Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. explains why some leftist bloggers set themselves up for failure when they espouse their intellectual superiority. Screaming “hell, high water, global boiling, climate disruption, etc ” while at the same time saying “you’re too dumb to understand it” looks to be an epic “failure to communicate”.
He writes:
If you spend anytime at all perusing the blogosphere, you will find a common theme coming from self-described liberal or progressive bloggers, and that is that those on the political right are ignoramuses.
The argument is that they are just too stupid to know what’s what – they are even anti-science, rejecting knowledge itself — and consequently they support dumb candidates advocating ignorant policies. Such arguments are particularly evident in the corner of the blogosphere that discusses the climate change issue. This line of argument of course is a variant of the thinking that if only people shared a common understanding of scientific facts they would also share a common political orientation (typically the political orientation of whomever is expressing these views).
Read his whole post here where he explains why.
Or buy his book:
The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming is now available at Amazon.com
Why has the world been unable to address global warming? Science policy expert Roger Pielke, Jr., says it’s not the fault of those who reject the Kyoto Protocol, but those who support it, and the magical thinking that the agreement represents.
In The Climate Fix, Pielke offers a way to repair climate policy, shifting the debate away from meaningless targets and toward a revolution in how the world’s economy is powered, while de-fanging the venomous politics surrounding the crisis. The debate on global warming has lost none of its power to polarize and provoke in a haze of partisan vitriol. The Climate Fix will bring something new to the discussions: a commonsense perspective and practical actions better than any offered so far.
Editorial Reviews via Amazon
From Publishers Weekly
Pielke (The Honest Broker) presents a smart and hard-nosed analysis of the politics and science of climate change and proposes a commonsense approach to climate policy. According to Pielke, the iron law of climate policy dictates that whenever environmental and economic objectives are placed in opposition to each other, economics always wins. Climate policies must be made compatible with economic growth as a precondition for their success, he writes, and because the world will need more energy in the future, an oblique approach supporting causes, such as developing affordable alternative energy sources rather than consequences, such as controversial schemes like cap-and-trade, is more likely to succeed.
Although some may protest on principle the suggestion that we accept the inevitability of energy growth, Pielke’s focus on adaptation to climate change refreshingly sidesteps the unending debate over the reality of anthropogenic climate change, and opens up the possibility for effective action that places human dignity and democratic ideals at the center of climate policies.
The book is available at Amazon.com and I think it is destined to be a best seller in the “Global Warming” category.
The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming is now available at <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fix-Scientists-Politicians-Warming/dp/0465020526/&tag=wattsupwithth-20″ target=”_blank”>Amazon.com</a><!–more–>
Why has the world been unable to address global warming? Science policy expert Roger Pielke, Jr., says it’s not the fault of those who reject the Kyoto Protocol, but those who support it, and the magical thinking that the agreement represents.
In <em>The Climate Fix</em>, Pielke offers a way to repair climate policy, shifting the debate away from meaningless targets and toward a revolution in how the world’s economy is powered, while de-fanging the venomous politics surrounding the crisis. The debate on global warming has lost none of its power to polarize and provoke in a haze of partisan vitriol. <em>The Climate Fix</em> will bring something new to the discussions: a commonsense perspective and practical actions better than any offered so far.
Editorial Reviews via Amazon
From Publishers Weekly
Pielke (The Honest Broker) presents a smart and hard-nosed analysis of the politics and science of climate change and proposes a commonsense approach to climate policy. According to Pielke, the iron law of climate policy dictates that whenever environmental and economic objectives are placed in opposition to each other, economics always wins. Climate policies must be made compatible with economic growth as a precondition for their success, he writes, and because the world will need more energy in the future, an oblique approach supporting causes, such as developing affordable alternative energy sources rather than consequences, such as controversial schemes like cap-and-trade, is more likely to succeed.
Although some may protest on principle the suggestion that we accept the inevitability of energy growth, Pielke’s focus on adaptation to climate change refreshingly sidesteps the unending debate over the reality of anthropogenic climate change, and opens up the possibility for effective action that places human dignity and democratic ideals at the center of climate policies.
