You know about German angst. Climate priests, the media and politicians have created the illusion that carbon dioxide controls the climate. We are guilty, but we think that we can save the world if we simply turn the climate control knob – anthropogenic carbon dioxide – to nil.
Once again, it’s not about climate, but it’s about the impact of mankind on planet Earth.
Precisely like Alex Epstein has said for years. It’s not about climate. It’s about an anti-human philosophy.
This is the enemy.
Oh, and did I mention that Professor Fritz Vahrenholt has quite a CV? Just check for yourself…
Their YouTube channel is full of great lectures from very different kind of scientists, and such lectures are thought-provoking and do upset many of those who think that “the science is settled“ in this or that field.
The latest video was published just a few hours ago, and its title immediately caught my attention:
The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science: What Is To Be Done?
The speaker presented his lecture at the summer DDP Annual Meeting, and his name is David Randall, PhD, who is the Director of Research at the National Association of Scholars.
The whole 57 minutes presentation is worth watching, but two sections are worth mentioning here.
The first one starts at 27’14”, here is the link:
This is the caption, with highlighted text:
[…]there have been several studies that have found significant publication bias toward positive results in climate science journals, particularly in flagship journals such as Science and Nature.
Two scientists concluded in 2007 that the entire field of “probabilistic climate projection” […] which relies on combining multiple climate models had no verifiable relation to the actual climate and thus no predictive value.
I should say by the way, and these are people who are in the mainstream of climate science who in effect are saying […] “we believe in [our] results basically but we need to do our procedures better”.
If you aren’t in the mainstream you might look at this and say, uhmm, “no value”?
In 2010 a researcher tested a randomly selected issue of “Journal of Climate” and found that about three-quarters of the articles misused significance tests.
A 2016 article on how to improve computational results in “Weather and Climate Science” stated that it is impossible to replicate and verify most of the computational results presented in journal articles today.
I’m going to confess I look four wonderful phrases like that, my golly, if you don’t actually have to look that far hard to find them…
So [the] entire climate change crisis, and I’ll just use this yoke very carefully, may well be a pyramid of irreproducible research. It would be a good idea to go back and have that discipline redone according to the proper standards.
Later in the same presentation, at 55’20”:
Policymakers should prioritize the review of these regulatory agencies with the greatest effect on the American economy and American’s individual lives.
The earliest possible reproducibility assessment should be taken of regulations concerning:
biological effects of nuclear radiation
the identification and assessment of learning disabilities, and
If you have other suggestions for ones other than the “dirty dozen”,
come to me and talk to me, though it struck me [this] is not bad places to start.
Government regulation should be based on the “best available science”, the best available science means reproducible science, and substantially reproduced science.
This is precisely how science should be dealt with. Because once more we are seeing the very negative effects of government intervention in science, and the fact that so many of the research papers experiment cannot be replicated is a clear indication of BAD science at play.
And surely an indication of bad usage of taxpayers’ money.
Let alone the immensely negative effects on the economy, and the continuous state of emergency claimed by those who are there “to save mankind“.
This kind of science reminds more and more of Ayn Rand’s magnum opus “Atlas Shrugged“, where the State Science Institute is not able to do any meaningful research, and only exists to appease the politicians and their cronies, not doing any meaningful research, and in fact going against those who would privately found research.
62 years have passed since the publication of “Atlas Shrugged“, and once again we can how Ayn Rand’s ideas and philosophy was very much ahead of her time.
Any feedback on my presentation, my ideas, and the reference model created by Alex Epstein which I also endorsed in my presentation is more than welcome. Please feel free to discuss it in the comments below or on Facebook.
Many of you know that I am a passionate Toastmaster, and that I spend a fair amount of time in Toastmasters-related activities, including preparing and delivering speeches at different Clubs in the Area I manage, as Area J2 Director, in District 59.
This book had a very strong impact in my personal development in the energy field, a field I knew something about, but not anywhere near the depth and perspective which Alex’s book allowed me to develop. It has truly been a life-changer for me, and I will highlight some of my experiences and considerations during the speech.
I am fully aware that for some people just the simple idea of having the words “moral” and “fossil fuels” in the same sentence makes up for a big cognitive dissonance, so my challenge will be to challenge your knowledge and biases, such that you will be better able to respect and maybe understand my point of view, which very much mirrors that of Alex Epstein, a person I consider a role model for me.
I will leave you with a teaser of what the book is about, to create even more expectation about the speech. Or to enrage you even more against fossil fuels. Or both. It doesn’t really matter.
The only thing that matters is to have your brain fully engaged, and to respect the views of people, especially when they are very different than yours.
After all, it’s far too simple to be in agreement with those who share your same ideas. It’s not even fun.
Today is July 1st 2017; this is a very important date for us Toastmasters, as it marks the beginning of the new Toastmasters 2017-2018 year.
