We talked many times of the expansion effect. A small core of experts, real and true great (or at least good) minds on some subject, are injected by design with an influx of newcomers. For instance, because of Diversity quotas or because of the curious (and false) idea everybody should receive a college education, thus the need for more professors.
It is then necessarily true that the average intellectual output of this expanded set of experts decreases. The newcomers are dumber by definition, thus average quality must decrease, even if the output of the top minds remains stellar.
But then the output of the top minds doesn’t remain stellar. They are soon bogged down by the mass of lesser minds, who now have to be managed, and who (if you will) contaminate the better minds with bad ideas.
The lesser minds, being greater in number, and most organizations increasingly run like democracies, soon occupy positions of authority. Then everything becomes political, because politics are easier than real science.
Which brings us to climate science. The expansion effect does not, of course, fully explain the extraordinary rapid decrease in quality, there is also mass activism and our new environmental religion, but expansion surely accounts for a good chunk of it.
Enter the new paper in Oxford University Press journal BioScience, “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency”, by Ripple and others.
Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.
There is no “climate emergency”. The statement is purely political.
A true “climate emergency” can be defined in a scientific way, such as great confidence that the global temperature will soar to Venus-like levels. No such confidence in any similar statement exists.
Even the best forecasts have proven to be too hot, and the confidence in average forecasts is low, and does not even reach, in many cases, the criterion of skill. Meaning you would do better by saying next year will be like this year, than you would by using the world’s top models.
And then we have media forecasts which promise and promise and promise doom that never arrives. Never mind: what counts are the forecasts, which are take as evidence that the doom has happened.
In any case, “climate emergency” is purely political. You might have thought, as you looked out your window, that things weren’t so bad outside, weather wise. But if so, then you wouldn’t see the need to “do something!” And since doing something is the goal of the “climate emergency”, you must be made to believe conditions are worse than your lying eyes are telling you.
Proof of the expansion effect is in the list of signatories, most of which (a glance through shows) are from universities and similar institutions from scientists of every stripe, astronomers to zoo keepers (yes). The good climate scientists, of which there must still be some, are overwhelmed by the mob.
Proof of the degradation in quality of science is provided in the graphs Ripple et al. provide. All of which are without any indication of uncertainty, and all of which reify a statistical model above Reality. The first shows population increasing, but then another is the per-capita increase in meat production, which increases at a goodly rate. A normal person would see this as a good thing, because it means meat, the healthiest food there is, is now cheaper and more accessible.
As population increases, so do things like air travel, but showing air travel increases is itself not a separate indication of climate change. It’s just a proxy for population change. Yes, more CO2 is emitted, but that itself is not everywhere bad, and is often good, many plants being CO2 limited. How do scientists forget that almost all of a plant’s mass, trees includes, comes from the air (including water)?
The most inept graph is the last, the annual losses claimed due to weather. This increases, very roughly. Of course it does! Population is increasing! Costs of homes is increasing! Therefore necessarily the costs of losses must increase!
Why didn’t they do per-capita losses here? Because, I suspect, it would show a decrease.
Here’s the key to all this, which they put last and emphasized:
…the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity. There are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies make family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women.
Now I ask you (again) how in the unholy hell did we move from “climate emergency” to “human rights” and “full gender equity…especially for girls and young women”?
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here