Time to reform academia

Back in 2007 when I first started being a sceptic, almost every major institution and government, almost every media outlet, and most importantly almost everyone in every group that usually questioned government policy, were all lining up like a group of mindless zombies behind a policy that when I checked had almost no scientific credibility.

In truth, as few as half a dozen extremely politicised academics who had no compunction with lying to the public and whose academic ability didn’t include basic things like being able to use Excel, had gained control of the subject of climate and were leading the world trance-like toward economic oblivion using the lie of a CO2 catastrophe.

Whether intentional or just because they hated commerce & industry, their aim was clear: to destroy the oil based economies of the west. To destroy capitalism. To destroy the very economy that provided the wealth that employed them.

It is the closest the world ever came to self-inflicted suicide. Far worse than Nuclear war – because at least we knew that was bad when it was happening. The self-delusional process of lies being laid down over lies, data changing becoming ever more virulent meant we were on the verge of a big-brother world FAR WORSE than anything even the USSR could have done because there literally was almost no opposition.

We, few sceptics, stopped it just in time – any longer and we would have started to see the repression of free speech, concentration camps, etc. that were being openly talked about. And once such measures had been taken, there would have been no turning back the tide of repression. There would have been no chance for science based policy – because inconvenient science requiring credible impartial data and analysis simply could not be tolerated. It did not support the crazies who had gained control. Big brother was on the door, and almost EVERYONE was clambering over each other to ask him in.

I don’t think most people will ever realise how close we came to oblivion. After all most passengers on the Titanic had no clue how close they were to death until LONG AFTER they hit the ice-berg. And we sceptics were like cabin boys locked up from questioning the captain’s decision to go full speed into the dark. The cabin boy only gets remembered, if anyone who knows about them survives the incident and spills the beans (the cabin boy undoubtedly being locked up where they are first to drown). They don’t get remembered if the captain slows down.

And that is where we are at. The captain (nutter climate academics) are still running the ship, the cabin boys are still well and truly out of the picture, but the Titanic has slowed down and better still passengers are starting to question the captain’s zealous onward progress in the middle of a known ice field

But how did we get into this mess?

The main reason for this debacle stems with the incompetence of western academia. The issues are:

  1. Western academia is one of the most overtly politicised groups rivalling trade unions for their shear political bias. This not only extends to a blatant left wing bias, but also means that in many policy areas there is a de facto one party state in academia that does not accept alternative views.
  2. As a result Groupthink is rife. Anyone questioning the groupthink is sent to Coventry and the result has been the stagnation of many subjects from climate to archaeology.
  3. Introversion and rejection of external views is also rife. Partly because academia is so politicised and doesn’t share the worldview of those outside, but largely because like any closed shop, it sees those outside who have views on academic subjects as “the enemy”.
  4. Dishonesty & poor quality is rife in academia. The dishonesty stems from the lack of any adequate oversight and the huge incentives to make the data fit the theory. And quality is non-existent in many areas, because quality is driven by demanding customers and much of what academics work on has no customer at all.

To put it bluntly, in many respects academia has become a fifth column working against the rest of society, using government funding to create an alternative political power base, which is not subject to any oversight or control, and which has no compunction to create fake data and lies to push through its own policy agenda. And it works hand-in-glove with the similarly minded fake news media allowing the academia-MSM roadroller to push over and flatten the political wishes of the rest of society.

Thus, whilst the global warming Scam was the most serious immediate threat we have faced in recent history, it is but a symptom of a much greater illness: that academia has become a force for evil in society. We may have stopped the global warming scam from snowballing till those changing the data had so much power they could make it up with impunity and lock up critics so that there was no way for the people to regain control of their governments. But we have not clipped the wings of academia nor in any way stopped them from constructing a new scare. They are still able to make up fake social data to support their latest political fad whether it is anti-smacking, gender mutations or their general hatred of any social policy that is not on the extreme wacky left or supportive of commerce & capitalism.

What solution?

The problem is that the internet has immensely strengthened the power of academia to force its viewpoint on the rest of us. Through websites like Wikipedia, they create a fake view of “knowledge” that is highly politicised and extremely biased. By controlling the supposed sources of “authority” on knowledge: the academic journals, this extreme left-wing publicly funded political force can deny the truth simply by publishing papers that say black is white. You can’t fight academics on Wikipedia – they just publish another paper so they can write whatever they like

The only upside, I can see, is that the general public are not the gullible fools that academics take them to be. On global warming, despite the lies of academia on sites like Wikipedia, the public have generally seen through their lies. Indeed, even in academia, the nuttery of academics on Wikipedia is so well known that even many academics don’t like it.

