04-22-2017, 09:29 PM
*** 23-Apr-17 World View -- Scientists worldwide hold an international March for Money on 'Earth Day'
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
****
**** Scientists worldwide hold an international March for Money on 'Earth Day'
****
![[Image: g170422b.jpg]](http://Media.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g170422b.jpg)
Thanks to fracking, the US carbon emission problem is taking care of itself, with energy carbon emissions down by 25% since 2007. (AEI)
Hundreds of thousands of scientists in 600 cities around the world
held "March for Science" marches to make largely incoherent demands
for more money for pretty much anything. The universal complaint was
Donald Trump and climate change, but Obamacare and various science
projects were also mentioned.
In other countries, there were other complaints. In Canada,
scientists to complain to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau for cutting
back on funding for science projects. According to Lori Burrows,
professor and senior scientist, McMaster University:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"Despite the [Justin] Trudeau government's promise of
> sunnier ways for science, we are still waiting for those rays to
> break through the storm clouds."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
So I gather from professor Burrows that Justin Trudeau must be as bad
as Donald Trump. Tsk, tsk.
Media coverage was as ridiculous as ever. Here's what I heard from
Robert Young, professor of coastal geology at Western Carolina
University (my transcription):
> [indent]<QUOTE>"I don't think the people who need to meet a scientist
> will be at this march nor will those people be experiencing the
> media coverage of the march. The problem that we have, at least
> in the United States, is that we all get our information and our
> news from different sources these days. So the folks living in
> rural America and working class America, that we would be like to
> reach in a march for science, and the folks we would like to
> explain how important science is, they're not gonna be watching
> the news outlets that will be covering the march in a favorable
> way. They're not gonna watch National Public Radio, or the BBC,
> or read the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Guardian.
>
> They're going to get their information and their coverage from Fox
> News and from conservative blogosphere. And those outlets will
> cover the march in a completely different way in a negative
> connotation."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
Really? The problem is that "rural America and working class America"
doesn't listen to left-wing media sources -- NPR, BBC, NYT, WaPost and
the Guardian?? That's why these people are marching? This is so
idiotic that it's hard to stop laughing. If there are any students at
Western Carolina University reading this, please inform Prof. Robert
Young that father does not always know best and that he sounds like an
idiot.
The real problem is people in the mainstream media and in colleges
believe every bit of nonsense that they hear on NPR, etc., and think
that everything else is "fake news." So let's talk about climate
change, and talk about some "facts." CBS and Canadian Broadcasting and Deutsche Welle
Related Articles
****
**** Climate change -- a self-correcting problem
****
The climate scientists don't like to talk about this, but climate
change has been self-correcting.
Since 2007, the US has reduced CO2 emissions by about 25%, mainly due
to fracking, according to data released by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA). That's how technological innovation always
works. When a problem occurs, somebody figures out a way to make
money out of solving it, and the problem gets solved. This needs no
help from the government, as shown by the Solyndra disaster.
Everyone is criticizing president Trump for backing out of the Paris
climate change agreement. Why? If we're already dramatically
reducing carbon emissions, why should America even care about the
Paris agreement? The answer, of course, is about money. No one
seriously believes that any of the huge climate change proposals will
actually do anything to reduce carbon emissions. The climate
scientists want America to pay ever more money into their projects.
Like Saturday's "March for Science," everything is about political
power and money.
Fracking has not yet brought about carbon emissions in other
countries, but we can feel certain that new technologies will come
along that will solve the problem in every country, as it has in the
United States, and that government will have nothing to do with it.
AEI and Energy Information Administration
****
**** Climate change predictions
****
So-called scientists talk endlessly that "climate change is caused by
human activity." OK, so let's grant that. Climate change is caused
by human activity. Those are the "facts" that scientists claim have
been proven.
Next we hear that the earth's temperature will rise 2 degrees by 2100.
That's not a "proven scientific fact." That's an unproven prediction,
and it's a political prediction at that. There is no science that
proves this figure. The figure is based on straight-line
extrapolations of recent trends, which cannot be proven or even
justified.
As developer of Generational Dynamics, one could say that I'm in the
"prediction business." My web site has almost 4,000 articles since
2003, containing hundreds of Generational Dynamics predictions, all of
which are coming true or are trending true. None has been shown to be
wrong. All these articles and predictions are still available on my
web site to anyone wanting to prove me wrong -- and several people
have tried and failed. So I'm one of the best experts around on
predictions.
That's not true for climate change and environment predictions.
History is flooded with hundreds of them from "respected" scientists,
many of which have turned out wrong and even spectacularly wrong.
My favorite was the prediction that I read in far left-wing magazine
Ramparts Magazine in 1970. The prediction was that the oceans were
becoming so polluted that by 1980 the world's oceans would be covered
by a layer of algae. It didn't happen.
