Monckton submits this rebuttal argument to the piece in the New Scientist Stamp out anti-science in US politics here. He doesn’t expect his rebuttal to be published.
Background: Paul Nurse is a Nobel prizewinner and Royal Society president.
Stamp out anti-science in UK science
By Christopher Monckton
It is time to reject UK political movements that masquerade as scientific societies while turning their backs on science, says former adviser to Margaret Thatcher FRS Christopher Monckton
IF YOU respect science you will probably be disturbed by the following opinions.
On climate: true science may be found in “the consensus opinions of experts” [1], we can “say with assurance that human activities cause weather changes” [1], recent variations are not “natural, cyclical environmental trends” [1], the manmade CO2’s contribution to the annual carbon cycle is not the 3% imagined by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, but 86% [2], “anthropogenic climate change is already affecting every aspect of our lives” [3],
On freedom of information requests asking publicly-funded scientists for their data: the requests are “a tool to intimidate some scientists” [4].
On a sceptical interviewer: the force of Sir Paul’s replies had left him “tongue-tied” and had compelled him to stop the cameras on several occasions, when the interviewer had in fact told Sir Paul he suffered from hypoglycaemia and needed to take regular breaks to maintain his glucose intake [5].
On US politics: voters should not choose Republicans [1].
You would probably be even more disturbed to be told that these are the opinions expressed not by some climate scientist or politician but by Sir Paul Nurse, the geneticist who heads the world’s oldest taxpayer-funded lobby-group, the grandly-named and lavishly-grant-aided Royal Society.
It’s alarming that a country which leads the world in science – the home of Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin and James Clerk Maxwell – might be turning its back on science. How can this be happening? What can be done?
One problem is treating scientific discussion as if it were political debate. When some scientists try to sway public opinion, they employ the tricks of the debating chamber: cherry-picking data, ignoring the consensus opinions of experts (who, in the peer-reviewed economic literature, are near-unanimous that it is cheaper to pay for the damage arising from any global warming that may occur than to spend anything now on attempted mitigation), adept use of a sneer or a misplaced comparison, reliance on the power of rhetoric rather than argument. They can often get away with this because the media rely too much on confrontational debate in place of reasoned discussion.
It is essential, in public issues, to separate science from politics and ideology. Get the science right first, then discuss the political implications. Scientists also need to work harder at discussing the issues better and more fully in the public arena, clearly identifying what they know and admitting what they don’t know.
Another concern is science teaching in schools. Is it good enough to produce citizens able to cope with public discussions about science? We have to ensure that science is being taught in schools – not pseudoscience such as a one-sided belief in the more luridly fanciful claims of climate extremists. With the rise of politicized science in the UK, measures need to be put in place to safeguard science classes. This has been difficult to maintain particularly in the US.
We need to emphasise why the scientific process is such a reliable generator of knowledge – with its respect for evidence, for scepticism, for consistency of approach, for the constant testing of ideas. Everyone should know and understand why the processes that lead to astronomy are more reliable than those that lead to astrology, or the wilder conclusions of the environmental propagandists adopted as though they were science by the IPCC and naively but profitably parroted by the likes of Nurse.
Finally, scientific leaders have a responsibility to expose the bunkum, not to perpetuate it. Scientists have not always been proactive about this. They need to be vigilant about what is being said in the public arena. They need to be vigilant about what scientific societies are publicising about science in their name, as four Fellows of the Royal Society did recently in forcing a complete and now largely sensible rewrite of the Society’s previously extremist statement about climate science. They take on the Paul Nurses when necessary. At elections, scientists should ensure that science is on the agenda and nonsense is exposed. If that nonsense is extreme enough – as Sir Paul’s ill-informed statements on climate science have been – then the response should be very public.
If scientists and scientific societies in the UK are anti-science and are allowed to carry the day it will ultimately hurt the British economy. The best scientists will head for the established leaders of science, such as the emerging powerhouses of China and India, whose leaders have realized that the climate scare has been more than somewhat oversold. But beyond that, the Royal Society’s present leadership will damage the UK’s standing in the world. Who will be able to take those leaders seriously? Scientists may not care, but they should.
Science is worth fighting for. It helps us understand the world and ourselves better and will benefit all humanity.
