on display if people bother to actually understand.

          The obvious next logical question to the person who asked about mr trump would be – “So what do you know that youre telling us?”

          I personally dont think the globalists will risk an assassination, I suspect they will get thier communist revolutionary lackies to push for Impeachment. In some ways its no different to the Elite in the UK trying to brainwash the public to have another referendum to block Brexit to get what they wanted.

          My tip – ignore the political circus, watch Syria. The americans and russians both have nukes in or close to Syria….

          41

    • #

      Not so hazy Gee Aye. I am adding my comments and interpretation to Lindzens. I believe both of us are using it in the dictionary sense:

      Elite: a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society. eg “the elite of Britain’s armed forces

      As Lindzen says:

      …however, ‘ordinary’ people (as opposed to our ‘educated’ elites) tend to see through the nonsense being presented.

      And in my first paragraph I laid it right out:

      …talking about two cultures of two different educated elites

      In this case I’m (we’re) using the term in an educated bell curve sense. Similar to an IQ bell curve for obvious reasons (but not identical). There are elites in verbal IQ and elites in numerical IQ. Paralleling that there are educated elites in “arts” (meaning all humanity based studies) and elites in science (or numbers). The situation is complicated in science as there are many graduates who are not very elite numerically. E.g. I have found the most vociferous, indignant, angry defenders of the climate faith have been science journalists — people who have more verbal skills than numerical ones, but also consider themselves good at science.

      So yes, I am referring to those of us with higher degrees as “elites”. As Lindzen says “two cultures”. Two types of elites.

      71

      • #

        I think you are imagining this clarity and forgetting that your particular piece follows the many that came before it. It is quite like how different groups decide who and what is “left” and “right”, not seeing that their definitions have been built up after a long period of group introspection.

        Your definition paragraph is both self-contradictory and at odds with the many uses you and your commentees frequently use. I just think it’s the price to be paid for too much writing too quickly about too little for too long.

        45

        • #

          …talking about two cultures of two different educated elites

          Balls in your court Gee Aye. How is that “self contradictory”.?

          Perhaps the price of reading too quickly (and with prejudices unchecked) is that you missed the entirely consistent and legitimate use of the term “elite”.

          True, on other days and by other people the word “elite” is both an adjective and a noun and can be used in many contexts. Life is complicated eh? But when I have talked about the elites it is usually this same loose group of highly educated, verbally skilled, people. Sometimes they are elite in terms of power. Sometimes education. I made the difference clear.

          Life is full of bell curves. There are many varieties of elite.

          72

          • #
            sophocles

            I found a pdf of Snow’s Rede Lecture Two Cultures here:
            http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/2cultures/Rede-lecture-2-cultures.pdf

            Section 1: THE TWO CULTURES
            Section 2: INTELLECTUALS AS NATURAL LUDDITES
            Section 3: THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION
            Section 4: THE RICH AND THE POOR

            This is Snow’s Rede Lecture.
            Maybe we all need to retire and read it (with our dictionaries) before re-joining the discussion/debate.
            (I’ve just finished section 2. I loved the title, but I’m not about to issue any `spoilers.’)

            30

          • #

            you’ve made a pretty good argument right there for dumping its usage outside of plain old name calling. Read the earlier comments that agree with you.

            00

    • #

      Maybe we should use the acronym HOIM instead of elites. The Herd of Independent Minds (a term coined by the art critic Harold Rosenberg in 1948) describes well that mix of patronising, authoritarianism, snobbery, conformity and superficiality we’ve come to associate with the climate botherers. I also like the term Big Smug.

      61

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    “C.J. Snow felt only 1 in 10 of the most highly educated in the western world had even a basic grip on physics:” I am not surprised at all. It shows in the total acceptance of of the nonsense ported as ‘science’ by the MSM and Gov officials who fall right in the category suggested above!

    40

  • #
    Steve borodin

    Really well educated people can even get the initials of C.P. Snow wrong.

    70

    • #

      Yes. Exactly! Smart people can be dumb about blogging at 1am :-( Apologies to C.P. Fixed!

      90

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        And dumb people can be right, without knowing why.

        So; being wrong or right isn’t the challenge. It’s the understanding that is the hard part.

        90

    • #

      Actually, Jo got one initial wrong. Some would say that she has been falsely accused of mistaking a plurality of initials. One might argue that point of course.

      Our Green Betters are always quick to find a gotcha. I could smell this one coming.

      40

  • #
    pat

    10 Oct: Daily Caller: Michael Bastasch: Limiting Global Warming Could Cost $122 Trillion. That’s ‘Not Feasible,’ Says One Economist
    •The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy infrastructure.
    •One environmental economist said the UN’s goal is “not feasible.”
    •Scientists have also called into question spending trillions based on flawed climate models.
    That’s a price tag of between $51.2 trillion and $122 trillion by 2050 just for energy investments. Environmental economist Richard Tol said, given the high cost, the IPCC’s report is totally unrealistic.
    “No, 1.5 degrees Celsius is not feasible,” Tol, an economics professor at the University of Sussex, told The Daily Caller News Foundation via email…

    In other words, the world would have to build the equivalent of one to two nuclear power plants every day to meet this goal, according to University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke, Jr. Countries would also have to shutter thousands of coal, gas and oil-fired power plants as well…

    If costs are on the high end, they would outweigh the benefits more than two-to-one. That’s not a realistic plan to fight warming, Tol said.
    “China and India have many brand new coal-fired power plants, and someone will need to buy out the owners to close them down decades before the end of their economic life,” Tol said. “That alone will breach the target.”…
    “Negative emissions are another problem,” Tol said. “This would require subsidies on a massive scale. Any politician proposing that would be voted out of office.”…

    However, there is a chance the world won’t warm nearly as much as the IPCC predicts, according to scientists. Why? Because the IPCC’s models may overestimate how sensitive the atmosphere is to increases in greenhouse gases.
    “There is a chance that the world could come pretty close to the target by 2100, if in fact the climate model sensitivity has been overestimated by close to a factor of two,” Cato Institute climate scientist Patrick Michaels told TheDCNF.
    “This is approximately the result in the recent work Nic Lewis and Judy Curry, and John Christy and Dick McNider,” Michaels said…

    “[T]he IPCC still has not made a strong case for this massive investment to prevent 1.5C warming,” Curry wrote (LINK) in her blog.
    https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/09/limiting-global-warming-cost/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push

    40

  • #
    pat

    technocrats rule, in the main:

    11 Oct: Guardian: Adam Morton: In a canter? Climate experts say Australia will not meet emissions targets
    Guardian Australia spoke to 12 economists and scientists – almost all reject government’s claim to be on track
    Nine of the 12 who responded either dismissed Morrison’s statement outright or strongly suggested new policies would be needed. Only one expressed confidence the target would be met if the government did nothing – and he also criticised the Coalition’s stance.
    The remaining two said the question was impossible to answer definitively, and that it was a red herring given Australia needed to do much more than it promised in Paris if it was to play its part in limiting global warming to 2C or less.