One of the most respected, endorsed by as many scientists in 1972 as
endorse climate change today, was the "Limits to Growth" by the Club
of Rome. The report said that the world would grind to a halt because
of pollution within a few decades. Some time later, it turned out
that their predictions had a flaw based on their computer program
written in Fortran. Anyway, their predictions haven't come true.
And of course in the 1970s, the problem was going to be "global
cooling." Within twenty years, it had turned into "global warming."
There are hundreds of documented environmental and climate change
predictions by respected scientists that have turned out to be wrong.
How stupid do you have to be to believe more climate change
predictions when so many in the past have been spectacularly wrong?
So yes, climate change really is a hoax, even if you assume that all
the science that proves that human activity is true. All the
predictions that come after that are not science -- they're guesses,
based on unjustifiable extrapolations.
As I said, I'm an expert on making predictions, so I can tell you some
places where the climate change scientists are making faulty
assumptions.
First, they're assuming that there will be no world wars. There have
been world wards every century for millennia, and this century will be
no different. As I've written in the past, I expect a world war in
the next ten years or so. Nuclear weapons will be used. Lots of
factories and power infrastructure will be destroyed.
How will that affect climate change? The climate scientists are
afraid to talk about that subject, so I'll take a guess. If a lot of
infrastructure is destroyed, then I would guess that carbon emissions
will fall dramatically. Of course, climate scientists don't want to
talk about that.
Second, climate scientists are completely ignoring technological
developments. We already discussed how fracking has reduced US carbon
emissions by 25%, something the climate scientists would rather eat
mud than ever talk about.
Well, we can see all kinds of technological developments on the
horizon that may well have application to carbon emissions and climate
change. For example, biotechnology might produce an organism that
eats carbon dioxide the way a tree does. Or we may develop space
capsules that can deliver millions of tons of carbon dioxide into
space. Or computerized robots may be able to clean things up that
humans can't.
How will these technological developments affect that 2 degree
temperature prediction? Well climate scientists don't know, and I
don't know, but history has shown that some solution will emerge.
There's an almost exact historical parallel to the climate change
problem that climate scientists hate to even think about. Think of
all the cars in New York City, and imagine if those cars were all
horses. That's the problem that all big cities had in the 1890s. A
horse produces between 7 and 15 kilos of manure daily. In New York in
1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced nearly 1,200 metric
tons of horse manure per day, which all had to be swept up and
disposed of. In addition, each horse produces nearly a liter of urine
per day, which also ended up on the streets. Also, many horses died
each day, and their corpses had to be removed.
There was a big international urban planning conference in New York
City in 1898. The major topic that dominated the conference was not
housing, land use, economic development or infrastructure. It was
horse manure. The participants left in disgust.
The crisis was resolved quickly with new technology: the automobile.
By 1912 there were more cars than horses on the road in New York City.
By 1920, the problem had all but disappeared, with no government
intervention.
The same thing will happen with the climate change problem. The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894
Related Articles
****
**** Rural America and Working Class America
****
Let's circle back to the real problem in America today, that people
like Prof. Robert Young of Western Carolina University are totally
contemptuous of "rural America and working class America." People
like Young -- and there are plenty of them -- are completely
delusional.
The funny thing is that the working class people can sense what's
going on, because they have to do real work for a living. When you
have climate scientists marching through Washington DC demanding money
and claiming that they know what they earth's temperature will be in
2100, when they can't accurately predict the temperature two weeks
from now, these worker class people know intuitively that they're
being mocked.
Even after all these months, people like Young -- and there are plenty
of them -- don't have the vaguest clue how Donald Trump was elected
president. It's really quite amazing that Young could say anything as
stupid as what's quoted above, but that's how people at NPR, BBC, NYT,
WaPost and the Guardian, and that's also how most college professors
think these days.
The funny thing is, as I reported above, scientists in Canada are just
as angry at the ultra-liberal Justin Trudeau as American scientists
are at Donald Trump. If Justin Trudeau doesn't think Canada should
spend money on climate change, then why should Donald Trump think that
America should do so? In the end, climate scientists don't really
care about climate change at all. All they care about is how much
money they can get from taxpayers. And since it's the "working class"
people who supply all that tax money, they should be more respectful
of these people, and far less contemptuous.
