Guest essay by Kevin D. Knoebel
In case you missed it, physicist Ernest J. Moniz was sworn in on May 21, 2013 as the new US Secretary of Energy. Born in 1944 in Fall River, Massachusetts, graduated high school in Fall River, Massachusetts, got his BS is Physics from Boston College in Massachusetts in 1966. Finally he left that East Coast pocket of moderate conservatism during the 1960’s counter-cultural revolution to experience something completely different, Stanford University in California, where he got his PhD in Theoretical Physics in 1972.
Afterward he retreated back to Massachusetts, joining the faculty at MIT. From there he briefly wandered as far westward as Washington DC to serve two positions in the Clinton Administration, finishing as Under Secretary of Energy, thus granting him the wisdom to succeed in his new position.
Sadly he replaces (ignoring the brief fill-in time of an Acting Secretary) the beloved visionary, physicist Steven Chu. It is unknown what will happen to Chu’s fantastic dream of a glucose economy, where fast-growing plants in the tropics are converted to glucose, to be transported worldwide and converted as needed into biofuels and bioplastics. Granted it was likely doomed from the start, as continual exposure to high levels of glucose is known to the State of California to cause diabetes, but it was a wondrously original concept.
It is not known at this time why Moniz shares the same hairstyle as esteemed Stanford University theoretical physicist Michio Kaku. Hopefully Stanford professor Leif Svalgaard will be able to tell us if this is a time-honored tradition among past and current members of the Stanford Theoretical Physics Department. Steven Chu was once a Stanford professor of physics, but pursued practical applications, does not have the hairstyle.
Ernest Moniz
Not Ernest Moniz
He recently showcased his brilliance at the White House Leadership Summit on Women, Climate and Energy on May 23. Story. Video.
To assist those with hearing difficulties, or who have troubles with internet video, etc, I have painstakingly prepared a transcript, striving for absolute accuracy, listening to the same fragments dozens of times on the system speaker (I rarely use audio). Feel free to compare it to the video and report any corrections.
Transcript follows:
I’m not here, to, ah, debate what’s not debatable. Ah, the threat from climate change is real and urgent. Ah, the science fully demands, ah, a prudent response. Ah, just this month, as you know, I mean, pfft, kinda symbolically, ah, hitting, ah, essentially 400 ppm, ah, of CO2. Ah, of course that’s not including, ah, the non-CO2 greenhouse gases which really pump you up to about 450, ah, in, in effect. Ah, so we really need to, need to, ah, get after this. It’s, it’s an important imperative. Ah, and, ah, now the question is what are the solutions. And this is where there is, in fact, now, what I would call, legitimate debate. Let’s debate the solutions, ah, as opposed to, to, the driver.
Exquisite. Climate change is not debatable, it is real that climate changes. Science demands a prudent response, and it is manifestly prudent to wait and see what happens before responding, especially since there’s very little at all happening. Essentially we are already effectively at an atmospheric concentration of 450ppm CO₂, further showing the rising CO₂ is nothing to worry about.
Plus the discussions have simplified. We no longer have to argue how much of climate change is due to natural variation, we can go straight to debating the solutions to natural variation.
While our new Secretary of Energy has been widely greeted with enthusiasm, it was noted there was some concern, as mentioned in a HuffPo Green piece:
Some environmental groups have fretted about Moniz taking over the Energy Department, given his past support for nonrenewable, waste-producing practices such as hydraulic fracturing and nuclear fission.
I’ll wait until these obvious hypocrites start voicing their concerns using organically-grown fully-biodegradable computers and smart phones before considering their opinions. Meanwhile I welcome our new obviously-intelligent Energy Secretary.
Hopefully he’ll be able to stay in there and do some good. Although following the trend of nominating Stanford-affiliated physicists for the position, I am looking forward to the reign of future Energy Secretary Svalgaard.
Ed Davey is the UK’s Energy Secretary, the man who is supposed to ensure that when you switch on an electric light it actually lights up.
Here’s his take on Energy and Climate Change:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10095188/Ed-Davey-attacks-papers-who-report-destructive-climate-sceptics.html
CodeTech says:
June 2, 2013 at 7:01 pm
“Hmmm – I’m 97% certain I typed “LDS” in that first quote… now it’s transformed into “LSD” ???”
