Roger Pielke Jr. Discovers Big Warming

Twitter thread from Dr. Pielke,

There is an interesting investigative journalism project to be done on the revolving door between climate science & policy and private sector climate services

Just as one example, John Kerry's predecessor as "climate envoy" co-founded a consulting firm that feeds off of RCP8.5

Absolutely fascinating how climate scenarios (RCPs, SSPs & their derivatives) are enabling entirely new markets for consulting based on financial risk assessments of fictional futures

It is also amazing how much money is being paid to explore these outdated, fictional futures

Observing the monetization of climate scenarios I am reminded of this passage from Rayner and Sarewitz 2021 @TheBTI Journal on how the Chesapeake Bay Program confused models and reality

https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-13-winter-2021/policy-making-in-the-post-truth-world

The primary investor in Jupiter Intelligence (climate services based on RCP8.5) is Energize Ventures, a venture capital firm seeking to capitalize on the ongoing energy transformation

Good for them

But you can surely see how a consultancy promoting RCP8.5 is complementary

The "anchor partner" of Energize Ventures is Invenergy, a privately held energy company that operates >25 GW of wind, solar and natural gas facilities

Of course there is a cozy eco-system:

former gov't officials
scientists w/ specialized knowledge
venture capital
energy companies
current federal policy making

Has always been so

But it is interesting how these dynamics promote implausible scenarios & keep bad science going

There has been a lot of attention paid to the pathological dynamics of the energy-govt-science ecosystem related to fossil fuel interests, I have never seen similar critiques of the role played by non-fossil fuel interests

Low-hanging fruit for anyone wanting to look
/END

Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on April 28, 2021.

5 23 votes
Article Rating
53 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ossqss
April 30, 2021 10:10 pm

RCP 8.5? Really?

I guess it makes sense with scare mongering. Google can fix that, no?

Wear your mask!

April 30, 2021 10:32 pm

“financial risk assessments of fictional futures”

Brilliant.
Says it all.
Thanks.

Hokey Schtick
April 30, 2021 10:52 pm

Where there’s muck there’s brass.

dk_
April 30, 2021 11:21 pm

“revolving door between climate science & policy and private sector climate services”
And between them both and social ‘science” academia.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  dk_
May 1, 2021 8:33 am

There are at least 4x too many people employed using taxpayer dollars in the enviro-theatrics field.

pHil R
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 1, 2021 2:20 pm

There are at least 4x too many people employed using taxpayer dollars in the enviro-theatrics field.

Fixed it for you.

pHil R
Reply to  pHil R
May 1, 2021 5:33 pm

Downding?? gee, i wonder who thinks there aren’t enough freeloaders in government already sucking up taxpayer dollars?

Peta of Newark
May 1, 2021 1:48 am

This Is Amazing. Ye Shocke Horreur!! Hooda Thunke??

Fish. Can. Swim.

Some ‘fish’ may fit the descriptions of Piranha and or shark

In all honesty, is Pielke not one of the folks he’s berating?
It is actually what the UK Parliament is = A Finishing School and University exactly for folks like this.
A lot of the Civil Service also but, they look after themselves sooooo well while in there, even the Private Sector cannot match the job-security, working-conditions, perks & expenses, pay and pensions they get.
I refer you to ‘Yes Minister’ from British TV
ho hum, that is life I s’pose

And nobody, NOBODY, gets what’s actually going wrong in this world with climate, UHI, population and especially the health (mental just as much as physical) of the folks who sail upon it

Yet its in this story, where the CBP talks of ‘excessive agricultural runoff’

I get 2 really awful ‘takes’ from that:

  1. That farmers are taken to be stupid and/or ecological vandals. Yet the regulators & consumers of what the farmers produce are ‘butter wouldn’t melt’ little angels who deserve/expect/want/need Cheap Food and mountains of it. Woe betide the farmer who doesn’t comply. Bankruptcy ‘woe’ in fact.
  2. The wilful ignorance of what this ‘run-off’ actually is. Do they really know what it is? is it NPK or myriad other trace elements & micro-nutrients. Do they really believe that there is an infinite supply of whatever?

