An unprincipled university professor whom I knew was once asked why he became a liberal in politics. His reply: "I noticed that liberals were winning most of the elections, and I decided that it was best to be on the winning side.'' There are deeper reasons for much of the anti-technology trend in academia, but trend following is a strong contributing factor. Lacking personal courage and ability to succeed as individuals, many academics simply ride the trends of opinion currently popular at the university - a ride leading to tenure, an easy life, popularity in their immediate circle, and an illusion of popularity outside that circle. Lately, the global warmers in this crowd have been riding two trends. The first is their usual mindless antitechnology bias, which demonizes, among others, the petrochemical industry and its utilization of coal, oil, and natural gas. This is so trendy in academic circles that being without it is almost the equivalent of being without clothing.
During the oil embargo, when fuel prices suddenly increased and supplies
were limited, the antitechnologists called for the rationing of coal, oil, and natural gas on the grounds that the world supply was running out. Inconveniently, the embargo ended, a glut ensued, and real prices have been trending downward ever since. Estimated world reserves are now sufficient for over 1,000 years.
Next, the antitechnologists turned to global cooling - the result, they assured us, of human burning of coal, oil, and natural gas. This time rationing was required to avoid a man-made ice age and the environmental destruction of the planet. As shown in figure 1, a cooling trend was in progress - providing that one ignored the data before 1940. This trend was bottoming in the 1970s when "global cooling'' became popular.
The coolers overstayed the trend. As the bottom formed, however, they changed positions. Now, global warming was the problem - a trend requiring immediate rationing of coal, oil, and natural gas in order to avoid man-made global environmental catastrophe.
Alas, this warming trend ended in about 1980. By the time they organized the first IPCC meeting in 1988, world temperatures were entering a new cooling trend. With help from the United Nations and lots of self-interested fellow travelers on board, however, it was too late to stop the railroad. Cooling throughout the 80s and 90s slowed warmers' progress, but gradually their propaganda machine has built a worry about "global warming'' in the public mind. Now, the members of this mindless cult are dutifully anticipating the long awaited
"greenhouse signal.'' Since, of course, the earth's temperature fluctuates up and down, their "signal'' will eventually arrive. Armed with huge federal research grants to study "climate change,'' they are planning to spot the trend reversal immediately.
In the meantime, their critics are to be kept at bay by another trend which may be called "consensus science.'' The idea here is that natural truth is decided by consensus rather than the scientific method -experimental measurement and rational thought. Moreover, it is not necessary for a consensus to exist. It is only necessary to create the illusion of one in the public mind.
On the current Microsoft Weather web site, a warmer claims that "contrarians [scientists who disagree with the warmers] are outnumbered by about 2,000 to 20. The 2,000 is the number of scientists, experts and government officials . . . '' who participated in the UN
IPCC global warming extravaganza. Never mind that only 78 of these people wrote the IPCC report and that even their offering needed to be carefully edited and modified before it hinted at support for the warmers.
Pictured here, however, is another trend that is definitely not the warmers' friend. Most scientists have been silent on this issue. They are involved in other pursuits and, moreover, speaking up has led to marginalization by the warmers' propaganda machine as a "crackpot'' or a shill for the oil industry.
Now the Petition Project described last month is giving scientists and engineers a method of expressing themselves on this issue - which involves
concepts and data that are easily understood and evaluated by anyone with formal technical training. The claim of a consensus is more discredited each day.Based on current estimates, the first phase of the Petition Project will probably garner between 5,000 and 10,000 signatures. This number must rise much higher. It already exceeds the warmers' claimed 2,000, but we must realize that the warmers have had a free ride for several years during which, according to polls, they have convinced about 65% of Americans. Overwhelming opposition is needed.
So far, the Petition Project has been funded and staffed entirely by private donations and volunteers. It is in need of substantial donations to pay the printing and mailing costs required to mail this appeal to many more scientists and engineers.
Please help.At present, the warmers are winning. They say that the sky is falling, that their goal is to keep it from falling, and that their opponents are greedy capitalists who are willing to let it fall if they can profit. The Petition Project destroys their underlying claim that most scientists agree that the sky is falling. Without that premise, the warmers will lose. To cause that loss, the trend shown here must be continued.
|
|
Vol. 25, No. 7
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 25, No. 7 Date: March 01, 1998 05:22 PM Title: Trend Followers
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|