The book is available at <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fix-Scientists-Politicians-Warming/dp/0465020526/&tag=wattsupwithth-20″ target=”_blank”>Amazon.com</a> and I think it is destined to be a best seller in the “Global Warming” cate
Ken Lydell says:
October 31, 2010 at 8:04 pm
“How many liberals or conservatives are familiar with Navier-Stokes equations?”
I’m familiar enough with them to know that we don’t use the output of computer models to certify aircraft but rather use wind tunnels and prototypes flown by test pilots. Non-linear partial differential equations are notoriously difficult or impossible to solve in complex real-world situations. Is that familiar enough?
“If you spend anytime at all perusing the blogosphere,”
Sorry, Dr., that’s incorrect use of an adverb. I just love to correct people with degrees. (Seeing how I ain’t got none.) It is funny though, howling about how “the left” insinuates that he’s ignorant yet demonstrating incorrect grammar in his opening sentence.
There ain’t no “left” and there ain’t no “right.” There’s just “us” and we’re all hypocrites.
This may not get read by a wide audience, but as a member of the great unwashed the reason many of us are not tuned into CAGW is far simpler than has been expressed here.
1. We know warmer is better.
2. We know that anyone trying to restrict my access to energy is somone trying to restrict my freedom.
3. We know from all the shows on TV we watch about science that the climate has always changed, the atmosphere has changed and the animals on the earth have changed without people being responsible.
4. We are an optimistic group that does not abide doom and gloom.
SSam says:
“I wised up. It became very clear that the rain that I was told was falling turned out to be a urine stream from my elected representative.”
Interesting you should mention this. In his book, “The Unexpurgated Code”, J. P. Donleavy suggested that the true test for those wondering if they have “arrived” in society, is to stand on the ledge of a tall building. When a large crowd assembles below to watch….you urinate on them. If no one gets out of the way of the stream, you have “arrived”.
I can’t help thinking that Obama has been out on that ledge, but on November 2nd a huge majority is about to jump out of the way.
Reagan, who was also called “stupid” by the left, had it right when he said, “It’s not that our liberal friends don’t know anything. It’s just that so much of what they know isn’t so.”
If you are a registered voter in California, I encourage you to vote “yes” on Prop 23. This is by far the most important proposition on the ballot. The left/liberal legislature needs to hear from those of us they view as their intellectual inferiors on this issue.
Mike;
The average person does not know what causes the seasons to change.>>
I took that in Grade 1. Demonsration done with a spot light and a globe. Seemed to me the the bulk of the 6 year olds got it, wasn’t complicated. Are average people incredibly stupid where you come from, or is it just your opinion that they are?
Paul Coppin says:
October 31, 2010 at 1:08 pm
“The phenom even has a name: The Dunning-Kruger Effect”
From wikipedia:
If you believe Dunning et al. then when a member of the self-annointed intelligentsia says they are certain that AGW is real (“settled science”) and are convinced they know what to do about (“limit CO2 emissions”) it means those people are actually uinimaginative and stupid because those with true understanding will express uncertainty.
Beth Cooper says:
November 1, 2010 at 3:34 am
“How would our cognitively superior left wing academia respond to that seriously smart but intellectually modest sceptic, Freeman Dyson? In my humble opinion, they might find his ‘heretical thoughts about science and society’ quite intellectually challenging :-)”
Freeman Dyson is anything but modest. His opinion actually reflects ignorance of climate science. In fact Freeman Dyson could be the world’s most famous crackpot.
He proposed a rocket ship for space travel powered by nuclear detonations and other crazy schemes. The solution he proposes to fix the global warming problem is to increase the amount of topsoil to sequester carbon.
Here is an analysis of what he wrote:
“No crackpot essay would be complete without a crackpot solution. He believes “the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management” and that the entire climate problem can be solved by increasing topsoil:
We do not know whether intelligent land-management could increase the growth of the topsoil reservoir by four billion tons of carbon per year, the amount needed to stop the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Actually we kinda do know. The best data suggest we are losing billions of tons of topsoil each year. A major effort will be required just to stop that loss rate from increasing sharply. Indeed, global warming itself is projected to cause both increased flooding, which washes away topsoil, and increased drought, which destroys topsoil.”