That’s sufficient proof that you were there in the 60’s ;o)
Another idiotic appointee by the Obama administration. Keep grinding out the crap.
Isn’t Moniz the guy who flips coins and carries a pneumatic thingee from No Country for Old Men?
It would be smart, politically, for Obama to get behind fracking (and maybe some form of acceptable nuclear), in combination with a push to replace oil heating and to provide a nationwide network of liquified natural gas stations for heavy trucks. It would allow him to keep energy costs down while pushing ahead with his program of phasing out coal-based power. Maybe also it would give him a justification for blocking the Keystone pipeline. The recent official report from the Feds absolving fracking of danger would give him cover. Another political positive of encouraging the use of natural gas for those purposes, and for encouraging its export, would be to raise its price and make it less competitive with renewable energy for use by power plants.
So maybe that’s why Moniz was OK’d unanimously–because the GOP knows he’s OK with natural gas and nuclear.
” Let’s debate the solutions, ah, as opposed to, to, the driver.”
Again an international synchronicity – Schellnhuber right now has the first climate impact conference in Berlin or Potsdam and in his introduction he stated that the question debated would not be IF humans cause extra warming – this he said was already parcatically answered by climate models in the affirmative – but WHAT to do for different worst case scenarios of 2, 4 6 deg C warming.
( http://notrickszone.com/2013/06/02/puzzled-schellnhuber-not-at-all-surprised-short-term-models-are-wrong-but-insists-long-term-models-are-correct/ )
(in the Q&A people forced him to answer on the lack of warming anyway, and he mumbled something about heat going into the oceans)
So the international warmist and communitarian-statist movement tries to ignore the scientific basis now, and go straight to the power grab, and they have synchronously decided to switch to this tactic now in Germany as well as in the US.
And you know which organisation it was last time that said, hey, we take CO2AGW as fact now, not as theory, and how they fared with it?
Right, that was the BBC, and they lost all credibility and never regained it.
Master_Of_Puppets says:
June 2, 2013 at 6:15 pm
“[Germany: Waite Waite … Our Nuclear Plants … Sniff Sniff … [Tear In Eye] … We ARE … the Future ! Of HUMANITY … PURITY … EVERLASTING … SIG HEIL SIG HEIL SIG HEIL]”
Well. Germans are in a mental state that is best described as East Coast liberal. In other words, incapable of thinking rationally. Don’t worry. This permeates all parties.
rogerknights says:
June 3, 2013 at 3:01 am
So maybe that’s why Moniz was OK’d unanimously–because the GOP knows he’s OK with natural gas and nuclear.
=====================================================
No, it’s because 97% of elected Republicans are spineless.
It’s Hipster Hair. from the urban dictionary (love the condescension in this description): “Both hipster men and women sport similar androgynous hair styles that include combinations of messy shag cuts and asymmetric side-swept bangs. Such styles are often associated with the work of creative stylists at urban salons, and are usually too “edgy” for the culturally-sheltered mainstream consumer.”
What’s really funny is that this is an old man pretending to be a hipster, which is just sad.
I wonder if the new Energy Secretary has a position on Chico’s reduced fee for nuclear detonations? 🙂
Nuclear Infractions Are Henceforth Cheaper …
Right after California’s bureaucrats had the brilliant idea to consider a ban on campfires – since campfires are potentially dangerous and therefore a legitimate object of concern for the nannycrats (as the Washington Times notes, ‘enjoying the pleasures of life is just not good for you’)– the bureaucrats running the California town of Chico, the most populous in Butte county, have given birth to an even more astonishing example of cranial flatulence.
“The council has for years approved spending millions of dollars it didn’t have, shifting money around to hide the problem. Now it’s out in the open, and citizens will pay dearly if they dare break city laws.
But there’s good news out there for nuclear bomb owners. The current fine for a first-time violation of the city’s nuclear-free ordinance is $1,064. Under a proposal to revise certain fines, a first-time offense will be reduced to $1,000.
For those of you new to town, this is not a joke.
