Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Professor Emeritus David Shearman, some problems are beyond the comprehension of elected politicians, and should not be entrusted to their authority. The only way to halt the disintegration of Western democracy is for politicians to surrender power to independent peer appointed panels of scientists.
Climate change emergency cannot be solved by disintegrating democracies
BY DAVID SHEARMAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/03/22 07:30 PM EST 1,097
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILLPresident Biden’s climate agenda was launched with hopes, prayers and the expectation of leadership to all world democracies, like a glorious ship set on a maiden voyage: the SS Biden. There is now deep concern that in stormy seas it has been driven onto rocks, still intact but in need of a high tide to free it.
…
Clearly, President Biden placed great reliance on reducing domestic emissions by a range of measures in a Build Back Better initiative, which was grounded on the rocks of a democratic congressman who appears to accept climate change and yet opposes constraints on fossil fuel production. The president now has to resort to executive orders and to a range of other measures, which do not require legislation.
This brings us to the crux of the problem. Our western democracies can no longer deliver consensus and action on issues that threaten the continued existence of humanity, not least the most powerful democracy in the world.
…
In the U.S., there are 109 members of the House of Representatives and 30 senators who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change. These members have received more than $61 million in lifetime contributions from the oil, gas and coal industries.
…
The U.S. is not alone in democratic disintegration. Climate denial and anti-vaccination sentiment exist in many countries but have not become as debilitating as they appear to have done in the United States.
Over the past four decades, the failures of liberal democracies to address environmental issues and particularly climate change have become increasingly apparent. In 2007, these failures were detailed and today we find they remain unaddressed. Indeed, one failure has become the salient problem, the need to separate governance from corporate capitalism.
The common denominator in current democratic failure is government unwillingness to accept that many of the problems we now confront are so complex and urgent as to be beyond the comprehension and abilities of elected officials. The issue of climate emergency is compounded by two additional interrelated issues: Elected officials place their political survival before collective needs and many defer to an overwhelmingly powerful fossil fuel industry for personal gain.
To become relevant today, elected governments have to be prepared to accept advice and guidance from independent commissions of scientists and other relevant experts selected by their peers — and not by political appointment. The details of this guidance need to be available to all parties and to the public. A starting model for the U.S. and many other countries might be a strengthened U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with appointees selected by peers and not politically appointed.
…
David Shearman (AM, Ph.D., FRACP, FRCPE) is a professor of medicine at the University of Adelaide, South Australia and co-founder of Doctors for the Environment Australia. He is co-author of “The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy” (2007) commissioned by the Pell Centre for International Relations and Public Policy.
Read more: https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/588091-climate-change-emergency-cannot-be-solved-by-disintegrating
If you want to see what an Expertocracy or Technocracy looks like, a place where a significant portion of daily decision making is genuinely dominated by appointed panels of alleged experts, take a look at Communist China.
The following academic wet dream of how wonderful life is in China for educated people was published a few years ago in an engineering industry magazine.
The Chinese Government Is Dominated by Scientists and Engineers Their political elite are largely technocrats.
By Patricia Eldridge 3 years ago
When Chinese Government comes to mind, what things do you generally think of?
Most of you would say The Great Wall, feng shui, their food, pandas, cheap products, communism, and martial arts, among others. All of these are valid observations, as China is indeed famous for such. But I’d like to add something to that list, a thing that is so rare that China has to be remembered for it: most of the political leaders in China are scientists and engineers.
To prove that fact, let us play a quick game. Name a scientist or an engineer from your country’s top government officials. Don’t cheat with Google, just think of someone that you already know.
Now I doubt that you have thought one especially if you’re in the U.S.
Nowhere in the world can you see the same admiration and respect from the public to their scientists and engineers other than in China. This is a little known fact. They admire such professionals so much to the point that they qualify these people to be worthy and capable in handling political affairs.
The Chinese people believe that scientists and engineers, who eventually become technocrats, have a highly disciplined mind fit for public office.
…
Read more: https://gineersnow.com/leadership/chinese-government-dominated-scientists-engineers
In my opinion this seductive offer of power is the real pulling power China has over Western academia. It is not just the shadowy grant money Chinese Communists provide to our elites, it is the promise of a future in which Western academics have greater say over government policy; the promise that if Western governments become more like China’s Communist Technocracy, academics will play a far greater role in civil government.