    Bill Hare, the Perth-based director of global institute Climate Analytics, said scientific assessment of Australia’s policy settings by the Climate Action Tracker showed there was virtually no chance the target would be met without new policies.
    The Grattan Institute’s energy program director, Tony Wood, said the government’s own published numbers showed it was not on track and if Australia did meet its target it would be more due to good luck than good management…

    Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a senior research associate with the University of New South Wales climate change research centre, highlighted government data showing national emissions rose by 1.3% last year and Department of Environment and Energy projections suggesting emissions would be only 5% below 2005 levels in 2030.
    “Given that the national energy guarantee [Neg], which would have reduced emissions from the Australian energy sector, has been dumped, there seems to be very few strategies in place,” she said…

    The managing director of Frontier Economics, Danny Price, a former adviser to the Coalition on climate policy, was the sole respondent who thought current policies would meet the 2030 target. He said the combination of the renewable energy target, separate federal and state schemes to drive clean energy and reduce electricity use at times of high demand, and the increased cost of power would all contribute.
    But Danny Price ridiculed the government’s shift from supporting emissions cuts under to the Neg to arguing they were not needed to meet the Paris target. “Why did they knife [Malcolm Turnbull] over a scheme that made no difference? Idiots,” he said…ETC ETC
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/11/in-a-canter-climate-experts-say-australia-will-not-meet-emissions-targets

    11 Oct: Guardian: Fiona Harvey: UK ‘will have to intervene in market to meet climate obligations’
    Top climate adviser says UN warnings will force the government to act in ways that will be controversial and politically fraught
    The government will have to regulate industry and intervene in the market in ways that will prove controversial in parliament, predicted Chris Stark, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change (LINK). He is charged with advising ministers on how swift and how deep cuts in emissions should be and how they can be achieved, and his committee will start work on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) advice shortly…

    “We will be challenged as never before,” he said. “We will be scrutinised as never before. We must stick up to that scrutiny. We will be forcing politicians to make hard decisions. We will be testing the political consensus [on climate change].”
    He said reducing emissions by the amounts needed would “require answers that the market unfettered will not deliver”…

    Ministers are pledged to seek advice from the CCC, set up under the 2008 Climate Change Act to be the statutory adviser on setting and meeting greenhouse gas targets, on how to respond to the IPCC report, published on Monday…

    ***Stark said the independence of the CCC, which sets out a “straitjacket” of five-year carbon budgets that require policy targets years beyond the current parliament, was at the core of its mission. If a government wishes to challenge the targets, it must seek judicial review, a step no administration has taken in 10 years of the act.
    “We are politically engaged, and politically aware, but it is very important that we do an independent job,” he said. “We have a role and we have used that role extremely seriously. We have analytical rigour – we are a technical body – and I do not think that we have been politicised. We are not an NGO, we are not a campaigning group.”…

    “There was a degree of consensus on climate change in 2008 [when the Climate Change Act was passed],” he said. “The consensus is still there but the excitement that was there 10 years ago is not there now.”…
    “I’m hopeful this government continues to see climate change as an issue [on which to] demonstrate leadership,” he said. “The Climate Change Act was a genuinely brilliant piece of legislation and has stood the test of time.”…
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/uk-will-have-to-intervene-in-market-to-meet-climate-obligations

    10

    • #
      pat

      the power of Frontier Economics.

      in April, Chris Stark, chief executive of the UK Committee on Climate Change, replaced Matthew Bell, who returned to Frontier Economics, where he had been a Director from 1999 – October 2014 – LinkedIn.

      Wikipedia: Frontier Economics
      Gus O’Donnell, Chairman (Europe)
      Stephen Gray, Chairman (Australia)
      Frontier Economics Pty Ltd was formed in Australia in May 1999 by Danny Price (Managing Director), Philip Williams and David Briggs. In 2016, the company opened an office in Singapore. The company currently employs around 30 consultants across offices in Australia and Singapore. In April 2015, Stephen Gray became Chairman of Frontier Economics Pty Ltd. Current directors include Danny Price, Stephen Gray, Jason Hall, James Allan and Andrew Harpham.

      Danny Price: Managing Director at Frontier Economics
      Education: University of Sydney

      Frontier: (Danny Price) has advised many of the world’s largest energy utilities in countries including Australia, the US, Singapore, Kenya, India, New Zealand, China, Finland and Jamaica.
      Danny was previously a Principal Economist at the New South Wales Electricity Commission, where he was heavily involved in the design of the Australian National Electricity Market rules and industry structure, and in assessing the economic and financial performance of the Australian electricity and gas supply sectors.

      Wikipedia: Gus O’Donnell:
      Augustine Thomas O’Donnell, Baron O’Donnell, GCB, FBA, FAcSS is a former British senior civil servant and economist, who between 2005 and 2011 (under three Prime Ministers) served as the Cabinet Secretary, the highest official in the British Civil Service…
      O’Donnell announced after the 2010 General Election that he would step down within that Parliament and did so at the end of 2011. His post was then split into three positions…
      Whilst Cabinet Secretary, O’Donnell was regularly referred to within the Civil Service, and subsequently in the popular press, as GOD; this was mainly because of his initials. In 2012, O’Donnell joined Frontier Economics as a Senior Advisor…
      In 1985, he joined the British Embassy in Washington, serving as the First Secretary of the Economics division for four years…ETC

      In addition to being the chair of Frontier Economics, O’Donnell is also visiting professor to the London School of Economics and University College London…
      He is also a trustee of the Economist Group…
      In 2015, he was co-author of the report that launched the Global Apollo Programme, which calls for developed nations to commit to spending 0.02% of their GDP for 10 years, to fund co-ordinated research to make carbon-free baseload electricity less costly than electricity from coal by 2025…

      O’Donnell supports a liberal immigration policy, saying in 2011 that “[w]hen I was at the Treasury I argued for the most open door possible to immigration…I think it’s my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.” O’Donnell has repeated this view in a milder form in newspaper articles, and thinks that his views about immigration are in the interests of the average British person, notwithstanding some short-term losers.
      In 2017 he warned that “there was no way Brexit would happen smoothly.”…
      In 2014, O’Donnell was elected an Honorary Fellow of the British Academy. In 2016, he was elected a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences (FAcSS).
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_O%27Donnell

      LinkedIn: Stephen Gray, Professor at University of Queensland
      Director, Frontier Economics (Asia-Pacific)
      November 2014 – Present

      20

  • #
    Hanrahan

    When the “97% of scientists agree….” proclamation was made I emailed Richard Lindzen to enquire if he had been polled, I received a prompt, polite email in return explaining that he was not. I was suitably impressed, I assume he is a busy man.

    60

  • #

    “A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?” – C.P. Snow

    50

  • #
    Hanrahan

    So, would we be a “smarter” country with less “higher” education? Possibly so, methinks, depending on which faculties were culled.

    Is the reverse of this true ie those who study the sciences cannot appreciate the finer things of life? I doubt it and cite two musicians I knew who tried to explain the influence of math on music and architecture. [Sadly neither uni educated.]

    50

  • #
    RickWill

    At some point everyone believes a good deal of what they are taught. That does not mean they understand it. The blinkers are put on in kindergarten and become straight jackets by PhD. A null result for a PhD thesis will almost guarantee non-acceptance. Lizden’s observations are not surprising.