A lot of other ideas on climate by Dyson have been shown to be based on ignorance:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/08/dyson-exegesis.html.
S U P E R B post!
Yeah, they do have a problem. Their problem is that the simple man often is able to see pseudoscience when confronted with it. But it pays a lot -$trillions in the case of the co2 pseudoscience- to promote falsehood and pseudoscience, so if the truth shows up they DO have a problem.
Yeah, they need to denigrate people and tell them they are inferior. If you feel inferior you will be less reluctant to allow “superior” academics and politicians to have insame power, control & punishment power over you. They need to damage people self esteem because they tend to be sadistic & arrogant and one who has his self esteem damaged may more willingly accept becoming a serf of politicians & bureucrats with the blessing of mainstream academia
Probably Switzerland and the USA are the No1 and No2 places where the people has the most political decision power. Well, last data that I know Switzerland has the highest wealth per capita in the world. And I most not prove that the USA is the world technological and economic superpower and its people have produced technological prowesses like no other society in mankind history. All the while being ruled by “simple men”
But places ruled by the “superior intelligent elites”, like Stalin Russia, were places of utter mass murder, theft by government and sadistic utter punishment for those that commited no crime, they were places where rulers-like Stalin- could indulge UNPUNISHED in their depraved devastating vice of sadism, power, control, punishment, mass murder & mass theft.
By promoting pseudoscience not only they “justify” more power & control & punishment & tax & spend for them but they pose as the “saviors” of the people while actually causing enormous damage and suffering when their sadistic power & control agenda of giving even more power to the political class is implemented.
When people see them alleging that we must TAX MORE co2 in order to get LESS co2 then people understand that THE MORE you tax a thing, THE LESS you get about it. But when people see those same people alleging for MORE TAX on investment and employment in order to get MORE investment and employment then people realize that their “science” is falsehood and nonsense.
They pretend that they “possess” the hidden truth that THE PEOPLE cannot understand, but the truth is that their truth contradicts the most elementary logic and common sense, and a well functionning mind cannot understand something that lacks logic. Just take a look of the utter nonsense of keynesian economics.
I am not a big fan of republicans but they promote less than democrats an increase in the political class oppressive power. Today the markets say that there is a 92% probability that republicans will control the house, an 85% probability thay republicans will have 48 senators and 40% probabilities that next president will be a republican.
I hope those probablities become facts. Maybe then Bush tax cuts will not be reversed and you will get MORE investment, MORE employment thank to LESS taxes and you will get a well deserved recovery.
Cheers
I think it has more to due with the Media propaganda.
October 2010 Pew Report
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1780/poll-global-warming-scientists-energy-policies-offshore-drilling-tea-party
Is there solid evidence the Earth is warming?
51% believe the Earth is either not warming or warming due to natural patterns.
34% believe the Earth is warming due to human activity.
6% believe the Earth is warming but don’t know why.
9% Don’t know if the Earth is warming.
How serious a problem?
63% indicate its a somewhat to very serious problem.
34% indicate it not too serious or is not a problem.
3% don’t know if its a problem
Is it a problem requiring immediate government action?
Yes: 46%
No: 50%
Don’t Know: 3%
Do scientists agree the Earth is getting warmer?
Yes: 44%
No: 44%
Don’t Know: 12%
Of those believing Global Warming is a Very Serious, Somewhat Serious, or Not Too Serious problem.
Is there solid evidence the Earth is warming [due to human activity]?
Tea Party Republicans: 84% No
Republicans: 71% No
Democrats: 31% No
Independents: 48% No
How serious a problem?
Tea Party Republicans: 74% Not too serious or Not a problem
Republicans: 57% Not too serious or Not a problem
Democrats: 15% Not too serious or Not a problem
Independents: 35% Not too serious or Not a problem
Is it a problem requiring immediate government action?
