Global Warming Scam – an economic and social autoimmune disease?

There are a whole series of diseases from simple allergies to some form of arthritis where the normal behaviour of the body’s immune system somehow stops just attacking foreign invaders and instead starts attacking the body’s own tissues as if it were a foreign matter. I see much similarity in the way academics now attack commerce, industry and their antithesis “practitioners” and “sceptics”.

Why do academics love battery cars?

I was thinking this morning, that much of the problem of academia stems from the way it has become divorced from the reality of real life. That e.g. researchers will spend years investigating battery technology for some supposed Utopian future without hydro-carbons … when it has long been known that batteries are an inefficient way to store energy.

In case it is not obvious, this is because batteries like hydro-carbon fuels are just ways to store chemical energy. The big difference is that the “other side” of the process in hydrocarbons is the freely available air … whereas the “other side” of a battery has to be in the battery on “the other” plate. The result is that a petrol tank is 100% full of energy giving chemicals. In contrast even if the battery were 100% full of chemicals … they would only have 50% of the energy because they carry both sides of the reaction whereas the other side for hydro-carbons is air.

But it is much worse, in a battery, the chemical store is a thin coat on a 2D plate which must have all the additional complexity, bulk and weight of the electrical plates to hold that chemical store and transfer the energy. Batteries are far from an ideal way to carry energy and you’d have to be a nutty professor to think they are.

So, why don’t academics research how to convert Carbons & water into hydro-carbons? The answer is simple – that was worked out a long time ago and therefore there is no grant money to promote the proven and useful technology which requires absolutely no change to our cars

The real alien conspiracy

Likewise, when academics try to find aliens, they leave their brains behind and go into this fantasy world of benign creatures setting out to talk to each other – ignoring the fact that any signal is unlikely to reach any civilisation before they are all long dead.

But the daftest thing, is the most ubiquitous “fingerprint” of humanity is the curse of every astronomer: STREET LIGHTS. Streetlights, that as most engineers will know is likely to be AC, is likely to be sodium. Which makes it a massive and very precise beacon of civilisation that could easily been seen across the Galaxy.

But no! Academics don’t do the simple or the obvious. They think aliens will be watching doctor Who. Or let’s turn that around … they have equipment needing grants … and one way to get a grant for their equipment is to suggest that  aliens might be watching Dr Who!

Global warming

And yes, it is the same with global warming. There is a very simple explanation for why the world warming in the 20th century … and that is because the world has and always will warm and cool. But academics don’t do simple. Why can’t they see the obvious? Why do they always try to make simple things sound complex? Why call it “anthropogenic global warming” when they clearly mean “Man-made global warming” and only those trying to pretend it is something it is not would say otherwise?

Lack of customer focus

In the good old days when engineers got on with making Britain great and academics knew their place as the repository of knowledge and not the adviser to government economics, global warming & social policy, engineers led and academics followed. So, we invented the steam engine … they encapsulated that theory in gas laws. We practitioners learnt how the layers of geology could be used as a road map to find coal. They took our road map and claimed they discovered geology. Practitioners like John Harrison invented the navigation watch that saved countless lives and mapped the world … and the Royal Society followed by going into a huff because it had given a prize for doing that and couldn’t tolerate the idea that they had been barking up the wrong tree trying to determine longitude using observations of the moon.

OK, academics claiming all this information determined by others was “theirs” had some credibility, because even if they information did not originate with them, they did great the overall picture as well as doing their job to collate this information and disseminate it. So, even though the actual claim of “discovering” was dubious to say the least, it did benefit every engineer and practitioner to have a common pool of knowledge of which the academics were less “originators” than guardians.

But now, that focus on “simple” has gone. The “customer focus” went when academia advised government as I would put it: “the future isn’t simple, it isn’t engineering”. When academia told British government that the future was not engineering … it was part of what is almost an auto immune disease in the UK and perhaps the US. The Guardian of our knowledge store, was now turning against the originator of that knowledge and the originator of the wealth that gave academia its funding and its purpose.

It was almost a turf war

The best way to describe this is to highlight the situation in the BBC, an organisation which as far as I can remember, has never had a good word for “engineers”. I finally understood when one day during an program I felt was particularly hostile to my way of thinking had several “technical difficulties” and I though “good … I hope some engineer was pulling the plug”. And then I realised that maybe they were!