We have to hope that the people of the UK will see through some of the nonsense being foisted on them by vocal minorities. It is time to reject – and to de-fund – political movements that pose as scientific societies while rejecting science and taking us back into the dark rather than forward into a more enlightened future.
Acknowledgements
Nearly all of this article was written by Sir Paul Nurse and published in New Scientist on September 14. With remarkably few changes, the present article comes to a legitimate conclusion opposite to that of Sir Paul. The New Scientist will not print it, of course.
References
- Nurse, P, 2011, Stamp out science in US politics, New Scientist, November 14, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128302.900-stamp-out-antiscience-in-us-politics.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
- Booker, C, 2011, How BBC warmists abuse the science, Sunday Telegraph, January 29, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8290469/How-BBC-warmists-abuse-the-science.html#dsq-content.
- Motl, L., 2011, BBC Horizon: president of Royal Society defends AGW ideology, The Reference Frame, January 25, http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/bbc-horizon-president-of-royal-society.html
- Jha, A., 2011, Freedom of information laws are used to harass scientists, The Guardian, May 25. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/25/freedom-information-laws-harass-scientists.
- Delingpole, J., 2011, Sir Paul Nurse’s big boo-boo, climaterealists.com, January 30, http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7127.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kevin Kilty says:
September 17, 2011 at 8:17 pm
R. Gates says:
September 17, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Nuke Nemesis says:
September 17, 2011 at 1:53 pm
“Our schools are dumbed-down for a reason. How are you going to turn our kids into little community activists if they are taught to ask questions?”
___
Not to pick specifically on you, but this is perfect example of the extreme divide in thinking in our society. Schools (both public and private) across the U.S. are always looking for most qualified science and math teachers they can find. If you’re a qualifed math or science teacher, especially at the High School level, you’re in great demand. …
Gates, I’m not sure what to make of your confidence about U.S. schools. Yes, they are looking for “qualified” teachers of science and math; but what they really mean are “certified” teachers, and being familiar with the courses the K-12 teachers are required to take to become certified, I can say that certification is a pretty low bar to clear.
_____
My “confidence” in U.S. schools was related to their intentions, not necessarily their results. Nuke Nemesis was implying that there was some kind of intential plan to dumb down kids to become community activists. This has strong political overtones which are just way off base from the reality of what is going on in our schools. There’s is not a high school in this country that would not like to have a whole group of top-notch science and math teachers that can really teach to the core of these subjects and get kids to be excited about these topics and be able to go on to a college or university and major in one of the science or engineering fields. The notion that all they want to do is pump out “community activists” is flat out erroneous, and so that was the essence of my point.
LazyTeenager says:
September 17, 2011 at 4:56 pm
“I reckon if Obama claimed that the world was a sphere and the sky was a thin film of gas surrounding that sphere, the republicans would immediately claim the world was flat and the sky was a huge blue tent.”
LT,
Your commentary is getting more strident and irrationally overheated, as the scientific evidence refuting AGW mounts. You petty viciousness is escalating as the socialist ‘green’ agenda melts like Obama’s approval ratings. Given those correlations, which do you ‘reckon’ are cause and which are effect? (hint: That’s a rhetorical question.)
Your anger is the natural result of your inability to accept reality, given your deep seated indoctrination in the ‘settled science’ of AGW. Your belief systems are not being validated by reality, and the conflicts lead you to pointlessly lash out. You could overcome this…. but the 1st step is admitting you have a problem. You could be a founding member of ‘Global Warmers Anonymous’ (GWA)….
If you aren’t ready for healing yet, please continue to contribute nothing constructive, only venal spite. Your empty, deliberately rude commentary only leads more folks to question, investigate, and refute what you are unable to defend.
And have a Rainbow Day!
[REPLY: MtK, I can appreciate your frustration here, but I’d like to suggest that LT has been chastised enough for tonight and redirect commentary toward the thread topic. -REP, mod]
Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
September 17, 2011 at 7:36 pm
PP, I think you’ve perceived things of me which I have not stated…….