Have they, has anybody even, considered what would happen when all that run-off stops ‘running off’. When it runs out in fact?

Couldn’t possibly be anything like diabetes, cancer, cardio disease, MS, Crohn’s, cancer, autism and dementia by any chance. Or Covid by any remoteness?
No.
Completely no chance?

Oh no. People get those things because of Life-Style Choice. People inflict them upon themselves because they are stupid, dumb and don’t do what they’re told. ###

Does anyone see a pattern there?

So, The Enquiring Mind wonders:
What do the intelligent, healthy, scientific, political, regulatory (and main-stream) pundits have for their breakfasts, lunches and dinners?

Why are they immune from the stupidity that so obviously afflicts farmers and the folks who buy their produce.

### Wanna see what happens when you don’t ‘do-as-you’re-told’ in this post modern world:
Does anyone think that simply being sacked was enough. here

Last edited 14 days ago by Peta of Newark
B Clarke
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 1, 2021 2:50 am

Armed uk police , the not so new look , in every town and city, in rural areas in unmarked cars

https://images.app.goo.gl/eeEwnf67KX7xTd7R7

Better equipped than any soldier from ww2 in gray or black to intimidate, mainly used in domestic disputes pumped up to the nines with rhetoric and drugs.

We just had slurry sprayed onto our land ,the grass is growing is green and the wild flowers in the margins are a sea of colour, to put food on the plate of the British population, we also have to deal with a sea of new regulations ,the whole of the Welsh principality is now classed as a NVZ NITRATE VULNERABLE ZONE.

Richard Page
Reply to  B Clarke
May 1, 2021 3:26 am

I get that the police invested in this kit and training for immediate response to a tiny fraction of cases where it might be needed – terrorist incidents for example. But to then trot it all out for every minor incident so you can justify having bought it in the first place is stupid, shortsighted and, ultimately, damned dangerous.
The police have had extensive training for most situations, more officers are receiving firearms training over time – so isn’t it about time police at all levels received more training in proportional response?

Last edited 14 days ago by Richard Page
B Clarke
Reply to  Richard Page
May 1, 2021 4:10 am

The police( paramilitaries) are gearing up for social unrest their not interested in proportional response, there interested in protecting political agendas ,we already know demonstrating, marches will be servery constrained under new powers being debated. Our freedoms are being eroded when people take to the streets quite rightly ,they will be classed as home grown terrorists, the legislation is heading that way.

There is no justification in the UK for a armed police force in the sense that they are dressed for warfare carry automatic rifles and side arms ,the UK unlike America do not allow its population to be armed the licensing of firearms in the UK is one of the strictest in the world ,even a shotgun certificate is very difficult to obtain. So your right it is very dangerous escalation.

A police officer in domestic every day life needs no more than concealed body armour and a visible side arm .

The question or justification around terrorism i don’t buy for one the chances of armed terrorists invading our streets is very very small ,, the scenario which is painted as a justification does not hold when the same police armed units are present in rural areas eg my farm is hardly a terrorist target nor is my local market town. Yet the police back in January did a practice armed stop on a vehicle ( driven by one of their own) with around 20 armed officers and numerous vehicles, ( i witnessed this)

So I’ll stick with my first paragraph, political agendas are building up to a point were civil unrest is expected.

Richard Page
Reply to  B Clarke
May 1, 2021 4:47 am

It’s difficult to argue against those points. One test will be to see if the Extinction Rebellion ‘protests’ are treated the same as the recent protests against increased police powers or whether they’ll get favoured status.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  B Clarke
May 1, 2021 8:02 am

Police in the UK, don’t need any side arms, only necessary in the violent, uncivilised, USA.