Could it be that within BBC broadcasting there is this turf war between the “celebrity broadcasters” who lord it over us on the screen … and the “practitioner engineers” who make it all happen? The more I think about it, the more this explains the BBC hostility to sceptics (most of whom seem to be engineers).

Have you noticed how often in some programs, there is a “technical hitch”. Now imagine a scene where BBC engineers have just been told that global warming is true that they are just a bunch of deniers … etc. etc., the worst thing is that the lovey doveys in front of the camera have no way of telling whether there is any real technical hitch and the engineers are probably fed up with the way they get treated.

Decline in respect for engineering

And so, for a number of reasons: the inevitable decline in some industries; to the delight of the BBC attacking any “engineer” in society, but most of all because academia has now ordained that engineering is dead, we have seen a decline in both quantity and respect for industry and engineering.

For example, there used to be a “Science and Engineering Committee” in the UK parliament. That changed to “Science and technology” … the way things are going it will soon just be “Science”. Because engineering is being written out of British life. E.g. have you never considered how odd it is that the government have a “Chief Scientist” but no “Chief Engineer”? Even the Starship Enterprise had a chief engineer … but not the starship UK which is (not) boldly going anywhere.

The result of this anti-engineering, anti-commerce, pro-academic, pro-public service culture that is now endemic in British and particularly Scottish society is that engineering quite literally a “dirty word” to some people meaning a dirty nasty even perhaps morally corrupt group. The result is that as a group engineers have been written out of British life. E.g. I cannot remember when I last saw any positive portrayal of an engineer on the BBC (although positive portrayals of any men are rare).  The result is that the tie to industry and commerce that used to keep academic’s feet on the ground has lessoned, whilst their dislike & even in many cases hatred of engineering and commerce has increased.

The result is very like a religion: A new religion that was essentially anti-industry, anti commerce and at its core was a hatred for the source of power for industry and commerce: fossil fuel.

That religion was largely social & political and summed up as “anti-capitalist”. But the effect has been to attack our wealth creation through the “capitalist” proxy of fossil fuel. It is like an auto-immune disease producing a culture of hostility against practitioners & wealth creators and those like sceptics who dare to challenge those who believe this new religion.

So, the disease is something akin to an auto-immune disease, whereby academia has turned against industry and commerce or perhaps more accurately** has become detached, less tolerant, less knowledgeable about real wealth creation and the real world as they now sit behind their computer models. (**The upper class old scientists were always hostile to those in industry.)

The Academic Closed Shop

As we have seen on global warming, in many areas, academia is now claiming to have a monopoly on knowledge. For anyone else, even to say “it has not warmed in 15+ years” has become beyond the pale … it is as if we are challenging the high priests of this new religion; As if only they have a direct line to their goddess Gaia. But it is really a professional closed shop. Engineers have always had to do these kinds of calculations. Indeed having worked on temperature monitoring control and design I am far more professionally qualified to do the calculation than any academic. But normally engineers do it for their own companies, but now we do it for the whole world. So what is the response? Out come the “brothers & sisters” of the academic Union to demand we stop us evil engineers treading on their turf and doing “their” work. It is a closed shop mentality – that no other group can participate in what they consider to be “their” area.

Hence the violent and vitriolic attacks

This I believe is the fundamental reason that all those academics have closed ranks against the clear and unequivocal evidence that climate models do not work. They are being like creationists – claiming some godly insight into the workings of the world which has no evidential basis at all – and actively attacking those whose views are based on the evidence: that climate models do not work, and that academics are in denial about this.

There is no basis for these attacks. I don’t know of any sceptic who is funded by fossil fuel. I know many many academics and wind companies are. Their vitriol has no basis in fact, and therefore it must be a social phenomena akin to the Trade Unionist closed shop mentality.

And I cannot believe the stupidity as academia as an institution. For there is no doubt that future generations (and future even future academics) will laugh at the stupidity of academics today. Some will no doubt  try to rationalise it as something such as a pseudo political movement and “anti-capitalist” conspiracy the misled academia: but I’m going to be very interested to see how they deny all responsibility for this almighty cock-up.

But the truth is that almost all academics in some sense or other have gone along with this global warming non-science. Not because they support their colleagues who assert rubbish like the Hockeystick, but because they tolerate & even encourage their colleagues attacking others when…

it is academia that will never consider the blindingly obvious.