I won’t quibble with your bemoaning the fact that there are pay and subscription sites, but the volume of information out here is beyond one’s ability to assimilate it all. Further, just because wiki isn’t a good source, it doesn’t mean useful information isn’t there. Which, was my point in that we haven’t properly taught people to discern truth. The truth is here on the internet, but it is mixed with as much untruths. So, in that case we stated essentially the same thing. Again, there is enough out here that one can spend several lifetimes trying to assimilate it all and never get there. Bill Gates and IBM or not.
As to the “liberty and democracy” part. Thanks, I find it refreshing to see that someone understands the nature of democracy without proper constraints. I imagine then, you would agree with me when I stated, “if taught at all, are twisted and bastardized into unrecognizable concepts.”. We could go the opposite direction with liberty, too. I have a favorite quote of FRIEDRICH HAYEK from his “Constitution of Liberty”, forgive the length……. “The importance of our being free to do a particular thing has nothing to do with the question of whether we or the majority are ever likely to make use of that particular possibility. To grant no more freedom than all can exercise would be to misconceive its function completely. The freedom that will be used by only one man in a million may be more important to society and more beneficial to the majority than any freedom that we all use.”
As to the final part of the discussion, I’ve no intention in getting into an abortion debate. But, I would point out, the mere existence of living tissue doesn’t constitute, in my mind, a human life. My perspective, boils down to the question of what makes a person a person. I find that many definitions vary, mostly according to beliefs. Is a caterpillar a butterfly? Some would think this is a proper analogy, others would be repulsed at even the consideration. I further find, that science doesn’t adequately answer the question. Nor, should science attempt to do so. To answer your question as to how I reached this conclusion, I turned from the circular debate of knowledge and I turned toward Wisdom, where it seems the valuation is different. However, in Wisdom’s admonishment as to not become a stumbling block, and for the peace of mind of the moderators, I’ll leave it at that.
Prz, you’ve no idea what I can understand and what I can’t, nor, can you know what I respect and and what I don’t. I do love your absolutism in your convictions. But, as I demonstrated above, your assumptions were plainly off about me. Perhaps, if we continue to exchange thoughts and ideas about actions and other things, we can come to a better understanding of one another.
Best regards,
James
Lazy T says:
“Smokey, I know this is your favorite thing but as I have argued before I think you are over-interpreting this. I claim Harry is not likely to be a climate scientist, he is not a professional programmer and he is not likely to be an expert in data analysis.”
LT, it is you who is over-interpreting. Harry candidly admitted that he fabricated 13 years of temperature data. Further, he is the CRU’s “professional programmer”; he was paid to program for them.
You are squirming like a guilty eel caught in a net. The admitted fact is that Harry, on behalf of his superiors, fabricated more than a decade of temperature data to promote an alarmist agenda. When this reaches a court of law, which it ultimately will, your side is going to be exposed as the self-promoting, money hungry, dishonest climate charlatans that they are.
Pass the popcorn!
LazyTeenager – watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
If you don’t want to watch the rest of Monckton’s “scientific truth” it starts around 9 minutes 20
James Sexton says
———
Responding to your points i think we do agree that the world needs to maintain a high level of prosperity to transition to other technologies.
However i think the world is prosperous now and that therefore now is the time to experiment with new technological systems for energy use.
You think many of the current attempts are failures and are therefore worthless. I think many of the current attempts are failures that point the way to success.
You think it’s just a matter of putting efficient technologies into place and they will be successful. I say the incumbent technologies are so entrenched that any new technology comparable or better than what’s currently available has a huge market barrier to cross. Just the disparities in economies of scale are a huge problem even after the issues of technological maturity are solved.
I claim that even a successful technology will take time to become accepted and even appear to be a failure during it’s initial entrance to the market.
I think there is a lesson to be learn’t from the life cycles of corporations here. Some corporations have one product, they become very successful and then they die. Other corporations diversify, they experiment with new products and some of those products fail, and when the principle line of business is no longer viable they change their business model. I want western society to be the second kind of corporation.
Failure is not necessarily a bad thing.
The fundamental weakness in weekly media AGW hyperbole and propaganda is the general public will notice if the planet starts cools, as opposed to no longer is warming. Stating the science is settled and calling those who point out obvious scientific errors in the extreme AGW hypothesis “deniers”, does not leave any room for facing saving.
The forcing functions are aligning to produce a significantly colder planet. The question is not will the planet cool, but rather how much and how quickly.