Those who are tempted by China’s seductive offer somehow overlook the fact that the offer of power is conditional on total obedience to the central authority. China did not hesitate to punish expert doctors who tried to warn the world about Covid. The local CCP leaders were upset when the doctors tried to speak out, because did not want anyone to know they had a problem.
To be fair, Professor Shearman does not mention China directly, and glancing through his writing, he is not a fan of China’s greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on coal. But in my opinion, a Chinese style Technocracy is effectively what Professor Shearman is describing, whether or not he is self aware enough to realise what he is saying.
Professor Shearman does not explain what he would want to happen, when ordinary people rebel against and refuse to follow “expert” directives, like the massive ongoing protests against vaccine mandates, or the yellow vest riots against carbon tax fuel hikes in France. I’m guessing Professor Shearman would want the views of his panels of peer appointed experts to prevail over the short sighted desires of the uneducated masses.
We’ve seen what happens in China when ordinary people object to government directives, or to ordinary people in China who demand a greater say over government policy.
Frankly I don’t want to live under such a system. We’ve all seen the bullying, pettiness and mindless cruelty of Western academic elites, like the mistreatment of Peter Ridd, and countless other cases.
Imagine if these people had a bigger say over your life? Imagine if the vicious internal politics of academia spilled out of universities and was inflicted on the whole of society? Imagine if these people were permanently put in charge of major levers of government like the EPA. Imagine if elected politicians were stripped of the power to remove them? Imagine if say the next US government was stripped of the power to remove people like Dr. Fauci from office?
Because that is what life is like in Communist China. That is effectively what Professor Shearman is calling for.
Thanks but no thanks, Professor Shearman.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This has always been the way in China – except that now they select their ‘crats partially on technical ability, rather than their deep knowledge of Confucian philosophy. (Partially, as the major criteria has always been their absolute adherence to the regime, whether it is led by an Emperor or a General Secretary.)
One doesn’t have to particularly look at Red China, though. The Soviets had the same problem. Right at home, the engineer Hoover did some good things before being elected President – but the blame for the start of the Great Depression can be laid squarely at his feet. (Deepened and lengthened by FDR’s “experts,” of course, but Hoover’s reaction turned what would have been a normal short panic into a major crisis.)
Yeah, great vacuum cleaners though.
Now that really sucks
Where did you get your crystal ball? I’d like to buy one for myself.
No crystal ball needed. Just hind sight.
He is speculating on what would have happened had Hoover not done what he did. There is no control on the ‘experiment.’ That is, he is offering a personal opinion as though it were fact. That is why I inferred that it was ‘crystal balling.’
In the US Eisenhower was right. After the military complex, then comes academia.
It is time to pull tax exemptions and plain out start shutting down useless government agency’s.
This country is broke. A bunch of unemployed academia and goverment workers might solve the labour shortage, the Mac Donald career track any way.
On the other side of the atlantic, the English can burn Oxford’s furniture to heat their homes.
How far will this all go…..
I’d prefer to shut down useless grocer’s apostrophes in the short term
The English can burn Oxford’s furniture to heat their homes.
They consider wood pellets to be “green”
for England’s Drax power plant
So I guess burning wood furniture would be “green” too.
Maybe they will paint coal green next, and say they
are burning “green coal”.
No act of insanity can be ruled out. In June of 2008, after the Second Reading of the Climate Act Bill, only five House of Commons members voted nay: Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Peter Lilley, Andrew Tyrie, and Ann Widdecombe.That’s five sane people in the House of Commons out of a total 650 members. In other words, 645 MPs were barmy in the crumpet.
Thanks for this observation DT.
I had exactly the same thoughts as I read Eric’s article.
Post WW2, Eisenhower had become increasingly alarmed at how academics & scientists were being installed as the font of all knowledge by politicians and their bureaucrats, eager to delegate policy to “experts”, so that the politicians & bureaucrats could not be blamed for stuff-ups. Abdication of leadership and responsibility by elected representatives was becoming endemic.