    Some years ago now there was a major debate in the engineering and physics world about a vehicle travelling downwind faster than the wind driven only by the wind. The acronym DDWFTTW now gets only 7000 google hits but a few years back it was a huge topic. This story gives some background:
    https://www.wired.com/2010/08/ddwfttw/
    What surprised me was the inability of a staggering majority of engineers and physicists to work from first principles to understand the vehicle operation. A vast number stated it was impossible as it contravened basic laws of physics.

    60

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      PhDs arent a ticket to be a ‘know all’ They are awarded by presenting a thesis on some narrow topic of choice by the candidate, in their preferred area of interest. It is supposed to be in a research topic that hasnt been done earlier, not has never been thought of.
      The days of the great physicists pre 1950ish, names like, Planck, Dirac, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenburg, Einstein, Feynman, Hoyle, and others are gone to some extent. These scientists thought well outside the box. Now that is a vary rare skill. In their day there wasnt much ‘known’ to go on, limited data and analysis mostly left over from the 19th century.
      Now PhDs are a dime a dozen, IMV not much more than what is glorified Masters.

      70

    • #

      First yer guess, then yer test.

      70

    • #
      Hanrahan

      To be fair Rick, you should have mentioned that the sailboat is allowed to tack downwind. I’m not sure if the catamarans in the last America’s cup actually achieved that but they would have gone close. As technology develops it will become routine.

      50

      • #
        RickWill

        The principles as used on the demonstration land vehicle can also be used on a sailboat to go faster than the wind DIRECTLY downwind; no tacking involved. It requires a water turbine too drive an air propeller rather than the wheels driving the propeller. It is a tad more difficult on water because the viscous drag, even on foils, is more than the rolling friction of tyres on hard ground.

        10

    • #
      sophocles

      Modern research has been trivialised by the politicians. Researchers are not wanted nor permitted to engage in blue sky research but they must do research which `can be monetised.’ Research grants are prioritized and awarded to those who can show/demonstrate the commercial benefits which will accrue to their research. Yet the biggest, greatest and most commercially valuable research has been blue sky where the investigation was made to learn, not for commercial exploitation. It took decades of technology developments and improvements to `monetize‘ semiconductors. Under the present regimen, it wouldn’t have happened.

      Research has been further trivialized by the `Publish or Really Actually Truly Perish‘ dictum. To keep a quantity of research output, quality has been sacrificed by subdividing a research topic into many fragments to wring as many papers out of it as possible—to stave off perishing.

      Now consider the mental evolution of required of PhDs to thrive/succeed in such a climate of expectations.

      50

  • #
    MudCrab

    2.While they are vulnerable to false narratives, they are far less economically vulnerable than are ordinary people. They believe themselves wealthy enough to withstand the economic pain of the proposed policies, and they are clever enough to often benefit from them.

    I am not sure I completely agree. I would be more inclined to push the argument that these ‘elites’ are simply too detached from the majority of the population to understand the relative impact of the ‘sacrifices’. To their minds they are already doing it tough – as is everyone on their street and within their social coffee circles – and have had to tighten their belts so much that they are not going to be able to replace the SUV they use for taking Tarquin to his tennis lessons until next financial year.

    Remember we are not discussing the people who are openly embracing the system for personal gain, or pushing the changes to do political ideals, we are talking about the people who have been fooled. These people simply do not understand the concept of people who are from a lower economical bracket. To their minds THEY are doing it hard but still surviving, so everyone else should be able to as well. Anyone who is not surviving clearly is doing things wrong like not turning off lights when they leave the room or not looking for items on special when they are at the shops.

    70

  • #
    Amadeus

    Churchill once said: “Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”

    70

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Another good article from Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser – https://www.iceagenow.info/an-energy-deprived-lifestyle-with-a-lack-of-food-clean-water-energy-access-to-health-services-etc/
    From the article..

    Of course, understanding the basics of sciences, like chemistry, math, and physics, just for example, is not a prerequisite to become an important high level politician these days. Perhaps, it may even be an (unwritten) requirement for a job in Cabinet (?).

    40

  • #
    TdeF

    Another article on the evils of meat.

    “Without a huge drawdown in the amount of meat consumed, its authors said, the food industry’s already vast impact on the environment could increase by as much as 90 percent by mid-century.

    That coupled with a sharp projected rise in global population would devastate mankind’s ability to effectively feed itself — and dash any realistic hope of curbing runaway global warming.”

    Firstly, most of the world is and always has been vegetarian. Most Indians are vegetarians, all 1.4Billion of them.
    What are they going to do about their sacred cows? Vegetarianism is what allowed humans to move past being tiny populations of carnivores, like the Australian Aborigin*s. The burnt stick, the plough, the wheel. All essential.

    Then we have to curb ‘runaway global warming’. What evidence do we have of that, or is that a silly question because it is so obvious? How does runaway work again?

    “Governments must fundamentally change course in order to keep global warming under 1.5C by the end of the century.”
    Or what? It has been 30 years of this. So far the CO2 increase has been wonderfully useful in feeding that boom in population. Reduce it and we really have a problem.

    So it concludes ““When it comes to diets, comprehensive policy and business approaches are essential to make dietary changes towards healthy and more plant-based diets possible and attractive for a large number of people,”

    Tell that to the 1.4Billion Indians. The ones who live only on fruit are some of the fattest people on the planet with too much fructose.

    Or is it once again only Western democratic industrial societies which are the problem, as always.
    Who writes this stuff? Or more importantly, why?

    50

    • #
      Environment Skeptic

      Behold……….For example/hypothetically..paying a Carbon tax for this burger is voluntary only. Other burgers require payment of carbon tax. Ok that’s sorted…

      One can impress ones friends or win ‘climate respect’ from completely random people and children too, with ones savvy CO2 free food choices…… by putting a veganburger on ones menu.

      The Veganburger
      .
      https://www.hungryjacks.com.au/menu/whopper/vegan-cheeseburger

      30

  • #
    pat

    love how Guardian calls a Conservative a “grandee” when it suits their agenda:

    10 Oct: Guardian: Darling and Howard back call for post-Brexit carbon tax
    Policy Exchange report calls for steadily rising levy to help tackle climate change
    by Richard Partington Economics correspondent
    Companies selling fossil fuels in Britain should face a steadily rising carbon tax to tackle climate change after Brexit, according to the former Labour chancellor Alistair Darling and the Conservative party grandee Michael Howard.

    In a cross-party campaign to ensure the government sticks to its commitment to cut carbon emissions after Britain leaves the EU, the two politicians said a tax should be introduced as soon as reasonably possible.
    Launching a report by the Policy Exchange thinktank calling for the introduction of an economy-wide carbon tax, Darling and Howard said unilateral action was necessary to tackle climate change.

    “The UK has a duty both to assist developing nations to adapt to the negative effects of climate change and to cut our own emissions faster than those without the means to do so,” they said in a joint statement.