”http://www.acting-man.com/?p=23705
Maybe Obama could lend him a teleprompter.
I am looking forward to the reign of future Energy Secretary Svalgaard.
He doesn’t have the required hair, or the group-think.
Don B says:
June 3, 2013 at 5:39 am
“[…] object of concern for the nannycrats […]”
Ooooo… nannycrats. I like it.
Again, we are being very judgmental. Don’t we need a giant computer system to model whether Climate Change occurs. I look out my window and see weather. Where do I look for Climate Change??
See, we need to research Climate Change and whether or not it occurs. Forget that CO2 stuff or that CFC stuff or that methane stuff. That stuff is, well, proven stuffy. Its time to band together in an International way to fund Climate Change, and most important, how to “change Climate Change” if Climate Change is changeable and does or does not exist.
As a starting point, we should all agree on what is a “constant”. I would suggest that we research existing papers about “constants” so that we can form a “constant consensus” with at least 97% in “constant agreement”.
Various people have noted the resemblance of Ernie’s hair to historical/fictional people. So, for your viewing pleasure:
Ah, the science fully demands, ah, a prudent response.
Ah, no. Science doesn’t demand any course of action. People who say this are confusing science with policymaking, or worse, activism.
The truly smart people stay out of public service. The rest can’t resist.
;o)) enjoy…
No, too little public speaking. These are classic verbal pauses, typical for all individuals not trained in public communication. The speaker is trying to organize his/her thoughts “on the run”. Rarely is this a successful enterprise. Record yourself on a few occasions when you have to leave a lengthy voice mail. I’ve played back a few, and sometimes I sound like a babbling idiot. It can be a humbling experience. And I’ve had training in public speaking.
Of course, one might expect better of an ex-member of the faculty at MIT. Apparently practice sometimes does not make perfect.
Actually, DJ Hawkins, I’ve personally got no problems with public speaking. But I have lots of experience too.
However, my original intent was to quote the line from Star Trek IV. Either I failed or someone corrected it… not sure which. Either way, whether Moniz is brilliant or an idiot, he certainly doesn’t present himself well. I learned when presenting to groups of people who have money, they don’t always care what you’re saying, they want you to look presentable and sound confident.
Ahh, well that explains it. Even though I am a fan, my Pop Culture IQ generally runs about 75. And I was not directly making any comments on yours or anyone else’s particular abilities. You’re right, Moniz does not present himself well in this instance. While too frequently form triumphs over substance, in this case he has neither.
rogerknights says: June 3, 2013 at 3:01 am
Some environmental groups have fretted about Moniz taking over the Energy Department, given his past support for nonrenewable, waste-producing practices such as hydraulic fracturing and nuclear fission.
It would be smart, politically, for Obama to get behind fracking (and maybe some form of acceptable nuclear), in combination with a push to replace oil heating and to provide a nationwide network of liquified natural gas stations for heavy trucks. It would allow him to keep energy costs down while pushing ahead with his program of phasing out coal-based power.
————————————————————————————
Obama ran on a platform of higher energy costs in 2008. It was an interview with the San Francisco newspaper where he said: “Under my administration energy costs will necessarily skyrocket” Obama *wants* Americans to be made poorer by high energy costs, and he was voted into office anyway.
Whenever I encounter a man with hair like that I think to myself, this man’s barber or hair stylist must have cashed or retired and the loss has impaired his most basic decision making ability, or he’s been on a 6 week mission into outer space or alternatively he’s been on a 6 week bender.
working on the back side of the camera I tend to only bother with haircuts when its time for NAB or IBC (not that I’ve got that much left to worry about) but it’s not like I’m trying to make a fashion statement – but yeah, he looks more like the dude from “no Time…”
I really don;t see the poin in taking snide shots at someone’s hair or lack of eloquence when speaking. For one, they are beside point at hand, i.e. climate science. For another, they are cheap and petty. Perhaps most importantly, I tend to assume that a person engaged in a debate will use the strongest argument or evidence they have at hand in order to make their point; hence, using something so trivial suggests that there is no stronger argument / evidence available to the arguer.
Criticise him on what matters, forget about the drivel.