I once heard it said, that the only closed shop Union that Margaret Thatcher didn’t dare take on was the doctors. It is true she didn’t take on the medics, but a  far more dangerous and powerful union she should have taken on is academia. Undoubtedly attempts were made to change academia by rewarding academics on the number of papers. But far from making them more subject to market forces, the result has been a decline in academic standards and general view in academia that the number of papers now matters far more than their quality or honesty.

Likewise, the internet should have been a force for good – allowing more scrutiny of academic work. But in contrast, what it did was to allow academics in the same subject to start working directly with each other so that each subject became a “gang” of people who then didn’t tolerate alternative views. The result has been a vast increase in groupthink and academics now view themselves as part of one global groupthink gang, rather than each being primarily a member of their own different University with an alliance primarily to their own colleagues in their own University.

So, in terms of solutions, I do not see many. Given that the current position means western academia is very much underperforming, one obvious “solution” is that the new academic powers of China, India, etc. having very different cultures, despite starting from a historically backward position, could easily outperform western academia with the inevitable consequence that their economies will dominate the future of our planet.

More palatable solutions (for us in the west) require some means to create oversight that is not massively left-wing politically biased. That cannot be done for free: the only obvious alternative source of knowledge competence comes from the private sector. Either those currently employed in the private sector – or those who have retired from the private sector.

I have already suggested a very modest proposal of Research University for the retired – focussing on those who have worked in the private sector. They will not have the public-sector bias of most academia and therefore will massively increase the amount of pro-private sector research. But that will in no way restore the balance.

Another option is to put such people in charge of the grant funding body. We simply replace every grant funding body with people who have retired from commerce. We don’t need to change their aims or terms of references, because the result will inevitably be to favour those who are more balanced in their political views.

Another possibility is to give money directly to the private sector to employ researchers, so that the private sector is in control of research. That has already been tried, but it clearly is not enough.

These are all pretty simple measures: but they will all be vigorously opposed by the highly politicised academia for obvious reasons. But that is not the problem. The problem is lack of political will, FROM THE RIGHT, to do anything about the extreme left wing prejudice of academia. A classic example is Trump’s failure even to do the most obvious thing and take on those faking the climate data. If he can’t do something that simple, there does not appear to be any realistic chance of the necessary reforms in the near future.

So realistically, it is almost inevitable that we are seeing the end of the dominance of western thought because I can see no realistic way to reform academia to make it capable of meeting future challenges. And that probably also means that our political systems will become a lot more like countries like China. And to end on an ironic thought … no doubt, those who will most strongly object in the centuries to come as we lose the freedoms we currently have and mimic other cultures, … is the extremists in academia whose predecessors caused the demise of western society.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Time to reform academia

  1. Patrick healy says:

    Sadly the global warming ship has hardly slowed down let alone changed course.
    I have a friend whose wife is geography teacher in our local high school.
    She (and he) is a cast iron global warmist and spends her time indoctrinating the gullible minds at her disposal.
    As you say I could not name one news outlet in Britain which does not tow the party line.
    I could not name one political party which dares tell the truth on the great fraud.
    I cannot name one established religion which is not spouting global warming cant.
    The truth is out there, but it is only seekers like us can find it.
    I am a 76 year pessimist, who sees no way out of this impasse.
    Keep up your good work.

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      Don’t worry about the teacher telling kids what to think – teachers also tell kids not to have sex, drink and drugs. Far from having the desired effect, they’re almost guaranteeing that kids will rebel against their stupid preaching.

      And remember, virtually the same people were telling us that no one wanted to leave the EU. Likewise, the same groups were saying that Trump could never win.

      The reason these groups keep going on about global warming … is precisely because most people don’t believe it.

  2. “In truth, as few as half a dozen extremely politicised academics who had no compunction with lying to the public and whose academic ability…”

    Only six people or thereabouts?
    Really?
    That’s an amazing feat when you think about it.
    Surely it would have taken a few more people?
    After all, you couldn’t very well take over NASA with just six people…and that’s just one scientific community.

    Then, of course, there’s the time frame. The year is 2018.
    When did these people get started?
    When did they accomplish their nefarious goal?
    They must be pretty old by now.

    Details?

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      You only need two: first the nutter who decided that pushing green was a really good way to get government contracts, and they hire a green zealot name Hansen who in turn employs of whole team of eco-nutter zealots.

      Likewise, you have a couple at the UEA. A few others who self-proclaim themselves as “experts” at NOAA … they then either control organisations directly of appoint /get appointed compliance stooges and what they say is accepted by the world of gullible academics … all of whom love the idea of another stick to hit industry with.