B Clarke
Reply to  Adam Gallon
May 1, 2021 8:29 am

Your wrong , there are violent criminals who use fire arms inthe uk,the police need to be able to contain these types, which is completely different from all the UK police dressed as soldiers armed to the teeth, my posts are about a balance , the usa is not uncivilised it has a balance writen into the constitution to address the very thing that is going wrong in the UK.

Richard Page
Reply to  B Clarke
May 1, 2021 2:17 pm

If the USA had balance written into the constitution, then the amendments would have been unnecessary. The UK has a thousand years of legal precedents, interpretations of case law and judicial rulings to establish balance and our constitution – the USA started from scratch so had to write it all down. Times change and so does the law – the fact that both the UK and USA are still struggling to find that balance as things change doesn’t rule either system invalid – both have inbuilt merits and flaws unique to their system.

B Clarke
Reply to  Richard Page
May 1, 2021 2:45 pm

The UK had a thousand years of the monarchy as absolute law,

Administered through the barons who interpreted the kings word to suit themselves , not till we had a parliament did writen laws become law.that could not be rescinded by a individual. you very much have a balance in the USA on the subject in hand you have a right to bare arms to form militia to stop a tyrannical government. As writen. What you also have are democrates tightening the noose ,nibbling round the edges trying to make it impossible to exercise your writen rights to bare arms in such times as above. The UK has no writen constitution as such. We don’t have writen rights as you do. Eg even though I own my own freehold the state can ultimately take that away from me.

Richard Page
Reply to  B Clarke
May 1, 2021 3:42 pm

I do wish you actually understood UK history, it would prevent you from making mistakes like that. Our earliest judgements and precedents actually date from Anglo-Saxon England, between about 600-1000 AD, when the kings made law with a council of advisors – very much like todays parliament. The Normans ruled as you describe up until about 1250-1300 when their parliaments were assembled, leading to increasing restrictions on the power of the monarchy (following the provisions of the Magna Carta as well as the statute of Oxford and the statutes of Westminster) culminating in the constitutional monarchy we have today, imposed on King Charles II after the series of civil wars. All in all we’ve had a parliamentary form of government for about 1000 years (allowing for breaks) and jurisprudence going back to the Anglo-Saxons. This immense body of law comprises our constitution – this is how it has been written down and formed over centuries of work – our individual rights have been protected by law going back to before the Magna Carta. Understand that and you might begin to understand just how strong our constitution actually is. In actual fact, the people of Britain had less protection in law under Cromwell’s protectorate than under the kings he tried to replace.

Last edited 13 days ago by Richard Page
B Clarke
Reply to  Richard Page
May 1, 2021 4:11 pm

So you agree with me the the kings anglo saxon had absolute rule,a advisor muttering in a kings ear is not rule ,two or more mutterings would mean the king decided via the advice he would rule on,make a ruling. As I already explained the first hint of the king relinquishing any power was to the barons hence the magna carta ,which was abused by the barons for thier own ends.that was not a form of constitution in any shape or form, indecently the writen magna carta has been tried in court many times and been shown not fit for modern times,, I think you are meaning common law, a misconception, it does not hold over statutory law , common law is a remedy were the writen law is lacking and ONLY then does it hold president ,of course statutory law is passed to over come any common law ruling so much for a constitution! We have no constitution in the UK writen or otherwise common law by the week is being legislated out of existence, you can not rely on a ruling 500 years ago in common law that has been superceded by statutory law, chancery courts went the same way in their original form. Googling uk history = a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Richard Page
Reply to  B Clarke
May 2, 2021 6:17 am