As is human nature, when someone in authority delegates total power to an underling, that underling comes to conclude that the boss is an idiot who knows sfa, and therefore his authority ought to be usurped. By the underling of course.
Don’t agree with me?
Just take a look around the world today and see who are calling the shots on just about every aspect of modern society.
And who do the media automatically call for a comment on anything?
Not the person who has has delivered outstandingly successful lifetime achievements in that particular field, but instead Professor So&so from Buttcrack University who is always good for a few sentences supporting the media narrative.
Shearman should get another jab.
Problem solved.
Next.
Shearing sheep?
We are now expected to respect the advice of an :expert” on climate science matters, even though he is a medical doctor and not a trained and published climate scientist.
Apparently. Everybody is a climate expert.
I guess being ‘on the right side of history’ is central in making one an expert
I only accept the expert advice of those that agree with me.
If they don’t agree with me how can they be experts; how can they be experts if they don’t agree with me?
either way … no pudding.
Unless they’re a Republican
Everyone has a belly button and an opinion about the climate. They are both equally valuable. About the only real use is for both to be pierced.
Two words, that I can think of right off the bat, which I immediately assign to the trash file in my mind…”expert and scientist”. Oh, then there is “politician”, doctor is headed that way as well.
9 out of 10 doctor’s recommend whatever the adman is selling today.
Pierre F. Goodrich often gave a copy of Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” to friends and associates, also included the following introduction.
What are the foundations of our beliefs and actions? History has built the civilization we enjoy by accumulating small pebbles of wisdom based upon experience. Every once in a while, some misguided action tears down years or centuries of progress by ignoring or misunderstanding the basic truths that underlie all that has gone before.
Last stanza –
A flock of geese is a gaggle. A collection of crows, a murder. Lions, a pride. But a collection of experts make up a fiasco.
Spot on. I don’t believe thermodynamics or heat transfer courses were a pre-requisite for medical study. After a quick review of his website, I certainly hope he is a better physician than artist, though I have my doubts.
About as close as he got was being required to remember the number “98.6,” or “37.0” in Australia.
If he’s as good an artist as Hunter Biden, he should be able to sell his art for 100’s of thousands of dollars.
Hunter will invest those $100Ks in a hot dog and some fries.
Lack of credentials only matters when one is disagreeing with the self anointed elite.
Mann for President!
Mann for Worst Climate Liar in the World.
Those lies and his unwavering consistency are the making of his career.
I’m sure that moron is fully convinced that he is the best Mann for the job.
What could possibly go wrong? It worked perfectly well for Stalin.
The Gulags were full of them, people who new what they were talking about, I mean.
Not enough of them were sent to the gulags. Some were actually listened to. Millions died as a result. My grandfather documented and published it, and spent 16 years in Lubyanka for his troubles.
Yes, it did. Lysenkoism was responsible for the starvation deaths of up to 45 million Chinese people between 1959 and 1961, and in the process of destroying Russian agriculture, he caused the deaths of over 7 million Russians. A mere nothing, you know. Fewer mouths to feed. y’see.
Biden may not be able to break that 45 million mark, but he’s working on starving 25 million Afghans, so he’s in the ball park.
Afghanistan needs $220 million a month to be able to feed the starving, after the abrupt withdrawal of the U.S. under Biden, which has caused the Afghan economy to collapse. Biden should be paying this money. The Taliban say they will allow private groups complete freedom to distribute this food.
Are you going to let them starve, Joe? Answer: Yes.
So how would not going there to start with have worked out ?
Don’t get me wrong as I’m the first to say that Brandon’s Afghanistan exit was horribly mismanaged, but the reason that the Afghan economy has collapsed has more to do with outside investment drying up as outside investors and wealthy returning expats are no longer willing to invest in Afghanistan as their government is not providing stability and protection of ownership. That’s their fault, no country has been able to do nation building in Afghanistan. It’s a humanitarian disaster, but no outside country can prop them up indefinitely.
The collapse of the Afghan government is also a direct result of how Brandon abandoned the country.
Guidance from experts instead of elected officials in the USA at least isn’t a pretty sight. David Sherman in Australia has become inured to it apparently.