Tea Party Republicans: 39% No
Republicans: 39% No
Democrats: 19% No
Independents: 31% No
Do scientists agree the Earth is getting warmer?
Tea Party Republicans: 71% No
Republicans: 58% No
Democrats: 32% No
Independents: 45% No
I worked for a time at a Silicon Valley Tech firm. One day, someone presented an electronic IQ test. It bounced around among friends, with most scoring in the high 130s.
Most individuals had advanced degrees or were working on them. Nearly all of them are conservative. Education isn’t the equivalent of intellect. Nor is it the difference between conservatives and progressives.
If there are differences, it seems to me that conservatives embrace independence, personal responsibility and pragmatic self reliance. Progressives embrace social relationships and consensus. I think perhaps Progessives are quicker to embrace abstract and creative ideas, which can lead to great discoveries. But it can also lead to a nether world of fantasy, as in CAGW.
eadler is a crank, as his post above confirms.
Richard Feynman acknowledged that Prof Freeman Dyson should have won the 1965 Nobel Prize along with him for synthesizing and reducing to practice the Feynman-Schwinger-Tomonaga solutions to the renormalization problems of quantum electrodynamics [which eadler probably couldn’t even say without practicing it]. But the Nobel prize is given to a maximum of three individuals for any particular discovery, and although equally deserving, as usual Nobel politics determined who those three would be [just as Nobel politics awarded the inexperienced Obama the Nobel prize not long after his inauguration].
Prof Freeman Dyson has received over twenty [20+] honorary degrees from as many different universities throughout his lifetime. I would like to see eadler name any others who have been equally honored. Dyson is a member of the Institute for Advanced Study, and worked with Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, and most of the leading physicists of his day. Only a crank would label him “ignorant.”
Dyson is an extremely well respected Physicist by everyone – except cranks marching in lock-step to Saul Alinsky’s dictum demanding personal ad hominem character assassination attacks against anyone not drinking the CAGW Kool Aid.
Dyson’s nuclear powered heavy launch vehicle is no more outlandish than the space elevator, and it has been used by authors [Niven & Pournelle among others]. Nothing about it violates any law of physics, and unlike the space elevator, it could be built today with off the shelf materials. It is based upon physics and fact – not on a baseless fantasy like the CAGW scam.
If eadler has a credible source verifying that “billions of tons” of topsoil are lost “each year,” he should post it instead of the wacko alarmist blog he uses for his incredible “analysis.” Dyson was not talking about lost topsoil, that is nothing but eadler’s red herring diversion; Dyson was explaining how to increase topsoil [by using no-till farming, etc.] His explanation is here.
The alarmist contingent hates Freeman Dyson because Dyson doesn’t think CO2 or global warming are problems. That drives the eco-tards up the wall, because of Dyson’s immense credibility – which none of them can come close to matching.
To claim that Prof Freeman Dyson’s view is “based on ignorance” shows that eadler is simply a crank. He should retract his ad-hom character assassination against one of the 20th Century’s internationally esteemed physicists or go away.
Mike says:
October 31, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Look, most people who believe in electricity do not understand it.
I dont believe in electricity, I have never seen any!
So how can I understand it?
CodeTech says:
October 31, 2010 at 8:38 pm
I agree completely, particularly in that progressives interpret the actions of the right in terms of what THEY would do, or that which motivates THEM. And in this, they are completely mistaken. We are not at all alike.
If someone on the right makes the accusation that a progressive leader is a Marxist, progressives see this as a politically motivated smear (even as they quote Marx in the rebuttal).
For a conservative, making such a statement is simply an attempt to describe that individual, and express alarm at the implications. It could be an exaggeration, but lately, it is all too often true in modern politics.
The left really has little to insult conservatives about, so they invent imaginary “characteristics ” of conservatives…. such as racism. In the last 48 hrs in Alaska, progressive journalists were caught on a recording planning to smear Joe Miller by false association with an as yet to be discovered “child molester”.