    The Policy Exchange report says Britain should remain a member of the EU’s flagship emissions trading system (ETS), designed to increase the cost of using carbon across the bloc, until at least 2021. The government could then introduce a carbon tax set at the level of the ETS, which could then be steadily increased in future years…

    Should Britain exit the ETS, an independent body could dictate the level of the tax and the proceeds could be used to fund a dividend to taxpayers, the Policy Exchange says. The tax would apply to imports and domestic production to ensure the same levy is paid in Britain by international competitors to UK industries such as steel…
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/10/darling-and-howard-back-call-for-post-brexit-carbon-tax

    10 Oct: Bloomberg: U.K. Carbon Tax Seen as Viable Option to EU Market After Brexit
    By Rachel Morison
    Chancellor Phillip Hammond’s budget due at the end of the month would be a good opportunity to outline a new approach to carbon pricing, the research group said Wednesday…
    The U.K. already has a carbon tax in the form of a minimum emissions price on top of which emitters must pay for EU allowances. While the level has been frozen until 2021, the budget speech has previously been when the Chancellor gives an update on future price support levels…

    Wikipedia: Policy Exchange
    Senior trustees and staff
    ***Alexander Downer, incoming Chairman…
    Policy Exchange is a British centre-right think tank, created in 2002 and based in London. It has been variously described as “the largest, but also the most influential think tank on the right”, in The Daily Telegraph. The Washington Post said Policy Exchange’s reports “often inform government policy in Britain.”…
    Policy Exchange authors have included former government advisor Professor Dieter Helm, economist Robert Shiller, author and broadcaster Bill Bryson, historian and journalist Anna Reid, former Financial Times journalist John Willman, and Olympic athlete James Cracknell.
    Policy Exchange is a registered charity…
    Think tank Transparify, which is funded by the (George Soros) Open Society Foundations, ranked the Policy Exchange as one of the three least transparent think tanks in the UK in relation to funding…

    Wikipedia: Michael Howard: On 19 June 2006 it was reported that Howard would become chairman of Diligence Europe, a private intelligence and risk assessment company founded by former CIA and MI5 members…
    In 2015, Soma Oil and Gas, which Howard chairs, was investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. A UN report had accused Soma of “appearing to fund systematic payoffs to senior ministerial officials.” Soma Oil and Gas denies any wrongdoing and Howard himself is not implicated in the accusations. On 14 December 2016, The Serious Fraud Office closed its investigation of Soma, citing insufficient evidence of corruption.

    Wikipedia: Alistair Darling
    A bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) was announced by the British government on 8 October 2008, as a response to the ongoing global financial crisis…
    Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the House of Commons in a statement on 8 October 2008 that the proposals were “designed to restore confidence in the banking system”, and that the funding would “put the banks on a stronger footing”…
    Darling said in 2018 that the country was hours away from a breakdown of law and order if the Royal Bank of Scotland had not been bailed out and people could not access money…

    10

  • #
    pat

    comment in moderation.

    Wind farms a health hazard
    Andrew Dyer commenced the role of National Wind Farm Commissioner in November 2015.
    by GRAHAM LLOYD
    Noise monitoring of wind farms needs to be improved to better reflect WHO standards, Australia’s wind farm commissioner has said.
    The Australian – 11 Oct 2018

    Terry McCrann: WHO throws spanner into AGL, Origin’s beloved wind turbines
    Herald Sun-17 hours ago

    11 Oct: SBS: AAP: Wind turbines can cause health issues, new WHO guidelines say
    Wind turbines can cause risks to health, including hearing loss, according to a new report published by the World Health Organisation
    Exposure to wind turbines should not exceed 45 decibels during daytime, the Geneva-based UN agency wrote in the guidelines that it developed on behalf of the European Union.
    In comparison, soft radio music has 50 decibels…

    Although the recommendations were drawn up for Europe, they are relevant for the rest of the world because they are based on data from various continents, the WHO said.
    European policymakers should heed the guidance, WHO Europe chief Zsuzsanna Jakab said in a statement.
    “More than a nuisance, excessive noise is a health risk – contributing to cardiovascular diseases, for example,” she added.
    German authorities currently recommend a maximum wind turbine noise exposure of 55 decibels during the day…

    A recent report in the Harvard Gazette cited two journals that found the transition to wind or solar power in the US would require five to 20 times more land than previously believed.
    However, “wind beats coal by any environmental measure,” the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, David Keith said.
    “That doesn’t mean that its impacts are negligible.”
    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/wind-turbines-can-cause-health-issues-new-who-guidelines-say

    20

    • #
      pat

      10 Oct: UK Express: Wind turbines blamed for hearing loss, World Health Organisation report concludes
      WIND turbines can cause risks to health including hearing loss, tinnitus, high blood pressure and even heart problems, according to a new report published by the World Health Organisation
      By Ciaran McGrath
      As of the end of last month, there were a total of 7,155 onshore turbines in the UK, with 12,222 megawatts of capacity…

      (Jeremy) Corbyn has promised to double the number of onshore wind farms in the UK and would increase offshore wind power by a factor of seven…
      However, such a move would prove controversial given criticisms over their reliance on subsidies and perceived inefficiency.
      During the exceptionally dry, windless summer of 2018, the amount of energy generated by them dropped to just 19 percent of the maximum possible.
      The Government has introduced a ban on them by introducing stringent planning regulations which make it difficult to build them, but Mr Corbyn has vowed to scrap these…
      https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1029496/Climate-change-wind-turbines-hearing-loss-world-health-organisation-report-jeremy-corbyn

      DOWNLOADS: World Health Organization Europe: Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region
      Compared to previous WHO guidelines on noise, there are five significant developments in the 2018 version:
      •stronger evidence of cardiovascular and metabolic effects of environmental noise;
      •inclusion of new noise sources, namely wind turbine noise and leisure noise, in addition to noise from transportation (aircraft, rail and road traffic);
      •use of a standardized approach to assess the evidence;
      •the systematic reviews of evidence define the relationship between noise exposure and risk of health outcome; and
      •use of long-term average noise exposure indicators to better predict adverse health outcomes, compared to short-term noise exposure measures.
      DOWNLOADS
      http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise/environmental-noise-guidelines-for-the-european-region

      20

  • #
    pat

    lengthy, a must-read:

    9 Oct: Forbes: Michael Shellenberger: Anti-Nuclear Bias Of U.N. & IPCC Is Rooted In Cold War Fears Of Atomic And Population Bombs
    Advocates of nuclear power were surprised yesterday when a new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attacked the clean energy source as dirty and dangerous.
    They shouldn’t have been. In truth, the IPCC has been heavily biased against nuclear and toward renewables throughout its 20-year existence.