“… many of the problems we now confront are so complex and urgent as to be beyond the comprehension and abilities of elected officials.”
Indeed, and it has been ever thus. It is also true, however, that the urgent problems are beyond the ken of supercilious self-proclaimed “experts” like Professor Emeritus David Shearman, a political hack if there ever was one.
I challenge the “expert” doctor to a debate on the “climate change emergency”. Let’s test his comprehension and abilities. Display your alleged wisdom first, Doc, before we turn over the reins of government to you and your ilk.
Democracy may be flawed. Oafs and dunces are frequently elected. They can be peacefully recalled and replaced, though. A dictatorship of prats would require a non-peaceful resolution, as history so amply demonstrates.
What these plonkers fail to understand is that when scientists vote, their voting decisions are no less political – ie, driven by self interest – than anyone else’s.
“Display your alleged wisdom first, Doc, before we turn over the reins of government to you and your ilk.”
Good idea!
I can think of at least one oaf/dunce who made a good president. Politics, like business, is more about common sense, hard work, and perseverance than it is about book smarts.
You don’t understand, the experts have spoken, so debate is meaningless.
At least that’s what he has been taught to believe.
Does he get a uniform? I understand there’s an Aussie cartoonist with a few in his closet
A real weakness of Dr Shearman’s idea is who selects the ‘peers’ to decide which scientist or engineers make the decisions?
The elite, who else?
No, worse, not the ‘elite’, they themselves. An autoselectocracy.
David Shearman (AM, Ph.D., FRACP, FRCPE) is a professor of medicine
Pompous twonk likely knows nothing about climate except how it can be used to push the watermelons agenda
Gawd! Don’t ask his opinion on the Peking Pox
I doubt he knows anything about politics or economics, either.
Or engineering. Or the history of countries without democratic representation.
He’s right about some things being beyond the comprehension of some of our politicians. They are regularly fooled by panels of unelected scientists and activists
As an engineer I must say that the concept of government by engineers is the stuff if nightmares. Unless, of course, it’s me in charge … But that should give the rest of you nightmares.
It’s this engineer’s dream!
I feel your pain Patrick 🙂
I don’t think he’s talking about engineers, you know, people who actually do things. I think he’s talking about academic ‘experts’, you know, people who waffle on endlessly about things they don’t understand, and expect engineers to implement their idiotic ideas.
People like Mann, Lewinsky and Cook, for example… Now that’s the real nightmare he’s describing.
Lewinsky was Bill Clinton’s associate who “smoked” Bill’s cigar.
Lewandowski is Cook’s associate.
You’re not suggesting that Lewandowski has “smoked” Cook’s cigar, are you Ziggy?
Ooooops!
Close enough for Climate Scientology, though…
Iain McGilchrist shows that people who think mostly with their left brains are unable to apply context. They will believe any old crap as long as it is logically self consistent. You could look at the Wikipedia page about him, or here’s a link to a TED Talk. It’s less than twelve minutes long and well worth watching.
Somewhere in his writings or many hours of youtube talks, he points out that engineers are over-represented in the ranks of religious fanatics. (I would nuance that as people with engineering training but with little experience. I would say that experienced engineers are rather good at context.)
People who live excessively in their left brains lack the insight to realize that their brilliant plans are likely to have unintended consequences and those would be much worse than the problem the brilliant plan was trying to fix.
A government run by experts is almost guaranteed to fail.
I would love to know how he defines a “religious fanactic” and whether that definition excludes himself.
For many people I’ve known a religious fanatic is anyone who fails to stop believing in God, when the self described elite tells them that there is no God.
I’ve made the same observation myself about Islamic terrorists.
McGilchrist is definitely pro-religion.
Once you understand McGilchrist, it’s obvious that the Democrats are the party of whacko ideas that can’t possibly work along with the unintended consequences that are way worse than whatever they were trying to fix in the first place.
Engineers are normally too pragmatic and rational to be part of the celebrity election process. Politicians don’t want an engineering analysis of their campaign promises…but they do want engineer’s reports after the election, to explain to the populace why the campaign promises aren’t feasible…to a politician, engineers and economists have the same mentality, while engineers and economists look at each other and say “you have no idea what I’m talking about”. They both consider politicians to be voter-popular used-car salesmen…..