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/10/30/anchorage-cbs-affiliate-caught-on-voicemail-conspiring-against-alaskas-gop-senate-candidate/
Mike said: “The average person does not know what causes the seasons to change.”
davidmhoffer said: I took that in Grade 1. Demonsration done with a spot light and a globe. Seemed to me the the bulk of the 6 year olds got it, wasn’t complicated. Are average people incredibly stupid where you come from, or is it just your opinion that they are?
…………..
Good that you remember 1st grade. Most people don’t. I know they don’t because I teach at a university. But good of you to question my assumption. You can look up surveys on this. One said: “Only 38% of students correctly selected December as the
time of year a Southern Hemisphere location receives the longest period of daylight and only 14% of the students answered the three questions (about the cause of seasons) correctly.” http://www.springerlink.com/content/x4r0521815203226/
Ask some people you know who aren’t involved in science issues.
My point is that most people do not know enough about even basic science to make scientifically informed decisions. They instead rely on sources they trust.
Dyson is a major figure in physics. He has not done any work in climatology and I doubt he has done much physics of any kind of late. He is past his prime. The overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant fields understand that that AGW is real and serious.
@November 1, 2010 at 12:43 pm
“My point is that most people do not know enough about even basic science to make scientifically informed decisions. They instead rely on sources they trust.”
My point is that most people who live in the US do not have degrees in economics, they do not have degrees in foreign policy, and they do not have degrees in Constitutional Law, and yet we do have a system of self-government which requires decisionmaking in all of these areas by every voter.
And it is an excellent system, because individual freedom and responsibility work. There is no better system.
Scientists who want to save the planet can take a number and get in line with all of the rest of the yahoos who have all the answers. This is still a question of the size and scope of government and we the people will still decide for ourselves.
Mike says:
“Dyson is a major figure in physics. He has not done any work in climatology…” and blah, blah, etc.
So physicists who don’t work in climatology are denigrated by Mike who shovels this rubbish into the minds of students? And what are those “relevant fields”? Geography? Railroad Engineer?
Post your CV, Mike. We’ll compare it with Freeman Dyson’s. Then everyone can make up their mind as to who has credibility – and who doesn’t. Eh, Mike?
I copped a few good biffs today, but let me say that dickhead politicians are poison whether in your country or mine, and no matter what party they belong to. The old saying, “Only the left is right!” is a joke as we all know. But the right isn’t inevitably right. I think that a party which wants to represent people and their well-being is better than one which wants to maximise profits (Enron, etc?). Maybe I’m a sentimental idiot. The rich in Australia give very little to universities, or research, or charities. But they make lots of money, sometimes by cheating the poor. All our politicians, except the Greens, want to put off drastic carbon taxes as long as possible, even while giving lip service to the idea. Hypocrites, the lot.
Malcolm Miller says:
November 1, 2010 at 4:08 pm (Edit)
I copped a few good biffs today, but let me say that dickhead politicians are poison whether in your country or mine, and no matter what party they belong to. The old saying, “Only the left is right!” is a joke as we all know. But the right isn’t inevitably right. I think that a party which wants to represent people and their well-being is better than one which wants to maximise profits (Enron, etc?). Maybe I’m a sentimental idiot. The rich in Australia give very little to universities, or research, or charities. But they make lots of money, sometimes by cheating the poor. All our politicians, except the Greens, want to put off drastic carbon taxes as long as possible, even while giving lip service to the idea. Hypocrites, the lot.
I will remind you of a few “inconvenient truths” to refute your ill-founded prejudices and false assumptions.
Enron was donating to both the Bush and Clinton-Gore campaigns in year 2000 at roughly a 40% – 60 % ratio; and, before that, gave more to democrats nationally (Clinton-Gore) for access and international pressure via the State Dept – particularly for their proposed operations and manipulations of the US coal market, the overseas coal from Indonesia, and the Chinese energy market development. With the money they gave Clinton, they gained exclusive rights to several Indian and Indonesian energy operations that were supposed to “save” the Enron Ponzi scheme. Bush came into office, removed their power and influence – basically, he refused to accept their bribe money’s purpose, but did accept their campaign money. 8<) Nice move.