Related Articles
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Earth Day, March for Science,
Canada, Justin Trudeau, Lori Burrows, McMaster University,
Western Carolina University, Robert Young,
Energy Information Administration, EIA,
Club of Rome, Limits to Growth
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- Scientists worldwide hold an international March for Money on 'Earth Day'
- Climate change -- a self-correcting problem
- Climate change predictions
- Rural America and Working Class America
****
**** Scientists worldwide hold an international March for Money on 'Earth Day'
****
Thanks to fracking, the US carbon emission problem is taking care of itself, with energy carbon emissions down by 25% since 2007. (AEI)
Hundreds of thousands of scientists in 600 cities around the world
held "March for Science" marches to make largely incoherent demands
for more money for pretty much anything. The universal complaint was
Donald Trump and climate change, but Obamacare and various science
projects were also mentioned.
In other countries, there were other complaints. In Canada,
scientists to complain to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau for cutting
back on funding for science projects. According to Lori Burrows,
professor and senior scientist, McMaster University:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"Despite the [Justin] Trudeau government's promise of
> sunnier ways for science, we are still waiting for those rays to
> break through the storm clouds."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
So I gather from professor Burrows that Justin Trudeau must be as bad
as Donald Trump. Tsk, tsk.
Media coverage was as ridiculous as ever. Here's what I heard from
Robert Young, professor of coastal geology at Western Carolina
University (my transcription):
> [indent]<QUOTE>"I don't think the people who need to meet a scientist
> will be at this march nor will those people be experiencing the
> media coverage of the march. The problem that we have, at least
> in the United States, is that we all get our information and our
> news from different sources these days. So the folks living in
> rural America and working class America, that we would be like to
> reach in a march for science, and the folks we would like to
> explain how important science is, they're not gonna be watching
> the news outlets that will be covering the march in a favorable
> way. They're not gonna watch National Public Radio, or the BBC,
> or read the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Guardian.
>
> They're going to get their information and their coverage from Fox
> News and from conservative blogosphere. And those outlets will
> cover the march in a completely different way in a negative
> connotation."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
Really? The problem is that "rural America and working class America"
doesn't listen to left-wing media sources -- NPR, BBC, NYT, WaPost and
the Guardian?? That's why these people are marching? This is so
idiotic that it's hard to stop laughing. If there are any students at
Western Carolina University reading this, please inform Prof. Robert
Young that father does not always know best and that he sounds like an
idiot.
The real problem is people in the mainstream media and in colleges
believe every bit of nonsense that they hear on NPR, etc., and think
that everything else is "fake news." So let's talk about climate
change, and talk about some "facts." CBS and Canadian Broadcasting and Deutsche Welle
Related Articles
****
**** Climate change -- a self-correcting problem
****
The climate scientists don't like to talk about this, but climate
change has been self-correcting.
Since 2007, the US has reduced CO2 emissions by about 25%, mainly due
to fracking, according to data released by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA). That's how technological innovation always
works. When a problem occurs, somebody figures out a way to make
money out of solving it, and the problem gets solved. This needs no
help from the government, as shown by the Solyndra disaster.
Everyone is criticizing president Trump for backing out of the Paris
climate change agreement. Why? If we're already dramatically
reducing carbon emissions, why should America even care about the
Paris agreement? The answer, of course, is about money. No one
seriously believes that any of the huge climate change proposals will
actually do anything to reduce carbon emissions. The climate
scientists want America to pay ever more money into their projects.
Like Saturday's "March for Science," everything is about political
power and money.
Fracking has not yet brought about carbon emissions in other
countries, but we can feel certain that new technologies will come
along that will solve the problem in every country, as it has in the
United States, and that government will have nothing to do with it.
AEI and Energy Information Administration
****
**** Climate change predictions
****
So-called scientists talk endlessly that "climate change is caused by
human activity." OK, so let's grant that. Climate change is caused
by human activity. Those are the "facts" that scientists claim have
been proven.
Next we hear that the earth's temperature will rise 2 degrees by 2100.
That's not a "proven scientific fact." That's an unproven prediction,
and it's a political prediction at that. There is no science that
proves this figure. The figure is based on straight-line
extrapolations of recent trends, which cannot be proven or even
justified.
As developer of Generational Dynamics, one could say that I'm in the
"prediction business." My web site has almost 4,000 articles since
2003, containing hundreds of Generational Dynamics predictions, all of
which are coming true or are trending true. None has been shown to be
wrong. All these articles and predictions are still available on my
web site to anyone wanting to prove me wrong -- and several people
have tried and failed. So I'm one of the best experts around on
predictions.
That's not true for climate change and environment predictions.
History is flooded with hundreds of them from "respected" scientists,
many of which have turned out wrong and even spectacularly wrong.
My favorite was the prediction that I read in far left-wing magazine
Ramparts Magazine in 1970. The prediction was that the oceans were
becoming so polluted that by 1980 the world's oceans would be covered
by a layer of algae. It didn't happen.