China has 9 out of 10 of their leadership with technical degrees. This doesn’t mean they are experienced, just good at science subjects and couldn’t find a tech job…although it should mean they were good in school. Here, running for office doesn’t require “smart in school”…”dreamy TV eyes” are good enough….
In China like most autocracies, getting into a “good” school has more to do with who you know, than what you know. The same with the grades you receive while in that “good” school. Most of them never expected to get a job in their field of study and expected to go directly into management or government right out of school.
Strangely, no one has mentioned the ‘success’ of Jimmy Carter.
I once held to the opinion that we needed technocrats to govern a technologically advanced society. Carter changed my mind. I think a better choice is someone like Reagan, who knew his limitations, and reportedly surrounded himself with competent advisors. Wisdom is more valuable in a leader than technical knowledge.
Professor Emeritus David Shearman wrote:
“In the U.S., there are 109 members of the House of Representatives and 30 senators who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change.”
My response:
There is NO real global warming crisis. Anti-CO2 mania is utterly false – the prattling of scoundrels and imbeciles.
Selected political and scientific papers
SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 20, 2021, Update November 8, 2021
http://correctpredictions.ca/
CLIMATE CHANGE, COVID-19, AND THE GREAT RESET
A Climate, Energy and Covid Primer for Politicians and Media
By Allan M.R. MacRae, Published March 21, 2021, Update 1e published May 8, 2021
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/climate-change-covid-19-and-the-great-reset-update-1e-readonly.docx
THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., January 10, 2020
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.pdf
I wonder how many doctors refused to believe the consensus of the medical community that ulcers were caused by stress, and instead thought it may have something to do with a bacterial infection. Clearly, those ‘stress deniers’ should have had their funding cut. Obvious waste of money.
Professor Emeritus David Shearman: Prove your case. Present us with the overwhelming evidence which you claim supports your position. Without such evidence your position has no greater value than any other. It’s no good asserting that the evidence is overwhelming, you have to present the evidence and demonstrate that it is indeed overwhelming. That’s how science works in the end. Science does not work by consensus or popular opinion, it always works eventually by evidence.
In the case of global warming, it is not sufficient to show that the planet is warming because the planet has warmed countless times before. You have to show that the warming is caused predominantly by man-made greenhouse gases, and you have to show that its effects really are seriously dangerous for humanity.
If you wish to present your case here, then most readers here will give it full and proper attention. If you cannot present your case then by definition you have no case. It’s up to you.
Doctors for the Environment Australia is just another wacko Green group here in Aus, just ignore. You wouldn’t want one as you medico
Yes.This idiot is not worth the time of day.
Shearman- sheermoron
” You have to show that the warming is caused predominantly by man-made greenhouse gases, and you have to show that its effects really are seriously dangerous for humanity.’
You don’t have to show the cause of warming.
That can remain as “we don’t know”
You have to accurately describe the actual warming in the past 100 years.
Which means showing it was beneficial not harmful to anyone
You have to honestly discuss wrong predictions
of future climate change doom
that i trace back to the late 1950s
Then you have to compare climate reality (real good news)
with climate predictions (imaginary bad news).
There are no experts on the future climate
There are no data for the future climate (or future anything else)
Just unproven theories and always wrong predictions of doom.
There is no real science when there are no data( for the future), and
a history of wrong climate predictions. That’s climate astrology..
To be fair to the good doctor, Australia probably won’t be improved much by getting any warmer.
“Climate denial”! Ha ha ha
I wonder if this guy is a useful idiot regurgitating woke propaganda or is he flying a trial balloon to see if people in Western democracies have been sufficiently conditioned to turn over authority to the elite Kleptocrats and their technocrat minions waiting in the wings. One sad human traits which has been heavily favoured by unnatural selection over the few thousand years of civilisation is a willingness to say and do whatever authority expects (as per Stanley Milgren). Obeisance to authority is much, much more common than commitment to the scientific method.
No he has been saying this kind of thing for well over a decade. His obsession appears to be the carbon demon.