    Consider:
    •In 2015, IPCC published a “Special Report on Renewables” that excluded nuclear, and has never published a special report on nuclear, even though it requires just 6% of the material inputs of solar and is more renewable than either solar or wind;
    •In report after report, IPCC attacks “nuclear waste” (used fuel) as a major problem — in truth, its radiation never hurts anyone — but never mentions wind or solar panel waste, which remains toxic forever;
    •IPCC falsely alleges that nuclear “cannot compete against natural gas,” a fossil fuel contributing to climate change, while promoting solar and wind, which make electricity expensive;
    •IPCC describes nuclear as a “mature energy technology” even though it is far younger than every other major source of energy including solar, wind turbines, hydro-electric dams, and fossil fuels;

    Now, IPCC’s new report ignores research published in Science by climate scientist James Hansen showing the deployment of nuclear has been 12 times faster than solar and wind and instead cites a study by anti-nuclear author Amory Lovins attacking Hansen and purporting to debunk his study in a journal with an impact factor one-tenth as large as Science’s.
    What gives? Why is an organization supposedly dedicated to solving climate change so opposed to the only scalable source of clean energy proven capable of rapidly replacing fossil fuels?
    To answer these questions, we have to go back in time — back to the rise of nuclear fear.
    Oppenheimer’s Revenge…READ ALL
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/10/09/anti-nuclear-bias-of-u-n-ipcc-is-rooted-in-cold-war-fears-of-atomic-and-population-bombs/#168b90e15dd6

    20

  • #
    Peter C

    Lidzen discusses the Greenhouse Theory. He says that water vapouir and clouds are the two main Greenhouse substances. He then says;

    The water vapor essentially blocks infrared radiation
    from leaving the surface, causing the surface and (via conduction) the air adjacent to the
    surface to heat, and, as in a heated pot of water, convection sets on. Because the density of
    air decreases with height, the buoyant elements expand as they rise. This causes the buoyant
    elements to cool as they rise, and the mixing results in decreasing temperature with
    height rather than a constant temperature. To make matters more complicated, the amount
    of water vapor that the air can hold decreases rapidly as the temperature decreases. At some
    height there is so little water vapor above this height that radiation from this level can now
    escape to space. It is at this elevated level (around 5 km) that the temperature must be about
    255K in order to balance incoming radiation. However, because convection causes temperature
    to decrease with height, the surface now has to actually be warmer than 255K. It turns
    out that it has to be about 288K (which is the average temperature of the Earth’s surface).
    This is what is known as the greenhouse effect.

    Maybe that is all correct. As far as I know the Greenhouse Effect has never been shown experimentally.

    But what I would like to know is this. Why is that dry regions are hotter than wet areas at the same latitude? All that extra water vapour and clouds in the wet areas but the common experience is lower temperatures, not higher.

    40

    • #
      Ken Stewart

      Because the lack of clouds means more sunlight strikes the surface; lack of rainfall means less cooling through evaporation.
      At night the reverse applies: dry regions are colder. Less moisture in the atmosphere allows heat to radiate much more easily away from the surface into space. In wetter areas more moisture and clouds means more heat (IR) is radiated back down to the surface, so nights are warmer.
      There is indeed a “greenhouse effect”, very largely due to atmospheric H2O.

      50

      • #
        Peter C

        Ken, You are the expert here, but I ask; Is that really true?

        Take Giles WA, an arid site at Lat -25.03 and compare with Gayndah AP, Qld, an inland site at lat -25.6

        Month of Sep 2018

        Giles Av High 20.9, Av low 5.7, Mean 13.0
        Gayndah Av High 16.3, Av Low 5.3, Mean 10.9

        Giles is hotter on all measures, even the night time low.

        Maybe that is cherry picking. I just picked the most recent completed month. And I picked Giles because I am used to looking at that site. I think regardless of month the mean temperature will be hotter in Giles.

        Hence I suggest that the net effect of water is Cooling, not Warming, and consequently I think the 33C warming of the surface cannot be due to Greenhouse gases.

        Howevfer I am open to persuasion.

        30

        • #
          Ken Stewart

          Peter, a lot depends on local conditions- humidity, wind speed and direction, local cloud cover.
          But CDO has Sep 2018 Giles Tmax 28.4 Tmin 13, Gayndah max 28.3 min 10.9. SE Qld had a lot of cool nights in September due to very dry air.

          30

          • #
            Peter C

            Ken,

            What is CDO? Mean humidity was higher in Gayndah, Qld than Giles WA for the month of September.

            My figures were from the BOM.

            el gordo.

            I picked Gayndah AP because it is close enough to the coast to be fairly wet but far enough inland to be isolated from the sea (IMHO). Hervey Bay and Bunduberg were slightly better for latitude but too close to the coast in my view.

            Note the cold over night temperatures at Gaydah, not seen on the coast, and the higher day time max.

            00

        • #
          el gordo

          Peter the difference between your two sites is that one is close to the ocean and the other is influenced by ‘continentality’.

          20

      • #

        “I think I’ve never heard so loud
        The quiet message in a cloud.

        Hear it now, what were the odds?
        The raucous laughter of the Gods.”

        Some of you may remember, H/t kim
        @ Climate Etc,many years ago,(
        2011, actually.

        50

        • #
          Peter C

          Thanks Beth,

          Did you mean this:
          “I think I’ve never heard so loud The quiet message in a cloud. Hear it now, what were the odds? The raucous laughter of the Gods.”https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/06/10/a-maximum-entropy-climate-earth-in-transient-energy-equilibrium-2/

          30

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      There is no GHG. Its the gas laws that determine the temperature and received solar radiation. The 450degC Venus surface temperature is given by the gas laws.
      Earth has a complex water cycle, with heat transfer latent heat of condensation evaporation. Similar to what he states but I wouldnt call it a greenhouse gas, its a misnomer.
      As I have mentioned before it looks more and more like , hurricanes( cyclones typhones depending on your regional name) are created by coronal mass ejections (large proton flux) via the earths magnetic field. There have been papers published relating to this. Nothing to do with any climate-temperature-relationship.

      50

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Hi Peter,

      Your quoting of that piece by Richard Lindsen is interesting and I’m sure that Will Janoschka would have had a few words ready.

      Will saw the atmosphere as perfectly mixed, as might be reasonable when you are dealing with the atmospheric layers in terms of their capacity to help bounce radio and other communications transmissions around the globe.

      For myself there was a fascination with just how unmixed the air is and and the question of why it doesn’t seem to get to completion.

      There are a couple of interesting points in Richard’s piece.

      KK

      00

  • #
    PeterS

    In the Netherlands the high court has now ordered the Dutch Government to cut greenhouse gases by 25% before end 2020. The court called it a violation of the duty of care pursuant to articles 2 and 8 ECHR. The state must now further reduce greenhouse gases. What the?!

    Court orders Dutch government to do more against climate change

    60

    • #
      el gordo

      Virtue signalling.

      30

      • #
        PeterS

        It has been beyond virtue signalling in Europe for a long time now. It’s serious. Besides the pressure is on us to follow them. If Shorten becomes PM it will be the end for us for sure. Elsewhere of course, such as China, India, Japan, etc. it is virtue signalling and they are busy building more and more coal fired power stations while they are ignoring Paris as though the agreement doesn’t even exist. Meanwhile Morrison is till scratching his bum trying to figure out how to deal with the left in his own party and get on with the business of scrapping RETs and renewables subsidies.

        30

        • #
          John in Oz

          The one benefit of 3 year Federal terms is that we can change parties relatively early if we do not like the direction they are taking us.

          Unfortunately, Labor has a habit of locking future governments into crazy-arsed schemes which are difficult to de-crazify.

          00

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Scarey.

      50

  • #
    Peter

    I think this is a cop out. It is obvious that we are looking at wide scale political, corporate and scientific corruption. Nothing else. They are all banking on the premiss that the fraud is so far reaching that they it is too big to fail.

    50

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…too big to fail.’

      That is true, but a clear sign of global cooling would send a shiver down their spine.

      The politicians were duped by corrupt science, as was the general population, so in a Royal Commission I would be pointing my finger at the MSM.

