I remain unconvinced of the crisis of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. And even more skeptical that government is the solution.
If I could ask one question of all "climate activists", this would be the question I'd ask:
"If you could get everything you wanted-- if you had the political power to impose your every wish on the whole world-- what would you do to fix it?"
I really want to know. Wouldn't you like to get them to answer that?
Then please ask them, wherever you encounter them. Let's get their agenda out in the open.
I already asked one such activist, in the comments to that TED talk linked above, and someone else (who I suppose considers herself a "climate activist", too) answered.
Here's what she said:
"I would teach the physicists what they are misunderstanding. Then together we would re-educate the world. All current methods of heating and powering transport would then be replaced. The earth could thereafter be rehabilitated."
Hmmm. Seems a little fuzzy to me, heavily reliant on "and then a miracle occurs". And a bit arrogant. So I asked for some clarification:
"What are physicists misunderstanding? How do you know the misunderstanding is theirs? Do you have an adequate replacement energy source available and ready today? Have you considered possible unintended consequences?"
Her response:
"Are you a physicist?
There is no unified theory as yet. I am not an engineer, my expertise is in theoretical physics - universal law, natural science and philosophy. The world will not solve its climate issues - and all other issues, medical etc, - until we are all working from a unified theory of fundamental physics. Once science based on one unified theory is being taught in all schools, it will not take everyone long to develop new technology based upon it.
However, as I do not know what the possible unintended consequences are, - and I think that is a very good question, I would like to talk to a few physicists first. However, we really don’t have a choice."
So I replied:
"I am not a physicist. So, are you referring to a Grand Unified Theory ("GUT") as a way to know how to solve the problem of an adequate replacement power source? If a GUT is discovered it would significantly improve scientific understanding and open all sorts of new possibilities. I'd love to see that happen. But what do you propose in the meantime?"
Here was her response:
"Yes, I am referring to a Grand Unified Theory. It has already been 'discovered' - (it actually had to be learnt). Knowledge of it by someone, however, doesn’t mean that suddenly everyone will understand everything. It is a vastly more complex situation than this. If it was as simple as just a couple of small things that everyone was missing, it wouldn’t be so great a problem.
There is no 'meantime.'"
Wait. I thought she said "There is no unified theory as yet", but now she says there is? So, I replied:
"I wasn't aware anyone had discovered/learned a Grand Unified Theory. (Could you direct me to somewhere I can learn about it? I keep coming up empty. Everything I find refers to it as a theory without experimental confirmation.) Why hasn't this knowledge been implemented in new technologies to generate power?
What I mean by 'meantime' is what to do until everyone learns of the GUT and incorporates that knowledge into the technology they develop and use. How do you get the word out in a useable way? Will the GUT be enough, or will a Unified Field Theory/"Theory of Everything" be necessary to really make the difference?"
She replied:
"I’m sorry, but explaining the theory to just one person at a time is inefficient. We do not have time to do it this way. (if you wish to contact me, however, that is fine)
It is especially inefficient to waste my time by calling a “unified theory of everything” different names.
I described exactly how I would get the word out in a usable way. First, I would teach the physicists what they are misunderstanding. Then together we would re-educate the world. All current methods of heating and powering transport would then be replaced. The earth could thereafter be rehabilitated.
I then explained that there was no unified theory being taught mainstream as yet. I then said that the world will not solve its climate issues - and all other issues, medical etc, - until we are all working from a unified theory of fundamental physics. And then I said “Once science based on one unified theory is being taught in all schools, it will not take everyone long to develop new technology based upon it.”
So, no, there isn’t anywhere yet that you can learn from me, because I cannot find anyone yet in the field of physics to discuss this with me, one-on-one and in detail, and learn from me.
I am barely able to keep up with incorrect theory because different fields of science have their own jargon that changes by the minute. We can solve this together. We must have a common language for describing how the world works, otherwise we will always argue and not solve anything.
I will keep working, however, on my own, and if I can, I will teach on my own, regardless. That is what I am doing “meantime.” I am really frustrated with this situation because, given help, I could turn this climate change problem around tomorrow."
It's interesting to me that someone who wants to teach physicists what they are misunderstanding doesn't realize that "Grand Unified Theory" and "Unified Field Theory" are different things. And I had such hopes for a solution.
Anyway, I closed with:
"It sounds like you should start a website where you explain it all in detail, then spread it around and let it be shared among the population and physicists. Much more efficient than explaining it one person at a time."
If nothing else, it would be good for a laugh. But, no. She can't do that:
"No, it is far too complex to do it this way; many have tried.
I would effectively have to rewrite the dictionary. There are too many concepts about such basic fundamentals starting with electricity, magnetism and polarization, for example, that need to be taught properly. And that is just the start. I don’t have time for that. It would be better if someone in the field of physics would listen to me. I think a 'top-down' approach would be better."
Too complex, she doesn't have time, and if only physicists would listen to her explain her perpetual motion generator or whatnot she could change the world. Or maybe she is delusional and that's why no physicist will listen to her. Which explanation seems more likely?
It was probably unkind of me to play her for so long. But if this is representative of those who believe in AGCC (which I doubt it is) then their only hope is to have their woo-woo imposed by the State.
If you can't get the change you want voluntarily, by making a good argument and convincing people, you go for the "top-down approach" like any other bully would.
I think this shows she has no clue what to do, beyond imagining she has special information.
But, really, ask other "climate activists" the question and see where it leads.
(My other "climate change" skepticism posts can be found here.)
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
I hope I add something valuable. If so... Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
Find me on Patreon