In addition to increased low level cloud cover due to higher GCR and the reduction in electroscavenging, Tinsley’s analysis indicates that higher levels of ions in the stratosphere will reduce the lifetime of cirrus clouds. The net effect of the high altitude wispy cirrus clouds is to warm via the greenhouse affect particularly at night at higher latitudes. We can look forward to significantly colder winters particularly at higher latitudes. Happy polar bears will have very thick late melting Arctic ice.
The increase in low level cloud is from latitude 40 to 60 degrees and is greater in regions where the jet stream pushes and accumulates bands of low level clouds against the continents, for example along the west coast of North America and the east coast of Europe.
Curiously, in the past when the sun abruptly changed the ocean level abruptly dropped. The ocean level drop cannot be explained by thermal contraction or by increases to the ice sheets. The physical reason for the abrupt drop in ocean level is the same physical cause for the past abrupt increase in volcanic activity.
When a new medicine is being tested, double blind trials are used.
Not only does the patient not know if they are GETTING the real drug or the placebo –
the researcher does not know if they are GIVING that person the real drug or the placebo.
In matters of life and death, scientists have worked out ways to eliminate their opinions, biases. fears and hopes from the research process. In light of this I think the ringleaders of the AGW movement barely deserve the name scientists.
(I do not denigrate here the thousands of honest hard working and decent people studying in this field, I suspect that many of them are quietly skeptical themselves!)
Not only is all Climate Change Research carried out by self declared activists/evangelists, but because there isn’t another PLANET EARTH, conveniently un-populated by a fuel buring species to compare with – no double blind comparison can be made.
Climate scientists have replaced the twin planet with Computer Models…that in itself was an act of faith based on the widespread optimism, or hype if you prefer, that as computers became more powerful…there would come a point where they could duplicate complex systems. Hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe billions has been spent on getting computers to recreate the behaviour of the atmosphere and the oceans….all use as inputs: a few ice core measurements, a few tree ring proxies, two or three sets of records greater than 200 years, and of course the satellite and scientific records of the last fifty.
It would be funny if it wasn’t such a preposterous waste of money.
I note with some amusement the barely concealed bile and venom of the anti-Monkton posters above, most of whom focused entirely on ad-hominems, in the time honoured Warmist tradition.
That’s only to be expected…when it comes to ‘S’cience ‘M’ethod they’ve not got a lot to offer.
I’m encouraged by the discussions Drs. Dessler and Spenser are having.
So far it seems to be opening up the dialog to question settled science.
This could be the start.
LazyTeenager says:
September 17, 2011 at 9:07 pm
James Sexton says
———
Responding to your points i think we do agree that the world needs to maintain a high level of prosperity to transition to other technologies.
=====================================================
LT, I think we’re in much agreement, but probably differ on the approach. While I agree, there is much to learn from failure, I perceive that we are not learning from our failures. I don’t disagree that there are barriers to overcome. I just don’t believe our government can properly discern what needs to happen and no amount of money they throw at it will change the realities.
First, the soft alternatives being marketed today are simply not mature enough to mandate displacement of our current energy makeup. We should quit pretended that it is and wait for the maturity. Wind, will not be ready for likely over a century. Unless we have a breakthrough and figure out how to store AC power. Solar power has promise in certain areas of this country…… but it still has a way to go, and there is no point in pursuing the technology until one of two things happen. Either we figure out how to get a high return without REE or we start digging our own. But, in the mean time, we’re planting huge solar arrays with the false promise they will do anything other than be bird dropping catchers. And we’re planting huge whirlygigs across this nation, all the while we know the effort will never come to fruition. My point is, we’re forcing square pegs into round holes. And the cost is enormous. Sure, continue to test, continue to develop, continue to research. But, we should have never attempted to force implementation.
This is one of the reasons why our economy can’t pick back up. The success of our economy is dependent upon manufacturing and commerce. The cost of energy is too prohibitive to bring any new serious manufacturing to point of production. We are now to the point of punishing utilities for selling too much electricity during peak months and peak times of day. This action necessarily constrains growth.