B Clarke – actually no. The Anglo-Saxon kings ruled through a large group or council of advisors, much like a constitutional monarch – in actual fact, William the Conqueror received the Papal blessing for his invasion on the grounds that he would smash the power of the (more egalitarian) Anglo-Saxon church and state and impose the much more restrictive feudal system and Roman church in England.
As to the rest, you are arguing Apple’s and oranges there – I mentioned the Magna Carta only to show that it led to the formation of parliament (which it did) not for any other reason. As to our constitution, we don’t need a written set of rules setting out do’s and don’ts – we have exactly the same in law going back to the Anglo-Saxons, as I mentioned. People forget that for every right enshrined in our law there is a responsibility – you have the right to be a free citizen of the UK but you also have a legal responsibility to defend the UK when required. You have a right to free speech but you have a legal responsibility not to harm or cause distress to others with what you say and so on. People remember their rights and conveniently forget the responsibilities.
As to your last point – I believe I mentioned that laws change, evolve over time? You made exactly the same point as I did – why re-invent the wheel? Who, for example, would want to keep a law that required all Welshmen found in Hereford (I believe) at night to be killed on sight? Laws get rewritten and superseded, often by new legislation, but often by judicial interpretation. This happens – it’s how balance is created in law.
Final point – we have a constitution in this country, whether you believe it or not, in the laws of this country – they are our constitution. As I said originally – the only reason the USA had a written constitution is that they started from scratch and had to distill all the law that other countries had developed over the years down into one legal document. The constitution of the modern USA actually consists of their constitution, amendments plus laws, judicial interpretations and various other statutes and legal points from their 200+ years of history. We just started earlier, is all.

B Clarke
Reply to  Richard Page
May 2, 2021 11:42 am

Do you understand what a constitution is? Do you understand the difference between a law and a writen constitution?apparently not, a law can be changed by Parliament, a constitution can not be changed, hence your reliance on a law or many laws as a constitution is flawed, thats what you have writen. There is no constitution in the UK laws are not a substitute for a constitution that the whole point a constitution itcan not be changed by politicians.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Richard Page
May 1, 2021 5:33 pm

G’Day Richard — I think you missed one

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”  (From: yale.edu – Avalon Project)

That’s how the English Bill of Rights (1689) puts it. If you’re not a Protestant – no arms, and it is all subject to any law Parliament might wish to pass thereafter.

And so they did, starting in about 1900, to disarm the ‘subjects’ of Great Britain. They’re almost there, the last I heard even their Olympic Shooting team must travel to Europe to practice.

(As an aside – Cromwell died of/with malaria. Another victim of climate changing the insect population?)

B Clarke
Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
May 2, 2021 2:21 am

Side arms were prohibited in the UK by the Blair administration.
So pistol competition moved abroad as you say. You may still be granted a licence for a rifle in the UK,under strict conditions. No criminal record, must have a doctors report to say you are not suffering from any mental illness. Only rifles of .22 calibra , no more capacity than three bullets in a magazine, must have writen permission from a land owner above a certain ,area.or a member of a rifle club.

Exceptions ,you may be granted a licence for a larger calibre rifle if you can prove why you need it. Eg game keeper. Prohibited pistols may be granted a licence under extreme conditions ,ie a politition working in EG northern island.

Any use of any firearm including air rifles ,shotguns on public land is a criminal serious offence, on private land without permission is as above plus armed trespass, any of the above offences will incur a custodial sentence.

Ironically crossbows don’t fall under any of the above apart from were you can use them.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
May 2, 2021 6:21 am

Not my circus, not my monkeys. B Clarke was the one interested in the right to carry firearms, not me. I suggest you talk to him about that subject. Besides I’m a Catholic – we just get persecuted by the English, we’ve not been allowed guns (or rights) historically.

ATheoK
Reply to  Richard Page
May 1, 2021 3:57 pm

You apparently haven’t read the detailed history for either country.

Jim G.
Reply to  Adam Gallon
May 1, 2021 6:00 pm

Has the crown/parliament ever allowed the populace of Britain to be armed? I always thought that they needed to go to the armory, i.e. get permission, when their assistance to fight invaders was necessary.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Jim G.
May 2, 2021 11:59 am

G’Day JIm G

Not just allowed but compulsory. This US Senate report gives a very quick rundown. “R E P O R T OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION.

https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

The ‘history’ starts on page 9.