One of the most respected, endorsed by as many scientists in 1972 as
endorse climate change today, was the "Limits to Growth" by the Club
of Rome. The report said that the world would grind to a halt because
of pollution within a few decades. Some time later, it turned out
that their predictions had a flaw based on their computer program
written in Fortran. Anyway, their predictions haven't come true.
And of course in the 1970s, the problem was going to be "global
cooling." Within twenty years, it had turned into "global warming."
There are hundreds of documented environmental and climate change
predictions by respected scientists that have turned out to be wrong.
How stupid do you have to be to believe more climate change
predictions when so many in the past have been spectacularly wrong?
So yes, climate change really is a hoax, even if you assume that all
the science that proves that human activity is true. All the
predictions that come after that are not science -- they're guesses,
based on unjustifiable extrapolations.
As I said, I'm an expert on making predictions, so I can tell you some
places where the climate change scientists are making faulty
assumptions.
First, they're assuming that there will be no world wars. There have
been world wards every century for millennia, and this century will be
no different. As I've written in the past, I expect a world war in
the next ten years or so. Nuclear weapons will be used. Lots of
factories and power infrastructure will be destroyed.
How will that affect climate change? The climate scientists are
afraid to talk about that subject, so I'll take a guess. If a lot of
infrastructure is destroyed, then I would guess that carbon emissions
will fall dramatically. Of course, climate scientists don't want to
talk about that.
Second, climate scientists are completely ignoring technological
developments. We already discussed how fracking has reduced US carbon
emissions by 25%, something the climate scientists would rather eat
mud than ever talk about.
Well, we can see all kinds of technological developments on the
horizon that may well have application to carbon emissions and climate
change. For example, biotechnology might produce an organism that
eats carbon dioxide the way a tree does. Or we may develop space
capsules that can deliver millions of tons of carbon dioxide into
space. Or computerized robots may be able to clean things up that
humans can't.
How will these technological developments affect that 2 degree
temperature prediction? Well climate scientists don't know, and I
don't know, but history has shown that some solution will emerge.
There's an almost exact historical parallel to the climate change
problem that climate scientists hate to even think about. Think of
all the cars in New York City, and imagine if those cars were all
horses. That's the problem that all big cities had in the 1890s. A
horse produces between 7 and 15 kilos of manure daily. In New York in
1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced nearly 1,200 metric
tons of horse manure per day, which all had to be swept up and
disposed of. In addition, each horse produces nearly a liter of urine
per day, which also ended up on the streets. Also, many horses died
each day, and their corpses had to be removed.
There was a big international urban planning conference in New York
City in 1898. The major topic that dominated the conference was not
housing, land use, economic development or infrastructure. It was
horse manure. The participants left in disgust.
The crisis was resolved quickly with new technology: the automobile.
By 1912 there were more cars than horses on the road in New York City.
By 1920, the problem had all but disappeared, with no government
intervention.
The same thing will happen with the climate change problem. The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894
Related Articles
- 175 countries sign farcical climate change agreement (23-Apr-2016)
- Artificial Intelligence and Climate Change (29-Dec-2015)
- Horse manure and climate change (23-Sep-2014)
- UN Climate Change conference appears to be ending in farce (14-Dec-2007)
****
**** Rural America and Working Class America
****
Let's circle back to the real problem in America today, that people
like Prof. Robert Young of Western Carolina University are totally
contemptuous of "rural America and working class America." People
like Young -- and there are plenty of them -- are completely
delusional.
The funny thing is that the working class people can sense what's
going on, because they have to do real work for a living. When you
have climate scientists marching through Washington DC demanding money
and claiming that they know what they earth's temperature will be in
2100, when they can't accurately predict the temperature two weeks
from now, these worker class people know intuitively that they're
being mocked.
Even after all these months, people like Young -- and there are plenty
of them -- don't have the vaguest clue how Donald Trump was elected
president. It's really quite amazing that Young could say anything as
stupid as what's quoted above, but that's how people at NPR, BBC, NYT,
WaPost and the Guardian, and that's also how most college professors
think these days.
The funny thing is, as I reported above, scientists in Canada are just
as angry at the ultra-liberal Justin Trudeau as American scientists
are at Donald Trump. If Justin Trudeau doesn't think Canada should
spend money on climate change, then why should Donald Trump think that
America should do so? In the end, climate scientists don't really
care about climate change at all. All they care about is how much
money they can get from taxpayers. And since it's the "working class"
people who supply all that tax money, they should be more respectful
of these people, and far less contemptuous.
Related Articles
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Earth Day, March for Science,
Canada, Justin Trudeau, Lori Burrows, McMaster University,
Western Carolina University, Robert Young,
Energy Information Administration, EIA,
Club of Rome, Limits to Growth
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