I’ve much more to state, but this was long winded enough, I’m just left wondering, if we hadn’t chose this course of action, and chose a different avenue, what would have been accomplished? I think, this nation, indeed, this world would be much better off if we just walked away from all of this and took another run at it with a different approach.
James
charles nelson says:
September 17, 2011 at 9:30 pm
“…………
In matters of life and death, scientists have worked out ways to eliminate their opinions, biases. fears and hopes from the research process. In light of this I think the ringleaders of the AGW movement barely deserve the name scientists.”
=============================================
Indeed. I would go as far as to say some are not scientists, but, political advocates. This may interest you. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/the-travesty-of-trenberth/
LazyTeenager says:
September 17, 2011 at 9:07 pm
——————————–
I don’t think anybody doesn’t want to see new cleaner, more efficient energy technology but I don’t think that is happening as it is being reported. I think the vast majority of the money being pumped into the green energy market is being taken advantage of by regular businessman who morph into a “green” company to take advantage of the money stream.
I wish more money was spent on increasing the efficiency of PVC instead of erecting huge fields of low efficiency panels. If you want to promote alternative energy technology, you can’t just dismantle our current oil and gas industry and hand out cash to people who “say” the will create green energy.
In the context of Global Warming (In its political state, and in my opinion), the thrust of the issue is that it is to find a reason “oil is bad” and to regulate “air” basically. We have made great progress in creating engines (Tier 2, and soon Tier 3) at least in the marine industry, that put out almost no emissions (soot, sulfur etc.) but still CO2. If you want to keep marine transportation going and think the inland fleet can afford to capture CO2, you are dreaming. Most of the companies are barely hanging on with the cost of low sulfur No. 2 fuel.
If, “IF” CO2 turn out to be a minor, or no problem, then why stop using the most abundant energy resource available until it runs out and then we must use alternatives?
Don’t equate simply taking money from one company and giving it to another company to increasing our technology.
“A consensus in science is firstly about a consensus of evidence and a consensus of professional judgement about what the evidence means and how reliable are the conclusions from that evidence. ”
Anyone who believes that consensus has any value in science knows nothing about science. In science, any consensus can be obliterated overnight by one experiment that disproves it, and ‘scientific consensus’ has been completely wrong on many occasions in the past.
‘Anthropogenic Global Climate Warming Change’ is not science precisely because nothing can disprove it; regardless of whether the weather becomes warmer, colder, wetter, drier, less windy or more windy you can always find some ‘climate scientist’ eager to claim that it’s proof of AGCWC… even when that claim directly contradicts earlier claims by other ‘scientists’.
This is a quote from the director of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre made in an article yesterday.
”People say we need to make a decision about climate change. We’ve made that decision that we’re just going to let it happen. We just have to hope it is more benign than we think it might be.”
Doubt is not creeping into scientist’s minds – but fatalism is.
MarkG says:
September 17, 2011 at 10:05 pm
‘Anthropogenic Global Climate Warming Change’ is not science precisely because nothing can disprove it…
____
Incorrect. If, over the next 30 years:
1) Global tempertures decline for the period
2) Ocean heat content returns to where it was in the late 1970’s
3) Arctic Sea Ice extent, area, volume returns to where it was in the late 1970’s
4) The stratosphere begins to warm back up
5) Greenland and Anarctica slowly return to growing in mass again
6) Permafrost stops melting
You could then begin to make a strong case that AGW just isn’t happening. But again, it will take a few decades of reversing the changes we’ve seen since the late 1970’s to begin to disprove it.
The other Brian says:
September 17, 2011 at 10:08 pm
This is a quote from the director of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre made in an article yesterday.
”People say we need to make a decision about climate change. We’ve made that decision that we’re just going to let it happen. We just have to hope it is more benign than we think it might be.”
Doubt is not creeping into scientist’s minds – but fatalism is.
_____
Perhaps they sense the coming dark ages…
Gates,
You’re babbling again.
Smokey – it seems to be popular on this site.
DirkH says:
September 17, 2011 at 6:25 pm
LazyTeenager says:
September 17, 2011 at 6:13 pm
“For each ton of aerosols used to build the Great Pall of China there is a much greater tonnage of CO2 that is essentially black over about 20% of the thermal emission spectrum of the earth. ”
Look up Kirchhoff’s Law and come back when you have understood it.