Last edited 12 days ago by Tombstone Gabby
Joseph Zorzin
May 1, 2021 3:10 am

Meanwhile: “New climate czar John Kerry sold off energy holdings to avoid conflict of interest”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-climate-czar-john-kerry-sold-off-energy-holdings-to-avoid-conflict-of-interest/ar-BB1gf0AW?ocid=Peregrine

“Among the energy-related companies in which Kerry and his family had held investments prior to March were multinational hydrocarbon exploration company ConocoPhillips, international petroleum refinery company Valero Energy and major gas and electric utility provider Southern Company.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 1, 2021 3:49 am

Have you seen this, Joseph?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/us-largest-forests-danger-tucker-carlson-originals-exposes-green-energy-scam-maine-corrupt

One of the US’ largest forests is in danger: ‘Tucker Carlson Originals’ exposes green energy scam in Maine

Two foreign energy companies are set to make millions by deceiving residents of Maine

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 1, 2021 4:52 am

It’s ironic that here in the climate emergency caliphate of Massachusetts- those who support the new net zero by ’50 bill can’t grasp the full consequences of it- such as this huge new power line from Canada. I remind them almost daily that hundreds of thousands of acres of forest within Mass. will have to be destroyed to install solar “farms”. When I say this I see them cover their eyes and plug their ears. There is a lot of resistance to this hydro power from Canada so i don’t know if it’ll happen. It probably will- the MA governor supports it and they’ll need it to even come close to net zero by ’50, which I suggest is impossible. What I don’t understand is why the power line must be 100 yards wide? The enviros here HATE woody biomass as an energy source- but clearing that much land will provide a lot of wood to the remaining biomass burners because most of the cleared trees will not be sawlog size. Another negative with the power line is that it’ll spread invasive species along it and into the Maine woods.

Spetzer86
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 1, 2021 5:26 am

Massively charged power line. 100’s of miles through forests. What can go wrong? (See CA) 100 yards wide is only 50 yards on a side. If it all got mowed a few times every year, probably ok. But some parts would probably only get hit every so often.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Spetzer86
May 1, 2021 6:05 am

I believe on some power lines – herbicides are used to control the vegetation – or used to be. I’ll have to check on this. Of course the wind and solar worshipping pagan enviros won’t mind all in the name of stopping the new Satan fossil fuels.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 1, 2021 6:02 am

What a hot mess. The bottom line is, the entire region is in desparate need of reliable, relatively inexpensive electricity to butress its badly sagging grid, due to closing down both coal and nuclear plants. And Hydro Quebec, despite whatever faults, does fill the void. They didn’t want a NG pipeline either, another hot mess. There is just no pleasing envirokooks and quacks. I guess they really do want people shivering in mud huts, in the dark, eating twigs and leaves.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 1, 2021 6:12 am

when a 18 acre solar “farm” was built next to my ‘hood in ’12 in north central MA, I invited all the enviros in MA to come see it- and how all the top soil was removed- it’s now an 18 acre desert covered with panels- no enviros showed up- yet they’ll micro manage me if I manage a timber sale which I’ve been doing since Nixon was in the White House- pisses me off- also, that solar farm is right next to a river, several vernal pools and a 40 acre wetland owned by the state wildlife agency- not to mention that the land is a rural/residential zone- yet it’s an industrial development- I and my wife sued them and the town planning board- got them to push it back a bit and plant several hundred arborvitae trees to block the view of it- also, there were some rare species on the site including rare turtle and bird species- yet, no enviros dared show up to look at it with me

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 1, 2021 11:46 am

When it comes to “climate change”, the Greens are deaf, dumb and blind about the environmental damage their “renewable” energy schemes are doing.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 1, 2021 2:54 pm

A solar farm in Massachusetts is an incredibly stupid idea! Too far north to do any good at all. Someday the bill for all this stupidity will come due but the perpetrators of it will probably be long gone, either dead or living off their ill-gotten gains in some tropical paradise.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 1, 2021 6:55 am

But what did he buy and was it all just sector rotation?