      30

    • #
      PeterS

      Of course. CAGW is big business for a lot of high flyers around the word. It’s so big they will do anything to avoid it being stopped, and I mean anything. That’s the scary part. It could lead to a world war as nations like China and India refuse to bend to the will of the CAGW scam artists. Meanwhile the public in the West won’t put up with the stark contrast between those places and the West much longer. Of course some of the public already see through the scam but the vast majority are still asleep. So the elite have to do something to appease the public before it gets out of control. The left are being used as the foot soldier but in the end even the left will be shocked to learn the real truth about the scam. It has nothing to do with climate change.

      40

      • #
        el gordo

        Big business has its fingerprints all over it.

        ‘Big business has entered discussions about a self-regulated suite of measures to help Australia meet its Paris commitments, weeks after the Morrison government abandoned the national energy guarantee.

        ‘The resources minister, Matt Canavan, accused Australia’s biggest energy companies of interfering in the democratic process, as climate experts and environmental groups lashed the government over the development on Thursday.’

        Guardian

        30

  • #
    pat

    the only other MSM piece to get posted so far…

    10 Oct: Daily Mail: Wind turbine noise can cause hearing loss, tinnitus, heart problems and high blood pressure, UN warns
    •The United Nations investigated the dangers posed by various loud noises
    •WHO officials said noise can cause a lack of sleep, hearing loss or tinnitus
    By Colin Fernandez
    Stephen Stansfeld, a professor at Queen Mary’s Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, chaired the guidelines development group at the WHO. He said: ‘These guidelines have been developed based on the growing body of evidence in the field of environmental noise research.
    ‘They aim to support public health policy that will protect communities from the adverse effects of noise, as well as stimulate further research into the health effects of different types of noise.’…

    ***Gizmodo apparently haven’t read the news!

    10 Oct: Gizmodo: Anti-Wind Farm Activism Is Sweeping Europe And The U.S. Could Be Next
    by Michael Waters
    (Michael Waters is a freelance writer and a junior at Pomona College)
    In September, the Netherlands counterterrorism unit the NCTV identified a new group (LINK) threatening public safety: anti-wind farm activists.
    These activists, the NCTV claimed (LINK), had “radicalized” to the point that they represented a public risk. The picture the NCTV painted—of a group that has threatened, intimidated, and destroyed the property of politicians and developers—might sound bizarre to the casual follower of the renewable energy industry. But anti-wind farm activism is serious business, and it isn’t limited to the Netherlands.

    At the December 2017 inauguration of France’s first offshore wind turbine, protesters set fire to tires in front of police in riot gear. Earlier this year, French protesters went even further, setting fire to wind turbines directly and lodging explosives in others. Across Europe, where last year countries erected about 5,000 wind turbines, the sudden emergence of the towering machines—both on land and offshore— has incited deep-seated anxiety in a small but vocal minority. Anti-wind activists are a diverse patchwork, from local residents stirred by NIMBY-ism to fishermen claiming wind farms displace fish populations to coal workers dreading a renewable energy future.

    In the Netherlands, which is home to one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world (150 turbines in total) and which is planning another, even larger offshore wind farm that it will anchor to an artificial island, anti-wind farm activism reached a fever pitch this year. In April, activists distributed pamphlets calling pro-wind farm politicians Nazis and planted flags with swastikas that compare the encroachment of wind turbines to living in “occupied territory.” Farmers who have supported the construction of land-based wind turbines have discovered heavy chains, concrete-filled cans, and iron bars on their property, seemingly left by activists who want to damage their farm equipment.

    This July, anti-wind farm activists in the northern regions of Drenthe and Groningen in the Netherlands issued a threatening letter to 34 companies involved in the construction of wind farms. Jan Nieboer, a leader of the anti-wind farm group Platform Storm, told the Dutch news service NOS that he has heard of people buying hand grenades and other explosives for protests.

    The complaints of these activists are multitudinous. Many resent the way wind farms are located without their input. Others despise the presence of turbines along their skyline. Some fear that living near wind turbines will cut into their home values (although at least in the United States, research has shown no effect (LINK)).

    Another sore spot is that the money made from wind farms is rarely shared with the local community. “Communities are almost always more supportive of wind projects when the financial benefits are distributed widely among locals residents, rather than flowing to outside investors,” Bob Darrow, a PhD candidate at UMass Amherst who studies the politics of renewable energy, told Earther.

    But, at least for onshore wind farms, the most galvanizing fears revolve around rumours that wind turbines punish the health of local residents. Activists claim that the low noise emitted by turbines triggers everything from persistent headaches to behavioural changes in animals (LINK) in what they term “wind turbine syndrome,” ***a concept that scientists have largely rejected.

    ***A 2013 analysis (LINK) from researchers at the University of Adelaide in Australia concluded that although noise from wind turbines can result in “annoyance” and potentially “poorer sleep quality” among residents, “there is no consistent evidence” tying that noise to many of the self-reported health effects. In a 2014 paper, King’s College psychology professors attributed (LINK) “wind turbine syndrome” to the “nocebo effect”—a psychological phenomenon in which the expectation of negative health outcomes becomes self-fulfilling—and to anxiety about technological encroachment.

    “There is also a lot of ‘fake news’ circulating about wind power,” said Darrow. “Often this misinformation is intentionally spread by groups with a vested interest in slowing the adoption of renewable energy.”…

    ***One prominent vessel for those false claims is U.S. President Donald Trump…

    Whether Trump’s rhetoric has stoked more wind energy resistance on the American right is unclear. But even land-based wind, which is a booming industry across parts of the midwestern U.S. and Great Plains, struggles against backlash from rural communities that pushed over 120 local governments to scrap or restrict (LINK) turbines from 2015 to 2017. Offshore wind, meanwhile, has long struggled to gain a toehold thanks to fierce local opposition…

    In Cape Cod, a 2001 attempt to launch what would have been the U.S.’s first offshore wind farm was abandoned in December 2017 after a decade of lawsuits from local residents concerned about disrupting fishing patterns and coastal views. Rhode Island’s 6-turbine Block Island Wind Farm, which opened in December 2016 after angry locals likened it to “visual pollution,” now holds the title of the first U.S. offshore wind farm…

    What’s more, only a small subset of the U.S. population actually opposes wind farm development…
    In Europe too, the number of people who oppose wind farms is quite small…

    Still, the anti-wind minority remains an exceptionally vocal one. Especially for onshore wind farms, resistance in Denmark has grown so intense that it has become nearly impossible for some local governments to approve turbines, according to Darrow. “In many municipalities, officials are hesitant to support wind projects for fear of the public backlash such proposals inevitably generate,” he said…
    https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/10/anti-wind-farm-activism-is-sweeping-europeand-the-us-could-be-next/

    10

  • #
    pat

    can hardly believe this is in AFR. who will be held accountable?

    10 Oct: AFR: Origin, EnergyAustralia urge end to solar subsidies amid grid ‘anarchy’
    by Peter Ker, Angela Macdonald-Smith
    Major power generators say household solar incentives should be axed from a national energy market that regulators say has devolved into a state of “anarchy”.
    The rapid adoption of solar – six solar panels are installed every minute in Australia – and the lack of distribution infrastructure was identified by Energy Security Board chairman Kerry Schott as one factor contributing to the market hitting “disruption central”.
    “I sort of characterise the general state of affairs at the moment as being one of anarchy,” she told the The Australian Financial Review National Energy Summit on Wednesday.

