ON CLIMATE CHANGE AS JUMPING THE SHARK IN PSEUDOSCIENCE. I was involved with the

ON CLIMATE CHANGE AS JUMPING THE SHARK IN PSEUDOSCIENCE.

I was involved with the people behind the greenhouse gas movement very early on, in an intimate capacity, and as an investor, and my assessment was that it was an excuse to expand bureucratic power over the economy by the calibre of people we find in government and volunteerism: not very good. (I can name names so to speak.) It was this arrangement under which the Clinton Foundation managed to misrepresent themselves, and steal from me $2M USD.

I pulled out of that industry when the data-manipulation went public in November of 2009(?), and that release killed almost all other financial interest in the sector as well. I was not alone.

Yes, we affect the climate. The question is whether it’s meaningful or not. I think it is very hard to make the case that it is meaningful. It is possibly hard to make the case that it is not beneficial – at least depending upon the solar-climate cycle.

The policy prescription is obvious: America needs 300 nuclear power plants, we have too many ‘warm’ appliances that do not need to be ‘warm’; Our commercial glass architecture has been a disaster and is the source of most waste heat, and industry is the primary user, yet we tell consumers and housewives and virtue-signaling idiots, that their micro efforts are meaningful when they’re irrelevant. and the developing world needs to stop breeding for two centuries.

The dishonesty of the academy and the bureaucracy, and the willing compliance of the media, all acting out of self-interest (demonstrating the will to power) created the skepticism, and they are now ‘paying for it’ and they caused the scientific community to ‘pay’ for it, possibly for a generation or two.

We have had a century of pseudoscience in the social sciences thanks to Boaz and Marx. We had more than a century of Freudian pseudoscience. We have had at least half of the economics profession engage in pseudoscience in the sense that they are defining the limits of deception, not the properties of human cooperation, or the means of institutional improvement of information necessary for trustworthy planning and forecasting – thanks to the keynesian restatement of marx. We have had a century of dietary pseudoscience. We have had more than a century of statistical and probabalistic pseudoscience which is the cause of most public misrepresentation of poliitcal actions. We have had more than a century of cantorian mathematical platonism, which we can include as a pseudoscience – dooming generations to mathematical mysticism, and expanding mathematical illiteracy. We have had at least seventy years of educational pseudoscience at both the primary, secondary, and academy levels. We have had more than a century of logical pseudoscience, and the removal of grammar, logic, and rhetoric, as well as history from the cirriculums – the manufacture of ignorance. We have had almost a century of dietary supplement pseudoscience. I suspect that we will see much of the past sixty years in mathematical physics as pseudoscience as well since any theory so broadly tolerant is effectively meaningless. I mean the list is endless.

So as good ‘conservatives’ we are ‘punishing’ the industry as we should punish them, for their hubris, vanity, deciet, and fraud. Because that is what conservatives do: punish excesses.

Follow Judith. She’s the only one who publishes regularly that’s worth reading on this subject.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine.

PS: As ‘austrians’ it should trouble us more than others since it was Mises who stumbled upon operationalism in economics but was too authoritarian and pseudoscientific himself to grasp what he had found. And that is made worse by the fact that it is only in psychology economics and law and not in mathematics and physics where operationalism (intuitionism) provides useful dimensional criticism.