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.
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!
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.
In the latest episode of his show, he tackles the issue of poverty, and he does so by using the documentary “Poverty, Inc.” as a common thread throughout the whole 1-hour long show, very much worth listening to.
I really liked the movie, and the harsh critiques against the business of charities and NGOs worldwide, which today are a huge industry, in a lot cases fueled by a lot of taxpayers money. It is clear that in a lot of cases the political decisions taken by the states and companies active in charity are doing more harm than good in the longer term, and the movie does an excellent job at providing hard facts to support this view.
In fact, in most cases what charities and NGOs do, after an initial benefit provided following the event which causes the intervention (earthquake, famine, civil war, flooding), is to simply damage the local economy to a point where there is no way out other than keeping the leash with those who now provide the “welfare”.
Of course no charity or NGO will work against their own interest, and so their aim is NOT to solve the poverty issue, but rather to keep it the way it is, so their existence can be further justified moving forward in time, and thus many years after the earthquake in Haiti, you still have hundreds of NGOs active there, because the local economy has been destroyed precisely by the handouts given by charities and NGOs!
Talk about a conflict of interests there…
The movie is a must-see in my opinion, as it will open your eyes on one more bad thing caused by the action of those who just want to feel less guilt and keep writing checks and donating huge amounts of money, rather than really solving the poverty issue.
The book is very much worth reading, and will guide you thru the many fallacies of the different ways the left is using to attack capitalism and the free-market, attacks to which the right seems to be completely unable to respond to. Luckily Brook and Watkins give us all the required information to counter such attacks in the book.
This video interview is very clear and very much worth watching. 8’25” well spent, if you care about spreading the truth about why income inequality is NOT the issue that the left wants you to believe it is.
I find myself mentioning Yaron Brook again on my blog again, this time to link a YouTube video which, though it’s precisely 4 years old, is still very much right and applicable today.
The topic being discussed is the minimum wage, which has once again become a topic mentioned a lot by the media due to continuous mentions of this issue by Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont running for the Democratic nomination to the 2016 US Presidential elections, and also because very recently California and other states have once again increased the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
Yaron Brook’s view is very clear; the government has no rights to set prices on anything. Not on goods, not on bread, not on people’s hourly wages. It was tried many times, under communism, under socialism, under different kinds of collectivistic societies like the current one in the USA, and it never worked.
In fact, making the minimum wage higher does the exact opposite, as it prices OUT of the market those who can only work for fewer dollars an hour. They will remain unemployable and thus unemployed, and the state will subsidize them to remain in that pitiful condition.
The video is very much worth watching, and reflecting upon.