The Astronomer … whose views is blinded by street lights … who then suggests looking for a radio signal using their massive radio-telescope.

The geologists … who don’t see that any miner would have understood the rocks through which they dug were not from “the flood”.

… it is those with practical experience who created the modern world

The watchmaker … who proved a simple watch, not complex science, could navigate the world.

The sailor … in whose boat the curvature of the earth is visible just a mile or so away and did not need to be told the world was round.

The engineer … who knew how gases expanded and how to make a steam engine without an academic to advise them.

The farmer … who knew how to breed sheep, long before an academic worked out how.

They were all practitioners and “sceptics”

People who questioned what they saw, did not accept the blind assertions of authority and who went on to change the world. But now that blind assertion of authority is almost a state religion in academia & particularly Science. It is a religion with its own inquisition and dogma, and which now actively attacks the very people who in former years created the wealth and knowledge of this world for these “librarians” of academia to collate.

The simple fact is that natural variation, as we see throughout the climate record, can easily explain all the climate variation in the 20th century.

But academics don’t do simple

The disease is that they now actively attack those who not only understand simple, but know how to make the world simpler. Those who know how to do things simply and make a better and more profitable society for us all!

And so I’ll end with the old joke:

How many scientists does it take to change “the world”?

Just one … and an inability to do simple.

the world: “A spherical globe of Earth’s whose lithosphere is divided into several rigid segments, or tectonic plates, that migrate across the surface over periods of many millions of years. It’s  surface is covered by water contribute to the hydrosphere. …”

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Global Warming Scam – an economic and social autoimmune disease?

  1. neil craig says:

    But academe gets government grants which are available for trying (or perhaps just knowing what to ask for) rather than achievement so their incentive is to favour whatever is politically decided.

    That is part of why we should be putting up X-Prizes, which are purely for achievement, rather than conventional funding.

  2. > Hence the… vitriolic attacks

    Like:

    … They are being like creationists… akin to the Trade Unionist closed shop mentality… the stupidity as academia as an institution…. will laugh at the stupidity of academics today…. a pseudo political movement… global warming non-science… colleagues who assert rubbish…

    Try looking in a mirror.

    • Academia is already starting to realise that it backed the wrong horse on global warming. I’m sure a lot of time money and grant money will be spent trying to come up with some plausible excuse that suggests that academia is absolutely fabulous but somehow some other group of people misled them.

      The obvious group to blame are the sceptics. I’m sure that will be tried … something “if they hadn’t of made it so divisive we would have listened to the academics who questioned the models”. That doesn’t seem convincing. Next they’ll try blaming another group, and the politicians are an obvious choice.

      Much as we all like to blame politicians, they really haven’t been responsible except in a generalised sense for not listening to anyone but the academics.

      Now academia cannot admit that academia is at fault as that would suggest fundamental problems exist across a whole range of subjects (which is true but nothing they will admit).

      So, William, what they will decide as their “97% consensus” is that a small group of politically minded people within academia took over things like Wikipedia and the various journals and misled the rest.

      And you know what. There is nothing you or I can do to stop that happening – the only difference is that I know it will happen now, and you will find out later.

    • TinyCO2 says:

      There is a great deal of hostility on both sides and each has some cause to be tetchy.

      The hostility from our side is after a great many genial attempts at contact. We can see that glaring issues are either being ignored or swept under the carpet. We can see that despite some very reasonable voices within climate science, by the time it reaches the public it has been spun out of all recognition. There is a worrying silence from the science community when the media makes mistakes in favour of catastrophe but a loud clamour whenever somone is off piste in the sceptic direction.

      Your side could be hostile because of early attacks from those oil people we hear so much about but it was long before our time. Get over it! I appreciate that worries about the furure make some scientists anxious but action of AGW will not be speeded up by stampeding the public into it.

      You have to realise that your side is the supplicant. It wants people’s trust and action. It’s a huge ask and a certain amount of humility is called for. You have to be the bigger person and take public hostility on the chin, if you think the issue is important enough. You cannot get the huff when people don’t appreciate that you’re trying to save the planet because until people believe you, your pronouncements are just scare mongering.

      Engineers don’t expect the type of automatic trust that scientists enjoy. Not because we’re lesser people but because society demands safeguards. We don’t just have an irritating sceptic public to account for, we have scary government types on our tails and angry customers demanding their money back if we fail in our goals. When climate science accepts the same kinds of monitoring, then you’ll look back on these days with fondness for how much more academic freedom you enjoyed. But you’ll be better for it.