Clinton-Gore-Enron's schemes fell apart as soon as Bush came into power, and the leaders were prosecuted. Enron (under Cltinon's watch of "regulators" is strongly impklicated in manipulating California's power transmissions loads to artificialy raise spot market electric rates that induced CA's year 2000 recession – well underway when Bush came into power in spring 2001.
Enron's ponzi schemes included cap-and-trade, and Enron stood to profit by the billions if Bush had accepted cap-and-trade as Gore wanted him too. Still does: Gore is a big investor in cap-and-trade, as are all of the democrats and many in the UN/IPCC. East Anglia's university, Penn State and otehrs invoking the CAGW theory are also big cap-and-trade/carbon trading investors through their pensions funds and NGO investments. (Yes, the money trail is complicated, but present. And it all begins with Enron, Chicago futures markets, Obama's economists, Obama's advisors, and their mutual desire for socialism to rule.
“I think that a party which wants to represent people and their well-being is better than one which wants to maximise profits (Enron, etc?). Maybe I’m a sentimental idiot. “
Good reason to support capitalism – or as close as we can get today. Socialism kills people. Ruins economies. Ruins the environment. Socialism kills morality – In fact, it cannot withstand scrutiny nor morality, and demands the “people” sacrifice for the good of their “betters” – who manage in all socialist countries to make out just fine. Today’s “democrat” elites do despise and hate the “people” who are trying to throw them out of power. Your words are exactly the way they do it: By inverting the facts and still demanding to “right” spew their lies without correction or editing. And with a liberal and extremist press, they manage just fine via their minions in ABBCNNBCBS.
“The rich in Australia give very little to universities, or research, or charities. But they make lots of money, sometimes by cheating the poor.
False – Completely false. Republicans/conservatives here in the US donate more than ten TIMES the amount that “liberals” do to charities. Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Boxer, Gore, Frank, and hundreds of other multi-millionaire democrat politicians – some of who (but a very few!) even made their money without being in office! – donated less COMBINED than Bush did all by himself. Yes, Bush – who regularly donated 5 – 10% of his income – gave more than Gore, Obama, and Clinton combined. So, who are the “selfish rich”? The “liebrals” in America. And Gore made 300 million from HIS carbon trading and CAGW industries.
I cannot blame you for your mistakes – You were (deliberately – given them as propaganda through a very effective, 24-hour-per-day liberal/socialist news media who are themselves to blame for the tragedies we live in. But I will blame you if you repeat these lies again.
Mike;
Good that you remember 1st grade. Most people don’t. I know they don’t because I teach at a university. But good of you to question my assumption. You can look up surveys on this. One said: “Only 38% of students correctly selected December as the
time of year a Southern Hemisphere location receives the longest period of daylight and only 14% of the students answered the three questions (about the cause of seasons) correctly.” >>
I can construct a survey to show that only 14% of the students know that the earth circles the sun if you want. Sure, lots of times in a conversation I’ll say something about NH winter occuring when the earth is nearest the sun, and someone will inevitably interject with “that’s impossible” followed by various heads around the room nodding in agreement. All one need do is look at them and say “noooo…. seasons are caused by the tilt of the earth’s axis… remember?” 9 times out of 10 there is a brief pause followed by a sheepish look and “…oh right. forgot”.
I’m in sales and I sell some very complicated products, often to people whose expertise lies elsewhere. How people answer questions on a survey or in response to a casual question is not necessarily indicative of their actual knowledge if you ask in such a manner that they are forced to think the response through rather than just react… which is what you get on a survey. In fact, sometimes you get the “right” answer to an off the cuff question, but a little digging exposes a deeper belief that is wrong, so I suppose it cuts both ways to some extent.
When I’m doing sales training I sometimes make the point by asking the class (usually people 10+ years in the business) how many of them have one of those customers so enthralled by VendorX that if VendorX told them that on a bright sunny day the sky is blue and they’re so trusting that they look up at the sky and remark “so that’s what blue looks like”. About half the hands go up, sometimes more. I just stand there for long enough until someone finaly pipes up “but…the sky IS blue on a bright sunny day”.