      • “..first the nutter who decided that pushing green was a really good way to get government contracts….”
        Easy first step.
        “…they hire a green zealot name Hansen who in turn employs of whole team…”
        You’ve just contradicted yourself.
        You said “you only need two”.
        But now you say it’s two plus a whole team.
        Or do you mean that “a whole team” is just four more people, which would bring you up to your original total of six people?

        You can’t do it with six people. I’ve already told you this.

        “Likewise, you have a couple at the UEA. A few others who self-proclaim themselves as “experts” at NOAA …”

        So…how many? A rough number will do.

        “…they then either control organisations…”
        How?
        Start with NASA as a glaring example.
        So “your guy” let’s say is now magically in charge of NASA. How does he get NASA to lie to the public?
        Does he call all the people that work at NASA into his office one-by-one and give them their marching orders?
        That would take him forever.

        Does he send out a memo? Faster but…what if someone keeps the memo and then leaks it to the press?
        How about an email? To everybody?
        That won’t work because someone could just forward the email on to someone like you.
        How about a big group meeting?
        Ok but if it’s a big group meeting, then everybody has to show up right?
        What if someone brings a tape recorder?
        Or complains?

        It doesn’t work. Think it through. Come up with a viable scenario.

        Plus when is this all supposed to have happened?
        Under Obama?
        Or was it Bush?
        Or Clinton?
        Or Bush Senior?
        (….)
        Reagan? Was it him?
        Or do we have to go back even further?

        The year is 2018.
        When did these people get started?
        When did they accomplish their nefarious goal?
        They must be pretty old by now.

        • Scottish-Sceptic says:

          The number of people who created the global warming myth was incredibly small. But academics are like sheep – once they created the myth – other academics meekly go long with it as they will not question the dogma.

          The other attribute of academics, is that if someone from outside academia questions the dogma – far from causing academics to consider the dogma themselves, they just attack the outsider. Indeed, it is possible that the more the academics are attacked from outside the more entrenched their views become and the more hostile they are to those outside who are rightly pointing out that their cherished dogma is a load of dog shit.

          • The number of people who created the global warming myth was incredibly small.

            Ok.
            How small is small? Roughly how many people do “they” need?

            “other academics meekly…”

            You mean NASA?
            How do you get NASA to ‘meekly’ do anything?

            “…they then either control organisations…”

            How?

            …other academics meekly go…

            Ok. When?
            Was this back in the 00’s?
            Or the 90’s?
            Or the 80’s?
            Or the 70’s?

            How old are these brilliant and wildy successful liars? Must be pretty old, right?

            Have you ever heard of a little something called “The Problem of Scale”?

        • Scottish-Sceptic says:

          If you read the history of NASA produced BY NASA, you will see that they deliberately chose to use environmentalism as a way to increase the need for politicians to pour more money into NASA.

          NASA didn’t care one iota about the environment – instead NASA cared about getting more money for NASA and to them Hansen was a useful zealot who’d create enough lies and fake scares to force politicians to give more money to NASA to do more environmental monitoring.

          NASA didn’t care if the world was warming, if it was cooling or whether it was some other environmental scare like deforestation. All they cared about was that it was a big enough scare to get gullible US politicians to push lots of public money to NASA to put up more satellites etc.

          • “…they deliberately chose to use environmentalism….”

            Well, shame on them, I suppose.
            (….)
            But that doesn’t really help.

            We’re still stuck thorny problem of it being impossible due to basic logistics.

            “NASA and to them Hansen was a useful zealot”

            That’s not what you said a minute ago.

            “first the nutter who decided that pushing green was a really good way to get government contracts, and they hire a green zealot name Hansen…”

            See the problem?
            Either NASA is “them” or the mystery person is “them” and they go off and hire Hansen to infiltrate NASA and create a “whole team”.

            You can go with NASA being “them” from before Hansen or some guy plus Hansen is “them” and then NASA gets all infiltrated and such.
            Which version do you want to go with?

            Do you know about The Problem of Scale?

            =REPLY=

            You’re just trying to nit pick. if you had any substantive points you wouldn’t be trying to nit pick.

          • “You’re just trying to nit pick. if you had any substantive points you wouldn’t be trying to nit pick.”

            You said it could all be done with half a dozen people.
            It can’t.
            That’s not nitpicking.
            That’s pointing out the basic logistics.

            If what you suppose “really” happened is unworkable in the real world…then it didn’t happen.
            You see?
            It’s a common sense way of testing your beliefs.

            Even establishing a timeline ties you up in knots. If you pick a start time, then that means that….before…..that start time, the science was fine.
            That would mean you could compare the scientific consensus from before things went pearshaped to after the rot set in.
            You don’t seem to want to do that.
            That’s not nitpicking.

            I’m going to ask you again because it’s important.
            Do you know about The Problem of Scale?

Leave a Reply to Cedric Katesby Cancel 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>