      • “Your side could be hostile because of early attacks from those oil people we hear so much about but it was long before our time.”

        As far as I can tell this is perhaps one coal fuel lobbyist around 2003. I doubt they did much, but that was more than enough to create a whole myth based on almost nothing at all.

        • TinyCO2 says:

          There’s probably more lobbying directly into the ears of politicians but it’s more likely to be over the port than over a blog post.

      • “Engineers don’t expect the type of automatic trust that scientists enjoy. Not because we’re lesser people but because society demands safeguards. We don’t just have an irritating sceptic public to account for, we have scary government types on our tails”

        I often wonder whether the robust sceptic “humour” which is at best “gallows humour” is often taken as being hugely insulting.

        What William does not appear to understand, is that engineers joke because they never win … they only don’t lose. In other words, if the machinery works, the bridge stays up or the plane flies … no one says: “didn’t the engineer do a great job”.

        So, the engineer doesn’t like publicity, because the only publicity is bad publicity – when the bridge fall down, the machinery breaks down of the plane crashes. Then it’s “the engineer’s fault”.

        It’s a sobering thought sitting everyday in the office knowing that one day someone could walk in and tell you you are responsible for a death.

        Scientists: get rewarding by the noble prize and accolades from all the colleagues and the press.
        Engineers when they do the best job possible get rewarded by no mention at all. You know you’ve done a great job when no one complains.

        • TinyCO2 says:

          I was sent on media training once and the other people were from banks, retailers and other well known names. They were all worrying about the ‘flights for Hoovers’ scandal that had wiped out the UK division of the company. We exchanged stories and I grinned at the reality divide as I told them I was there in case we accidentally blew up half a city. Thankfully I never needed the skills I learnt!

  3. Geordie says:

    I think that you make some valid points about the way in which some academics work but I think you might also be adding complexity which isn’t needed. I also don’t think that the people who call themselves scientists are held in higher esteem than those scientists in practice, in fact I think there has always been an undercurrent of distrust of people who claim a special knowledge that only they understand, objectivity and value free facts. History has repeatedly demonstrated that science is not value free, but scientists often are. We live in an age in which governments are the principle source of funding and bestow this funding preferentially on things that support their political agenda. The same thing happens with charities, many of which are mostly funded by the government to produce research reports that are consistent with government policy and lobby the government for changes in the law. Changes the government was already considering but can escape any responsibility for by pointing to this apparent independent charity.
    details at http://www.fakecharities.org However like many forms of corruption there are problems in that its difficult to control everyone and many of the best critics of global warming are in fact retired academics. You also point to organizations like the BBC and I could add the meteorological office as also showing these biases, I imagine it wont take long to think of who pays them and I think neither currently reflect the public’s views. I think a major difficulty is that no one is clear what a climate scientist is, climate isn’t a thing, no one has climate or experiences it, its a construct a way of thinking about weather, which we do actually get in the UK. To effectively work with a construct like this implies a wide ranging and detailed knowledge of a number of the basic sciences, it is after all from the basic sciences that many skeptics draw their information. The second part in the title is science again this implies expertise in certain types of knowledge and the ways of testing this knowledge and generating evidence. Unfortunately the methods of science are well known by a wide range of people, many of who cant actually see any similarity in the methods of science they use and the methods of climate “science.” I think the applied sciences have always enjoyed a level of acceptance and a status well above many in academic sciences, this might mean they are taken for granted but it also means to achieve the status given to climate scientists might involve a long descent.

    • what a well put and articulated comment!

      To be fair to climate researchers, it would be very difficult to carry out an experiment on the earth. So, whilst their subject may look very much like hard science, it actually contains none of the certainty. Perhaps that is whey they equate the ambiguity and lack of testing of their subject with “science”, when it isn’t.

  4. catweazle666 says:

    Good piece, SS.

    The rats – both political and scientific – are already deserting the sinking AGW ship, sooner now rather than later some rich and important individuals are going to find themselves out of pocket and with egg all over their faces, and they are going to look for someone to blame. They are going to have scapegoats, because that is the way these things work.

    And guess what – it won’t be the politicians, it never is, so who does that leave?

  5. meran says:

    nice article. May I share this?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>