    “We’ve got economics driving a lot of wind and solar, both on rooftop solar and wide-scale solar and wind. We have got grid constraints, we have got distribution [that is] not really ready to deal with the huge amount of solar that is going in, nothing has really been coordinated very carefully and we have got a whole lot of work to do.

    ???”Lying behind all this has been the government failures around emissions … we really do need to move on from where we are and I think probably recognise that the politicians can’t get the emissions stuff organised so we have got to work out some other way for the industry to do it.”..

    Origin Energy managing director Frank Calabria said such incentives were no longer required given consumers’ enthusiastic adoption of rooftop solar.
    “We need to phase out the small-scale renewables scheme, it does not need subsidies any more, it is growing, it breaks records of volumes on to rooves every month and we know just how competitive that industry is, so it needs to be phased out,” he said.

    Faster than a freight train
    EnergyAustralia’s head of energy Mark Collette agreed, saying his company would “love to see” the federal scheme scrapped.
    “The whole case for the subsidy was built around emissions and emergence of the technology and getting it running,” he said.
    “It is running faster than a freight train, it doesn’t need a subsidy any more.
    “It’s a regressive scheme in which customers on hardship and people who don’t own their homes effectively pay more than people who own their homes with solar.
    ***”If you take that out that’s an instant bill saving for every consumer.”…

    Australian Energy Market Operator chief executive Audrey Zibelman said it was vital that households did not leave the energy grid en masse because they felt they were better off generating power on their own…

    NSW Energy Minister Don Harwin conceded there were “challenges and opportunities” for the grid from the rapid adoption of rooftop solar, and challenges with connecting renewable energy to the grid may prevent Victoria from achieve its renewable energy target.
    “It is all very well to have a high renewable target, but if you don’t have the capacity to connect them it is going to be very hard,” he said.
    https://www.afr.com/business/energy/origin-energyaustralia-urge-end-to-solar-subsidies-amid-grid-anarchy-20181009-h16fhk

    20

    • #
      Analitik

      It’s a regressive scheme in which customers on hardship and people who don’t own their homes effectively pay more than people who own their homes with solar

      The key phrase that should be thrown at The Greens, GetUp!, the ALP and all the other renewables leeches who rave about “distributed generation” and “energy independence”

      10

  • #
    pat

    Giles is upset with everyone, but Zibelman:

    11 Oct: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: Anarchy! What big energy really thinks of consumer power
    All about the consumer? Excuse me, aren’t these the same utilities who have contrived to create the most expensive electricity in the world – thanks to the gaming of markets, gold plating of the grid, regulatory capture and removal of competition? Give me a moment while I throw up into this handily placed bucket.

    The cynicism is breathtaking, and was there for all to see at one of the biggest knees-up for the “big end” of the energy industry, the Energy Summit hosted by the big end of town’s favourite news-sheet, the AFR.
    The common theme: There is virtually no long-term energy policy left so let’s get rid of the last one standing, and kill the rooftop solar rebate before too many more consumers hook up to the technology.

    “Anarchy,” is how the chair of the Energy Security Board Kerry Schott described it. “I would love to see it go,” said Mark Collette, the head of markets for EnergyAustralia, echoing the recommendation by ACCC chair Rod Sims, a long time solar skeptic, to kill the rooftop solar rebate by 2021, and the endorsement by the head of Origin Energy, Frank Calabria.
    And there is no doubt that the emergence of the “pro-sumer” – households and businesses that can generate and even store their own power – is the biggest existential threat to the business models of big energy.

    It means, for one, the end of the traditional method of extorting profits. It means the end for the business models for most of the “base-load” generators that are nearing the end of their life anyway. And it means the end of how they have framed their retail businesses around the unspoken mantra that “confusion is profit.”
    The big end of town know too well the transition is inevitable, and have predicted as much themselves…

    Collette describes the solar rebate as “regressive”, and says if it is removed “that’s an instant bill saving for every consumer.” How much? Well, according to the ACCC, about $15 a year, or 30c a week, or 4c a day. You get the picture…

    Collette and others seek to justify their complaints by claiming that renters and low-income households are the ones who are penalised most. This from the very companies who have screwed those customers blind with their own regressive pricing policies, and who increased profits three-fold in just the last year.
    If they are so worried about that constituency, then why not develop schemes to assist renters and low-income households to add rooftop solar and storage, as the South Australian Labor government proposed. It can’t be that hard…

    AEMO CEO Audrey Zibelman didn’t buy into the “anarchy argument” at the conference, but she is aware of where we are heading in rooftop solar, and she is deeply aware of both the challenges of this transition and the opportunities.
    Zibelman stands out because she prefers to embrace those opportunities rather than wail about the threats.

    By 2040, rooftop solar will likely account for half of the grid’s capacity, and by 2050 half of all demand will be met by “distributed energy”. In most states – and in South Australia and Western Australia first, and within a few years – the output of rooftop solar will equate to demand from the grid…

    And no, Zibelman notes, phasing out coal and transitioning to a smart, clean grid does not mean the lights going out…
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/anarchy-what-big-energy-really-thinks-of-consumer-power-32245/

    10

  • #
    pat

    9 Oct: ABC: Opponents plan to fight ambitious Crystal Brook wind, solar and battery project
    By Eugene Boisvert
    More than 100 Crystal Brook residents are expected to speak out against a $65 million wind, solar and battery proposal for regional South Australia that would include Australia’s tallest turbines.
    The development application for Crystal Brook Energy Park is expected to go to the State Commission Assessment Panel for a vote on Thursday.

    However, more than 260 Crystal Brook residents have put in representations about the project, most of them objecting to the wind farm component, which would produce 125 megawatt-hours of electricity.

    The tallest of the 26 wind turbines at the site would stand 240 metres high, just shy of some in Germany which are 6 metres taller, and 40 metres taller than any others in Australia.
    The closest house is about 1.3 kilometres from a turbine, while Crystal Brook is about 3.5 kilometres away.
    The energy park would also include up to 500,000 solar panels producing 150 megawatts of power, and a lithium-ion battery able to store up to 400 megawatt-hours of electricity.
    Neoen — which also owns the Hornsdale wind farm near Jamestown, which feeds into the giant Tesla battery — left out its planned hydrogen plant.
    It had received a $1 million grant for a feasibility study towards just before March’s state election.
    The panel will hold hearings in Port Pirie on Wednesday and Thursday this week.
    Crystal Brook resident Gerry Nicholson said the towers would “absolutely dominate the entire region with the height they’re going to”.