——–
Ok done that Teach. Now please explain the connection to what I said.
Smokey says:
September 17, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Gates,
You’re babbling again.
=============================================
Indeed…….. Gates why would you think returning to the climate of the 70s would be significant of anything? I think the ice was abnormally large at the time. We’ve finally gotten closer to where we should be! We don’t want Greenland and Antarctica ice to start growing. And, recall the dark ages came during a cooling spell…… immediately after the RWP.
SethP says
———
I don’t appreciate the fact that you think my “relative” was the subject of a “piratical joke” by a science teacher and was none the wiser.
———
Fair enough but I was not intending to insult your relative. I was reminded of being sent on a wild goose chase by a scout master at a jamboree. Told to find a “sky hook”. When you are young you tend to assume adults are serious and not playing tricks.
It does sound like you have a problem with your education system.
“You could then begin to make a strong case that AGW just isn’t happening.”
That’s fine then; we’ll just forget about the whole thing for thirty years and see what happens.
But in the real world you would find ‘climate scientists’ willing to claim that every one of those things is PROOF of AGCWC or whatever they’re calling it thirty years from now.
“Perhaps they sense the coming dark ages…”
The only ‘dark age’ coming is the destruction of institutionalised science when the Global Warming scam collapses. The backlash will be tremendous and no-one who lived through it will trust the word of a scientist again.
Which is not a bad thing. Science is good, but the blind worship of scientists is bad and taking billions of dollars from taxpayers every year to pay scientists to support political ambitions is at least bordering on evil. It’s a shame that we didn’t listen to Eisenhower’s warning all those decades ago.
Frankly, as a trained scientist I’m profoundly sick of what passes for ‘science’ these days. Tax funding has corrupted science just as much as any other field of human endeavour, and we’re well past time for a thorough de-funding of the scientific-technological elite.
James Sexton says:
September 17, 2011 at 10:58 pm
“Gates why would you think returning to the climate of the 70s would be significant of anything? I think the ice was abnormally large at the time.”
____
The question was asked about whether or not AGW was falsifiable, and I gave this as example of one of several things that, if it happened, would be evidence against AGW. As the Arctic sea ice has been declining since the late 1970’s, should this trend reverse in a significant way, it would cast a signficant doubt on AGW. Hence the reason that skeptics got themselves a bit excited when 2008 and 2008 extent was greater than 2007. However, of course, those were not signficant increases, and hardly a recovery, and now 2010 and 2011 seem to be showing that the long term trend remains down, just as global climate models factoring in anthropogenic warming have forecast.
Smokey says
LT, it is you who is over-interpreting. Harry candidly admitted that he fabricated 13 years of temperature data. Further, he is the CRU’s “professional programmer”; he was paid to program for them.
————
So is this data set available yet? I recollect that there was a move to make it available. So what happens if the data set is matched against Harry’s comments?
It should be then be possible to prove what you say is correct. If there is a spatial and/or temporal interpolation to fill in the missing data points it will prove my speculative guess correct. If there is a massive rectangular block increase of temperature across that missing data period and that makes a significant difference to the trend with the effect of increasing it then you will be proved correct.
Is that a fair contest?
P.S. Being paid to program and being a professional programmer are not exactly the same thing. Professional standards do come into it. Simply faking data is not professional irrespective of whether you were told to or not.
MarkG says:
September 17, 2011 at 11:05 pm
“The only ‘dark age’ coming is the destruction of institutionalised science when the Global Warming scam collapses. The backlash will be tremendous and no-one who lived through it will trust the word of a scientist again.”
____
This is exactly the kind of reaction you would expect in an age of anti-reason (aka “dark age”).
_____
Then MarkG says:
“Frankly, as a trained scientist I’m profoundly sick of what passes for ‘science’ these days. Tax funding has corrupted science just as much as any other field of human endeavour, and we’re well past time for a thorough de-funding of the scientific-technological elite.”
______
Again, another sign of a dark age– at least for the western world. You can be certain however, that the Chinese don’t have such feelings about funding their “scientific-technological” elite, as they know quite well this is what has propelled them to the modern world power they are. So as the western world squabbles, China will continue quite steadily forward, investing heavily in fully funding the “scientific-technological” elite.