His obsession then deserves a diagnosis. I suggest that a new one be coined, “CCDS…Climate Change Delusion Syndrome”. Hey, it worked for the Trump thing by identifying those who are truly delusional re: PDJT.
Chinese technocrats appear not to consider that human caused global warming is a sufficient threat to take the measures proposed by western governments.
No need to. They’ve already got what they want.
China, India, Africa and every undeveloped nation
could not care less about Nut Zero and the Green New Ordeal.
A few nations have their hands out
asking for green slush fund money.
I’ve requested one million dollars for myself
Although I’d be willing to settle for $50,000,
or even $89 of free green money
China makes some meaningless CO2 virtue signalling
so they can keep selling their solar panels to the West,
built by slave labor, using cheap coal energy
for the electricity, that other nations can’t
compete with.
Western fools, I mean politicians,
are afraid to question China,
fearing China will stop
promising to stop increasing
CO2 emissions after 2030,
which they were never
going to do anyway.
The Road to Serfdom.
The good Prof. did not mention China, as China and Russia did not make fools of themselves at COP26. There paraded Prince Charles, organizer, and Marc Carney who made it perfectly clear who’s in charge. Not scientists, not China, but the banking system.
GFANZ, the Glasgow Finance Alliance for NetZero made explicitly clear who decides what to invest in.
China and Russia are not submitting to this bankers dictatorship and are standing in the way of this Club of Democracies (Biden’s gig).
Time for the EU and USA to stand together with China, Russia and India and derail this bankers train-wreck.
You can see why bankers like Net Zero. They make their money issuing debt, and paying to replace fossil fuels will require unfeasible amounts of it.
Great progress has been made under SS Biden. LNG is now green and USA will surpass Australia as the largest LNG exporter in 2022.
Nuclear power is now declared green as well.
I expect we are not far off seeing green coal being declared such. Probably need a few people to freeze to death for that to happen but that could be within a few days. In fact may already be happening now as the big freeze in the NH sets in.
When climate scientists can label any weather event evidence of Climate Change, it is no challenge to label any carbon based fuel green. It will be whatever they want it to be.
Linking climate change with covid is a risky move in my opinion. If the covid “science” goes down as a public health catastrophe, then climate science will be tarnished as a result.
No need to link:
two boogeymen scare more people than one
I think it’s no coincidence that the same people pushing climate hysteria are also telling everyone to lose their minds over Covid.
“If the covid “science” goes down as a public health catastrophe, then climate science will be tarnished as a result.”
I think that has already happened. The public is seeing that science isn’t as certain as some people want to make it out to be, and they start off questioning the remedies for the Wuhan virus because this imposes restrictions on their lives, and along comes climate change to impose more restrictions on their lives based on what is now questionable science.
“The public is seeing that science isn’t as certain as some people want to make it out to be”
Possibly the one good thing to come out of the last couple years.
If the hundreds of failed predictions hasn’t tarnished the reputation of climate science, then nothing will.
You have missed a really big one, prof. Let us assume that the Chinese leadership are really technocrats. This would mean that they value results of natural sciences above speculations of humanists that actually govern over the climate change debate in the West. It therefore follows that they know that US and EU climate change mania has no basis in science, it is just ideology. Therefore, they know that they need not do anything radical about it. And they aren’t. Oh, they occasionally make polite noises about reducing their emissions – with stated goals (as relative as the are) so far in the future that all these technocrats will be dead before the time comes. However, these statements of virtue signaling for Western audiences (which are always touted as revolutionary by the same professors) “encourage” the West to continue buying PF panels, light rare earth electric motors, etc. from the same Chinese.
To wit, professor, if the Chinese really are governed by technocrats, enacting suicidal “net zero” policies will be the last thing they do.
Come to think of it, I really would not mind if the ruling elites of EU were a bit technocratic.
miso
Just think of Mickey Mann as secretary for energy and be cured of such a ludicrous idea forever.
Never confuse a practising engineer with an academic.
Academics do not pay for their mistakes with the collapse of their unversuities.
Whether the universities collapse or not will depend on whether they can convince the politicians to keep sending lots of Other People’s Money (OPM).