    He said they would be the first wind turbines in the Flinders Ranges.
    “My concern is once they get a foothold into being able to put towers on somewhere like the southern Flinders Ranges, how far up the ranges are they going to go?” Mr Nicholson asked.
    “Are they going to start putting them in the Adelaide Hills or the beaches of Glenelg?
    “You wonder where it’s going to stop if people don’t stand up and say no.”
    Other concerns included the noise they would produce and possibly related health issues, and effects on tourism, television reception and land values.
    Neoen Australia managing director Franck Woitiez said the company had listened to residents’ concerns and had cut the number of proposed wind turbines in half since the original proposal…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-09/crystal-brook-wind-farm-plans-dont-include-hydrogen/10351080

    10

  • #
    pat

    11 Oct: UK Independent: Why roads paved with solar panels are not such a bright idea
    Solar highways can be 20 times less efficient than solar power plants. Dylan Ryan reports
    (Dylan Ryan is a lecturer in mechanical and energy engineering at Edinburgh Napier University. This article first appeared on The Conversation)
    Four years ago, a viral campaign wooed the world with a promise of fighting climate change and jumpstarting the economy by replacing tarmac on the world’s roads with solar panels. The bold idea has undergone some road testing since. The first results from preliminary studies recently came out, and they’re a bit underwhelming.

    A solar panel lying under a road is at a number of disadvantages. As it’s not at the optimum tilt angle, it’s going to produce less power and it’s going to be more prone to shading, which is a problem as shade over just 5 per cent of the surface of a panel can reduce power generation by 50 per cent.
    The panels are also likely to be covered by dirt and dust and would need far thicker glass than conventional panels to withstand the weight of traffic, which will further limit the light they absorb.

    Unable to benefit from air circulation, it’s inevitable these panels will heat up more than a rooftop solar panel too. For every 1 degree Celsius over optimum temperature you lose 0.5 per cent of energy efficiency…

    One of the first solar roads to be installed is in Tourouvre-au-Perche in France. This has a maximum power output of 420 kW, covers 2,800m² and cost €5m (£4.5m) to install. This implies a cost of €11,905 per installed kW.
    While the road is supposed to generate 800 kilowatt hours per day (kWh/day), some recently released data indicates a yield closer to 409 kWh/day, or 150,000 kWh/yr. For an idea of how much this is, the average UK home uses about 10 kWh/day. The road’s capacity factor – which measures the efficiency of the technology by dividing its average power output by its potential maximum power output – is just 4 per cent…

    In the US, a company called Solar Roadways has developed a smart highway with solar panels, including sensors and LED lights to display traffic warnings about any upcoming hazards, such as a deer. It also has heating pads to melt snow in winter.

    Several of its SR3 panels have been installed in a small section of pavement in Sandpoint in Idaho. This is 13.9 m² in area, with an installed capacity of 1.529 KW. The installation cost is given as $48,734 (about £37,482), which implies a cost per installed kW of €27,500, more than 20 times higher than the Cestas power plant…READ ON
    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-panel-roads-energy-bad-idea-renewable-climate-change-environment-a8557076.html

    10

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    ‘EDUCATED ELITES’ just look at the mob outside the opera house a few nights ago;
    All for 5 mins of pictures on the opera house sails. Blink and you would have missed it.
    Not worth bothering about you might think, but they had to be there . .so is it the message or the media? Anyone?
    GeoffW

    30

  • #
    pat

    8 Oct: Inverell Times: Opposition to solar farm construction
    Saumarez Solar Farm Action Group
    The proposal by the French company Neoen to construct an industrial solar electricity generation facility on the gateway to Armidale and Uralla will have major impacts on surrounding communities. The proposed site is located on the properties Alfoxton and Saumarez Station close to the New England Highway and under the flight path of the Armidale airport. The site is an area 4 x 4 kilometres in size of prime agricultural land of which the company proposes to cover 1500ha with 1.5 million solar panels.

    This proposal will impact on the several hundred residents living in the surrounding rural residential areas of Arding, Mt Butler/Invergowrie/Mt Mitchell and the Saumarez Ponds and Bowman Estates. These communities were established by the Uralla Shire to provide residents with the opportunity for a semi-rural lifestyle. The industrial sized scale of this proposal will change the nature of the area and conflict with the purpose for which these areas were created. Some residences are within 50 metres of the proposal. Expert general advice received so far indicates that property values in the area could fall between 5 and 20% depending on proximity to the proposal…READ ON
    https://www.inverelltimes.com.au/story/5688621/why-we-oppose-plans-for-a-solar-farm/

    30

  • #

    There’s an even simpler reason why people who go to University are so gullible on climate – they lose touch with their own home climate and therefore they lack the connection with what is really happening that less educated people who stay at home retain.

    And it is even easier to fool politicians who head to London,Canberra or Washington and who jet set all over the world.

    To put it simply, the less you earn (so fewer holidays away), the more rural your location, the more manual and outdoors your work, the less you’ll believe in the climate crap … but conversely, the less people in Washington or London or Canberra will listen to you.

    51

  • #
    John in Oz

    The ABC interviewed Mr Lindzen today (11 Oct) and, paraphrasing, was informed that in his opinion there was no problem with the little warming since the Little Ice Age.

    They then had David Karoly on and his first comment, again paraphrasing, was that everything that Lindzen had just stated was wrong. He then proceeded to prove that his Armageddon-view of the state of the climate was true using the ‘highest temps ever recorded over the last few years’ mantra without any reference to how large the increase has been, nor that temps have been increasing since the LIA. My cherry tree is just in flower but he seems to have found some ready to pick.

    61

  • #
    Jay Dee

    For my part, I’ve often cracked that a PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving somehow empowers the possessor to make knowledgeable pronouncements on quantum physics. I like Nicholas Nassim Taleb’s description; intellectual yet idiot.

    The problem is that this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Pick any major sociological issue; education, poverty, crime, medical care, etc. They have no real understanding of the issues. Yet, these same people feel empowered to propose major legislative programs to address these issues which almost always involves adding more government administration. The group is adding more like thinkers.

    The problem is not the need for more government administration but that administration is absorbing all resources and returning less and less. Some administration is required but we are long past the point of diminishing returns.

    80

  • #
    Tom O

    I quote -

    “For many (especially on the right), the need to be regarded as intelligent causes them to fear that opposing anything claimed to be ‘scientific’ might lead to their being regarded as ignorant, ”

    I absolutely disagree with Lindzen. He is absolutely wrong, or he doesn’t know his right from his left. It is to the left that this statement applies.

    30

    • #
      Eddie

      Surely that’s what he meant.

      10

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      He is also a ‘luke warmist’

      00

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I read it as though he meant to say Right.

      I think he’s saying that they don’t rock the boat.
      They don’t stick their nose into someone else’s pie.
      They don’t question the author because the whole thing is likely to blow out of proportion, and that’s just pain for no gain.

      CAGW has such a massive momentum now because it wasn’t property questioned to begin with. And the MSM wanted to believe the catastrophe so pushed it as a news item with scary imagery to boot.

      20

    • #
      Phoenix 44

      I think he is correct. If you care about say free trade and free markets as a politician, you don’t want to give your Progessive opponents easy ammunition about “not believing science”. And if you care about the economic damage of AGW, you stick to the political and economic argument s in those areas, rather than risk the “anti-science” ad home.

      00

  • #
    Analitik

    A brilliant lecture. I am very tempted to download it and present it to the science teacher at my daughter’s school to stop them brainwashing the students with the CAGW meme. I’m sick of having to instill a sense of cynicism in a child.

    50

  • #
    Phoenix 44

    The simple reason is that people who earn a living by being an “expert” cannot afford to rubbish the expertise of experts. And of course a great deal of personal validation goes alongside the that.

    10

  • #
    Kate

    Most likely it is just the difference between indoctrination and using common sense.

    10