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.
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.
A nice article which shows how the German government has cornered itself by hastily shutting down an important number of nuclear power plants due to the tsunami scare in Japan (as if Germany is subject to tsunamis, right Ms Merkel?).
It’s interesting to read now Sigmar Gabriel being concerned about economic matters, when all he has done has been to push for more unreliable “green renewables” to come online in Germany. Gabriel now says:
“When we’re talking about the future of coal I would advise being less ideological about it and to focus more on climate goals and the economic consequences”
Funny backtrack, isn’t it? I would not be surprised if the remaining nuclear power plants will be left running, and the one who have been stopped will be brought back online in the future.
Moreover, Gabriel confirms the use I make of the term “unreliables” when referring to the “green renewables” such as wind and solar:
“We need to be aware of what is needed to have a stable energy supply”
Oh well, Herr Gabriel, have you figured it out just now?
I have come across, by pure coincidence, a truly remarkable speech by Ayn Rand from 1970, where she had already seen in the future we are living in now.
This lady had amazing powers of observation, and in the initial part of this speech she describes a dystopian world which, for some, is almost like today. Unfortunately.
Truly worth listening to, time will fly very fast, though some bitter taste will remain in your mouth, if you really care for what’s at stake here.
Thanks to Ayr Rand Institute’s Keith Lockitch and Amanda Maxham for the “thank you” to “the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestack” they had in this good podcast, also worth listening to. They are responsible for introducing me to this Ayn Rand’s speech, and I am very thankful for this.
Tom Woods is a famous person in the libertarian and Austrian Economics circles.
This time Tom ventured in a bit of a different domain than his normal one, and had as guest Dr. Judith Curry, a famous scientist in the “climate change” debate, who has been labeled a “heretic” for her dissenting views to the mainstream.
A good interview, not technical and very enjoyable for anyone.