This year will be full of activities for me, as I will engaged as the Vice President of Education for my home Club, the EPFL-Unil Toastmasters Club in Lausanne, Switzerland, repeating the good experience I had last year.
I will also take a new role, this time a District 59 role, that of Area Director for Area J2, serving four Toastmasters Clubs in Canton Vaud, the area of Switzerland where I live since 2012.
This is a new and interesting challenge for me, and since communication will play a very important role in all my future Toastmasters activities within my Club and Area, I have taken the additional challenge to start a new video blog which I strive to publish on a weekly basis moving forward.
Here is the very first short episode of my new video blog, enjoy!
P.S. Yes, I realize that I said “year” instead of saying “day” just at the very beginning of the video… there is definitely a lot of room for improvement, but hey, at least I started!
What I did not know is that Norberg had also worked in the energy field by creating the documentary “Power to the People”, which is a must-see for anyone who is interested in understanding more about energy, not only on the technical domain, but also for the economics involved with energy harnessing, production and distribution, and the impact of energy poverty on the communities which to this day still do not have access to electricity.
The documentary has a very negative view of the infamous German “Energiewende” and its damaged imposed to the society, including the loss of private and historic property due to increasing need to rely on lignite coal in Germany, after the inexplicable decision to shut down perfectly healthy nuclear power plants there due to a tsunami on the eastern coast of Japan.
Do yourself a favour. Watch it. You will understand energy a whole lot more than what you do today.
Today’s show topic was the myth of socialist scandinavian countries such as Sweden and Denmark, which are mistakenly used by the left as proof that socialism works, and that it brings wealth and good lifestyles in the countries where socialism is applied by the ruling coalition.
The discussion is quite interesting, and focuses on the many memes which circulate on social media, falsely portraying a mythical socialist society where things work well.
Except that neither Sweden nor Denmark are socialist countries.
They are very much mixed economies, with a high social cost due to fairly high taxation, which has rendered being an entrepreneur in such countries almost a nightmare.
This is confirmed in many different ways by the guest of the show, Carl Svanberg, who is a Swede, so he knows a thing or five about his country, and about the many companies which have fled or shut down since the country turned more toward socialism in the 1980s.
IKEA was mentioned a number of times during the show, but I should add something which was probably not known to Amanda not Carl.
This is yet another proof of the fact that rich people “vote with their feet” and are able to have a better life in freer countries such as Switzerland, and can move the center of their assets in other countries where the fiscal burden is lower.
The final part of the show is also very much worth listening to, as it’s focused on Amanda’s strongest topic, genetic engineering.
If you like flowers, you have to listen to it. And if you like research on plant genetics and some history, you’re in for a treat.
Sometimes it’s not too bad to be missing Yaron during his travels!
This US Presidential campaign has been truly remarkable, mostly in a bad way, with lots of foul play and needless rudeness from both sides.
We are finally getting closer to the vote on November the 8th (yes, remember, it’s November the 8th, not January!) and thankfully the debates are over. But we will see more drivel coming from left and right, that is for sure.
Last Monday October 17th though there was a different opportunity for a fierce conflict between the two candidates, this time not as a debate, but rather with two separate speeches at a charity dinner in New York City, where both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were present.
Trump spoke first, then Clinton spoke immediately after.
The two videos have been published on YouTube, and what is amazing to notice is that Trump’s speech has had more than 4 times the viewers of Clinton’s, were are talking more than 2 million views for Trump, and little more than 500 thousand views for Clinton as of today.
Both speeches are very much worth watching, as they have been used by the two candidates to keep beating each other up, in many different and creative ways, even sometimes with a lot of humour, yet a very serious humour.
I will leave it to my readers to decide which one of the two candidates was more convincing and compelling. I have my views, and maybe the difference in the number of views of the two speeches can also tell a tale.
One thing is for sure. We should all be very happy that this campaign will soon be over. Either way, we will have a President of the US which will be leading a very divided country, and she or he will not have an easy job at hand.
Lars Seier Christensen is one of the founding members of Saxo Bank of Denmark, a very successful financial institution he created with his partners, and ran using Ayn Rand’s Seven Virtues as a guiding beacon, with great success. He left Saxo Bank at the beginning of 2016, to form his one-man investment company, Seier Capital.
On September 29th 2016, in New York, the Ayn Rand Institute held a fund-raising dinner during which Lars Seier Christensen was the keynote speaker.
The whole speech is very much worth reading, but the final part of his remarks gave me goose bumps, as they are oh so very true:
If we don’t succeed in changing the values and direction of at least the next generation, I fear the full prediction of Atlas Shrugged will become reality – and while that may hold some promise for the distant future, it is not something that I think people of my age feel like going through if we can avoid it.
We need a revolution. A revolution of rationality.
Yes, we need a whole lot more rationality. Something which seems to be very much absent in politics on a worldwide basis, as of late. Sadly so.