Point being that if you phrase it correctly you can get some very odd responses from some very intelligent people, but force them to think it through, and you’ll find that their real recollection will come to the surface.
Mike says:
November 1, 2010 at 12:43 pm (Edit)
Mike said: “The average person does not know what causes the seasons to change.”
….
Ask some people you know who aren’t involved in science issues.
My point is that most people do not know enough about even basic science to make scientifically informed decisions. They instead rely on sources they trust.
Like you? And – because you appear to be wrong about CAGW, what is your defense of YOUR (deliberate) errors? What do YOU do to emphasize the errors, propaganda, lies, exaggerations, and false computer modeling? What do YOU teach – who they “trust” – about the MWP and LIA and RWP?
to davidmhoffer:
I think the point is not about whether academics are smarter than auto mechanics or other people. It is about how their pseudoscience is so absurd that the common man do not believes it.
Those leftists are not complaining that simple men do not believe Newton, Einstein or Pasteur, which all are true science geniuses on whose true science the common man usually has full belief. I doubt that the average auto mechanic is smarter than Einstein or Newton. Those leftists complain that the common men do not believe THEIR corrupted by politics pseudoscience that says that we will get to paradise if we give the political class even more power, control, punishement power and $trillions.
In EVERY poll that I have seen in my life the political class falls among the most distrusted people. The common man is smart enough to know the obvious fact that he must distrust politicians.
They pretend that their PSEUDOSCIENCE is as good as Newton, Einsteins or Pasteur science, they pose as the EQUALS of those scientific geniuses, but the common man is smart enough to understand that their science is mainly charlatanery.
Their nonsense pseudoscience lacks logic and they say that what happens is that their science is so “deep” that only a very few “superior” minds can understant “the truth”
In fact this is the same old story that has repeated itself for milleniums. Only this time it will actually be different thanks to superb blogs like WattsUpWithThat (WUWT) that will show to millions the truth. Global warming alarmism will be the biggest fiasco in modern times, IMHO their discredit will be almost total because there will be NO WARMING and they alarmed people so much.
We are writing history here at WUWT. This DO is the new academia that is replacing the old academia that systematically allowed itself to be corrupted by politics.
SouthAmericanGirls;
I doubt that the average auto mechanic is smarter than Einstein or Newton>>
I doubt it too. My point was that practical knowledge trumps theory. When my car engine starts making odd sounds and won’t run properly, there’s little value in asking a scientist with a Nobel in physcis for an opinion. An average auto mechanic will do much better, thank you. When the Nobel laureate doesn’t understand why this is so and starts to tell the auto mechanic how to do her job, then we have a problem. Since she supposedly lacks the intelligence to argue the matter, she may resort to lending excessive acceleration to a metal tool chosen for the best combination of availability, weight, and size, guiding its path through carefull adjustment of directional arcs in all three dimensions, ending in collision with elitist’s protruding snoot. My personal recommendation is a 3/4″ drive SnapOn ratchet. The Nobel laureate may well retire from the discussion secure in his knowledge that she resorted to violence and thus proved her inferior intellect. I on the other hand just want my car to run right again and I’m thinking that the chick with the SnapOn tool is probably the better bet.
Two things.
Warmists accuse us of things like not knowing why the days are shorter, or why the trees change color and of not being smarter than a first grader. Heh, when I was six, we were taught that Winter brought cold, Summer brought a warm and March blew in like a lion, left like lamb. My mother taught me to adapt.
And yet, the warmists are intentionally blurring the difference between carbon-dioxide and carbon-monoxide. They have renamed the so called polutant “carbon” and claim the exhaust from my car is “poisoning the planet with carbon emissions” that will change weather. Absurd.
The other thing is that mechanics make things work, theorists dream about it. Sometimes it all comes together, usually it doesn’t.
My current favorite quote, “There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.”
— Ronald Reagan