The Week That Was newsletter of September 25th 2021 – see www.sepp.org … and provides some news from the UN before plunging into a recent paper by Richard Lindzen, a professor emeritus of atmospheric science, MIT. It has the title, 'The Imaginary Crisis – How can we Change the Message?'. It asks why certain political leaders are prepared to sacrifice the financial prosperity of others in order to fight a threat that has no physical basis in reality and assert that the UN, which was formed as a hope for humanity has become a tool to oppress humanity. Strong stuff. It ends by claiming the media are complicit [presumably in the West] in suppressing scientific enquiry.
He starts by saying sceptics have failed to get their message across. Why is this? Climate alarmism is absurd – so why has it been successful? Most people can't believe that anything so absurd could have gained such universal acceptance, especially by the great and the good [and the not so good]. He likens the way the UN has reacted to a very small shift in warming to a doctor who finds one of his patients has a slightly increased temperature of the forehead and places his patient on a life support machine. The government response is over the top, he says, as temperatures have increased slightly. He then strikes a parallel with a paper he wrote 25 years ago. In the 1920s there was also an absurdity, eugenics. Is the UN trying to block an epidemic of feeble mindedness? This resulted in programmes promoting eugenics, in order to improve the human race, in the US. Like climate change, important numbers of the elite were in favour of eugenics, including the likes of Theodor Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, and the Bishop of Ripon etc. The supporters, who included technically savvy people, but they were not experts on genetics. He says the elites are always searching for ways to advertise their virtue. The media play up to them. The elites are also looking for the authority they think they deserve. They view science as a source of authority rather than a process, and so on. At the time, novelist and physical chemist CP Snow, said many literate people do not understand science. Or the scientific method. They are offended when this ignorance is demonstrated. Lindzen adds to this – the group CP Snow had in mind are actually aware of their scientific ignorance, and this leaves them insecure. This, he thinks, leads to a need for a simple explanation – no matter if it is wrong. It allows them to 'believe' they do 'understand', even though they are being laughed at behind their backs by ordinary people. It allows them to escalate their natural pomposity and arrogance. They seem quite proud of their accomplishment – even if it is absurd.
He continues by saying the role of sceptics should be in highlighting the overall stupidity of the science of climate change, rather than showcasing their personal specialisations. We have to capitalise on the insanity of the educated elite and make them look silly instead of superior, posh, and virtuous. WEe must remember they are impervious to real science unless it descends to their level, sound bites. We sceptics must stop treating proponents of global warming as worthy opponents. Do not ascribe to reasonableness. It is simply not true nor plausible.