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.
I was particularly curious about the topic as the title of the presentation could have been quite controversial, especially on climate-related issues, the title being:
From plastic pollution to climate change: major threats to the oceans and how to fix them
What I found was a different kind of an environmentalist, someone who is deeply knowledgeable in his direct field, but also does not live in a vacuum and knows really well that the role played by fossil fuels and nuclear in our society is quite important, and must not be played down nor “forgotten” like many other pseudo-environmentalists do.
Also, the climate-related points he raised seemed to be quite subdued, as he definitely is not a catastrophist, and seem to take a very reasonable approach to “climate change” as opposed to what many other pseudo-environmentalists do.
Two points raised by Mr. Lundin in his presentation were especially relevant for me:
he mentioned the oil&gas industry as a very minor source of pollution for the oceans and polar regions. The pollution generated is very small and very local, and can be dealt with fairly easily with the technology we have today. Even in the unfortunate cases of accidents like the major oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon accident, a tragic event which costed the lives of 11 people and created major environmental damage, the effects were very local and will not last too long.
commercial ships carry 95% of the goods worldwide, they truly are the workhorse of the commerce industry. Such ships are very pollutant, since they run on fuel oil for the most part, but it is inevitable and impossible for our society to prosper the way we are doing without them.
It was obvious to me that Mr. Lundin has both his feet firmly on the ground of coherence and realization that, while some damage to the environment can and does happen due to what men does on this planet, we have to recognize that we cannot do without such wonders like commerce and the cheap and reliable energy coming from burning fossil fuels.
His position triggered some interest in me, and during the question and answer after his speech, I took the microphone and asked his point of view on the possibility to use a much cleaner form of energy to propel ships across the globe, nuclear power, like the civilian Russian icebreakers are doing already.
Much to my surprise, Mr. Lundin answer in a very open and mildly pro-nuclear way, knowing full well both the benefits and limits and inherent issues that come with nuclear power. After all, he comes from Sweden, a country where 40% of the electricity is generated from nuclear power!
He also hinted to the future developments in nuclear technology, including thorium-based fuels, which he is very much in favour of given the better qualities of thorium in the nuclear non-proliferation field, as thorium would be very difficult to use to make nuclear weapons.
During lunch I had the pleasure to exchange a few words with Mr. Lundin, and found a very knowledgeable person in the field of energy, who knows very well the limits to the “green renewables” and is very aware than fossil fuels are here to stay, and while they do create some pollution, at this time they are something we simply cannot do away with.
He is also very positive on nuclear energy, and hopes to see more research and new technology come out in the future.
I told him about “Pandora’s Promise”, a movie which tells the story of different environmentalists who have changed their mind on nuclear, and he was not aware of this movie. He also said that within IUCN there are many who would not touch the nuclear topic at all, which is what I am always afraid of.
This is the kind of environmentalist the world needs! Someone who is able to understand why and how a society thrives, and that policies which will damage people in the name of the environment are doomed to fail.