Bruce Cobb
May 1, 2021 4:24 am

Clime pays! Film at 11.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 1, 2021 4:50 am

Fear pays. It’s quite the industry – stoking the fear gets you payoffs from those profiteering from the fear.

May 1, 2021 6:17 am

The annual revenue of the Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! (2016 numbers) That’s equal to the annual economic activity generated by the entire US nonprofit sector, or all savings over the past ten years from consumers switching to generic drugs. By comparison, revenue for the much-vilified Koch Industries are about $115 billion, for ExxonMobil around $365 billion.

According to a 200-page analysis by the Climate Change Business Journal, this Climate Industrial Complex can be divided into nine segments:

low carbon and renewable power;
carbon capture and storage;
energy storage, such as batteries;
energy efficiency;
green buildings;
transportation;
carbon trading;
climate change adaptation; and
consulting and research.
Consulting alone is a $27-billion-per-year industry that handles “reputation management” for companies and tries to link weather events, food shortages and other problems to climate change. Research includes engineering R&D and climate studies.

The $1.5-trillion price tag appears to exclude most of the Big Green environmentalism industry, a $13.4-billion-per-year business in the USA alone. The MacArthur Foundation just gave another $50 million to global warming alarmist groups. Ex-NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Chesapeake Energy gave the Sierra Club $105 million to wage war on coal (shortly before the Club began waging war on natural gas and Chesapeake Energy, in what some see as poetic justice). Warren Buffett, numerous “progressive” foundations, Vladimir Putin cronies and countless companies also give endless millions to Big Green.

https://rclutz.com/2016/07/16/climate-crisis-inc-update/

PaulH
May 1, 2021 6:20 am

A computer model, like any computer program, can only say (i.e., output) what it is programmed to say. Models are not clairvoyant or magic working crystal balls. If the people creating the model want a doom and gloom scenario, that’s what the model will give them.  It’s like paying a consultant to tell you that your business plan is brilliant.

Last edited 13 days ago by PaulH
H. D. Hoese
May 1, 2021 6:34 am

While the addition of nutrients is real Kemp, et al., 2005, concluded that while demersal fishes were discriminated against, the overall fisheries in Chesapeake Bay have probably not suffered. Same thing happened on the Louisiana coast. These systems have been known for centuries, often where most of the fisheries are. Another story, in the Bay they spent beaucoup bucks on a foreign oyster more disease resistant, couldn’t take the worms, known since 1940, they knew it also.

Kemp, W. M. and 17 other authors. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 303:1-29.
“Observations in Bay tributaries undergoing recent reductions in nutrient input indicate 
relatively rapid recovery of some ecosystem functions but lags in the response of others.” Nutrients used to be good, now demons, even reduction thereof.

The citations avoided the voluminous real Chesapeake literature. Never heard of this–“Science and Trans-Science,…”

Kevin kilty
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
May 1, 2021 7:54 am

Science and Trans-Science was in effect a recognition that there are limits to what science can provide. Phrase invented by Alvin Weinberg who was director of the Oak Radge Laboratory. We have no thoughtful, truly liberal people like these any longer. What has replaced their honesty and wisdom is posturing and phoniness.

Last edited 13 days ago by Kevin kilty
H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Kevin kilty
May 1, 2021 9:55 am

Thanks, half-century ago (1972) first time around with modern whirlybirds, circular reasoning was still understood. Evolutionists even talked about tautologies. Now we have the precautionary principle, guilty until proven innocent at the extreme.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/177/4045/211.full.pdf

ResourceGuy
May 1, 2021 6:54 am

The old man in the cave has some climate predictions for you, along with a bill for services.

Anon
May 1, 2021 7:49 am

I would often see references to how “scientists” are substituting modeling for reality, but never quite understood how this worked or happened. It was a bit mindboggling, until this article made it very clear.

As I now understand it, such “science” produces a hermetically sealed circular environment that all transpires on inexpensive silicon chips:

1] Develop a computer model of the ecosystem with all known or desired inputs.

2] Run the model at the current input levels to get a picture/plot of the ecosystem fifty years or so into the future.

3] Reduce one of the inputs through government policy, (ie laws and regulation).

4] Rerun the model and generate a picture/plot of the ecosystem fifty years into the future.

5] Notice that the new picture/plot has improved the ecosystem to the desired degree.

6] Declare the problem solved and call it a day. (without ever having the want or need to look at real world data and measurements (ie do science)).

So, if you discount the unethical types (which I believe are present en masse), and assume many are true believers, then you get a situation analogous to Plato’s Cave, where all are watching shadows on a wall.

And thus it goes without saying, that if anything does not conform to the “shadow world” you are going to “adjust”, “flatten” and “discount” real world observations and data, as they simply don’t fit your “reality”.

This article is a keeper. (sigh) Once again a rather simple article at WUWT has greatly contributed to my understanding!

Last edited 13 days ago by Anon
Kevin kilty
Reply to  Anon
May 1, 2021 8:07 am

Steps 1-6 explain why some problems never get solved. There are people convinced that step 6 is it — nothing beyond.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Kevin kilty
May 1, 2021 12:20 pm

My brother was marketing a ceramic for storage of nuclear waste. As I recall it had been developed in Japan, and apparently had very favorable properties. But he got nowhere.

He told me that he had a private conversation with a guy in the business of nuclear waste disposal to find out why there was so much resistance to testing the ceramic.

He told me the guy said (paraphrasing) that they didn’t want to solve the problem, because working on the problem was such a good source of income.

One wonders how much of that goes on.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Anon
May 1, 2021 12:44 pm

Part of the problem is that computer graphics look so much like pictures of the physically real, that the modelers (and politicians and the public) become viscerally confident in their truth.

Viscerally means reactive and below the level of thought.

The conscious mind then comes up with some rationale for the irrational belief that is already present.

I noticed this first in the use of Density Functional Theory, used to calculate theoretical models of the equilibrium electronic state of chemical compounds. The graphics were made to look like crystal structures – real physical data.

Seeing the theoreticians do this really irked me. And I saw other chemists being taken in by it. I called it out, though not in published work.

Later I saw the same thing in climate modeling, where graphics of the simulated Earth were made to look just like the physically real one. Everyone believes those pictures. Even the modelers.

Anon
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 2, 2021 9:14 am

That is the wonderful thing about statistics. Imagine a clever (or not so clever) hospital administrator who collates all of the patient data and identifies and “average patient” and then goes on to develop a “universal treatment protocol” that is applied to all patients entering the hospital based on his “average patient”.

I have seen a similar thing in undergraduates who are exposed to Atomic Orbital Theory for the first time, coming away with the notion that electrons are shaped like toroids and barbells. It is a bit like observing a race car circling a track, smearing its position and then coming to the conclusions that the shape of a race car is toroid. (lol)

Insufficiently Sensitive
May 1, 2021 7:53 am

The WUWT ‘donate’ button popped up. At every attempt, all it would do was flash the ‘$1.00 minimum donation required’, and no number nor dollar sign nor key stroke could be entered. Humph.

jdgalt1
Reply to  Insufficiently Sensitive
May 1, 2021 9:03 am

Does it do the same thing in other browsers?

jdgalt1
May 1, 2021 8:24 am

There has been a lot of attention paid to the pathological dynamics of
the energy-govt-science ecosystem related to fossil fuel interests, I
have never seen similar critiques of the role played by non-fossil fuel
interests

I have, if the interest in question is the tobacco industry, a defense contractor, or anyone who disagrees with the government’s medical demands. The common thread is that government “science” agencies want as close to an absolute monopoly on all research grants as they can get, so they can destroy the careers of dissidents.

Pat Frank
May 1, 2021 8:42 am

The monetization of incompetence. Build back bunglers.

%d bloggers like this: