Meritocracy: Its Weaknesses and How to Improve It, a Lesson from Climate Alarm


In a Democratic Meritocracy, the role of voting has been loosely described as “the most qualified people voting on particular areas of government policy”.  One problem is that this can lead to a class of people who, expert in a field, say economics, vote for policies which favour themselves to the detriment of others.  The history of man has shown that you can never, ever, never ever, expect a system designed with good intentions to not eventually fall to corruption, cronyism, nepotism, and self-interest.  One day perhaps, when materialist self-interest is no longer the goal of a human life, then we could have a system like that because everyone will automatically vote for the best collective interest rather than self-interest, but we’re not near that type of mindset and the idea that instituting a system that requires that mindset will create it, is wrong.  It will simply fall to corruption, and quickly.

Paradigms can also become entrenched, and unresponsive to change.  Of course, if the structure of government was dialectical and people were actually educated as to what this means, then, paradigms would be less of a problem, but you’d still have the potential problem of self-interested voting on the part of the “expert class” in some particular field.  Just think about it: people of the mindset of a Wall Street capitalist would love nothing more than being the people who get to exclusively vote on economic matters!  Now we might not set up a Meritocracy with such people in control, however, such parasitism will always find its way in to the top, similar to how the Mafia would put its young people through police training and insert them into the police force and these people would rise to very high levels in the force.  The ingenuity of parasitism always finds a way to co-opt the ideal of true Merit.

One of the ideas behind Meritocracy is that expertise on particular subjects is only truly held within small portions of society, and so to have all people voting on subjects to which they have no knowledge, expertise, or clue, is damaging to democracy and the common good, rather than being good for it.  Of course, Plato recognized that the tyranny of the mob was an ever present danger, and that the uneducated mob could not be trusted with intelligently directing governmental policy.  Who in the mob today, for example, is calling for research or a national or global project into developing, say, fusion power?  Very few of us.

Really, people merely vote for who they’re presented with, rather than actually creating a voice and establishing a calling for a politician to come in and satisfy.  Take the case of Barack Obama: with literal billions of campaign dollars provided by the financial sector for slick advertising , and a simple catch phrase of “hopey changey”, Obama has done little besides help line the pockets of his rich buddies on Wall Street.

This is impeccable logic and is true, and I agree with it.  Stupid people don’t know what they’re doing, so why give them the vote on, say, whether we should develop fusion power?  The mob can simply be told “vote for me and you won’t have to work; hopey changey”, and they’ll vote for it.

Is Knowledge the only Problem?

However, knowledge and general stupidity isn’t really the problem.  If, for example, a supernova were about to go off in a nearby star that would wipe out this solar system, people would become very knowledgeable very quickly about what supernovas are, and what should be done about it. Similarly, when banking institutions start to fail and the government allows the bank to steal money from your bank account, people become very familiar and very knowledgeable in a short amount of time as to the structure of the bankster system and why it is that governments do everything that the private central and international banks tell them to do.

Yes, it would certainly be ideal to have a classes of experts for every major area of governance, who voted on policies always in the interest of the collective good.  Certainly we should want government to function this way.  The problem is that no one would ever trust such a class or any class of people to operate in such a way because all humans know just how weak they are, and all humans know how self-interested they are.  They simply don’t believe that incorruptible people exist.  And for good reason.

So, if we want a system of voting to prevent corruption, it is not just a simple “meritocracy” which we want, although that is certainly helpful and we certainly should appreciate the opinion of experts.  We need a modification.

Simulacra, or, Reality isn’t what You’ve been Told it is

But first, let us also examine the idea of “the expert”.  The ideal of “the expert” can just as easily be taken over by parasites as well.  The case of the police force provides an example:  the head of the Department on Organized Crime, the most expert person on the area of organized crime in the entire police division, is a lackey for the mafia.  An objection to be made is that, shouldn’t other real experts be able to identify the lackey and thus expose them?  Well, obviously not if the lackey does a really good job, or has support from lower level officers “in the know and in the pay”.

The basic concept being employed is called a “hyperreality”, or a simulacrum of reality, a philosophical insight developed by Jean Baudrillard, and it goes further than the example of the police division headed by the mafia.  The real truth is that you don’t actually have to be an expert on something at all, you only need to create the appearance of expertise on a subject.  Or in the case of politics, Barack Obama, who’s handlers only created the appearance of being a politician who cared about the people.   This might seem to be a weaker form of parasitism because if the “actor-expert” is only pretending to be an expert, then shouldn’t they be able to be exposed as void of expertise when queried by a real expert?

In general, yes, they are exposed.  However, often time such exposure no longer matters!  What if the actor-expert is really good at inspiring confidence?  What if they have billions of dollars available to advertise their (appearance of) expertise?  What if the criticisms of the actor-expert involve technical concepts that most people, perhaps even other real experts from related fields, simply don’t fully understand?  What if the actor-expert has inspired so much “religious zeal” that people simply fanatically ignore any criticisms?  What if the actor-expert is purposefully creating a simulacrum of the concepts involved in the field – i.e. purposefully lying about it?  What if the actor-expert is part of a network of actor-experts all working together to create a simulacrum of reality for their own purposes?  What if the actor-expert group has a well thought out play book that exploits every weakness of the human condition?

Humans are very taken by the appearance of confidence, and if a group of people pretend to be very confident about an idea, then a large number of people will believe and then support them entirely independent of whether or not the “confident group” is actually saying anything rational.  This support from followers then increases the appearance of confidence, which gains more followers.

An Actual Example of the Creation of a Simulacrum

A really good example of “actor-expert” high-jacking of reality is found in climate alarm.  There are thousands of examples of hyperreal simulacra being employed in climate alarm, but let’s just look at one:


That plot is a record of the geological history of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide.  What this record shows is that a rising change in temperature causes a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.  It shows that once the carbon dioxide level is increased, the temperature drops back down into an ice-age.

What Al Gore and other alarmists did, was to zoom way out on the plot so that you couldn’t see the difference between the temperature line and the carbon dioxide line, and then they just said that it was carbon dioxide which caused the rise in temperature.  What they specifically said was that “rising carbon dioxide has always been correlated with an increase in temperature”, which is technically correct but the way it is presented prompts the incorrect conclusion that rising carbon dioxide caused the rise in temperature.  The reverse was true.  This created a hyperreality, a simulacrum of reality.  The ruse is obviously very clever and indicates an actor-expert (group) who know they’re lying, a group that is purposefully creating a simulacra of reality.

The Problem of Sheople

Possibly they’re just dumb “liberals with a cause”, with lots of money, and no clue.  The problem is that all the conformist liberal sheople believe anything their confident idols tell them, they don’t have the expertise to even comprehend the ruse, and Al Gore has millions of dollars to advertise the appearance of expertise, and he looks and sounds very confident, and he’s on TV after-all.  It is also advertised as a “cause”, which inspires not just confidence but outright emotional fanaticism from the liberal sheople.

Of course, Al Gore stood to personally gain immense monetary wealth at the expense of poor people not being able to afford electricity, because he had set himself up as a major share holder of the carbon credit market which he helped create.  In answering criticisms of his luxurious private-jet lifestyle, he literally said that he was rich enough to buy carbon credits and therefore he could afford it without being in conflict!  In other words he admitted that poor people would be screwed out of cheap energy and would suffer the austerity created by him getting rich.  That the liberal sheople herd ignored this conflict of interest when it was an open fact proves just how powerful the appearance of confidence and manufactured “causes” can be, with the liberal sheople herd responding by transforming themselves from a class of people traditionally concerned with the welfare of the poorer classes, to being concerned with the health of rocks, dirt, water, and animals at the expense of the standard of living of the general welfare.  How many times did we see these “liberals” call for population reduction and mass poverty-creating austerity?  Who did they think they were going to depopulate and induce into poverty?  Rich people would be immune from the austerity.  Just look at the list of things that liberals wanted to do to other people, compiled near the end of this previous post.  One example:  “To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.”  – Lamont Cole, environmentalist and author.  Tell me, are the word’s starving children rich, or are they poor (and mostly black)?  Undoubtedly this fellow is a “liberal”.  Great people.

Also take the example of the “flat Earth models” which all go in to create the initiating assumption that sunlight isn’t hot enough to heat the surface of the Earth, which is an amazing thing for people to actually accept given that you can actually correctly use animal sense-perception to simply stand outside in the sunlight and feel its high temperature.  This too proves that the appearance of confidence and the appearance of expertise is actually far more important to people than any degree of truth or rationalism.  The assumption that Sunlight is freezing cold at -18C can only be created by treating the Earth as flat and with no day and night.  The defence of this position is to call it “averaging”, and because this is convenient for “the cause” and it appears to sound “technical”, then no rational analysis is ever given to it.

The average, of course, is not a flat Earth with no day and night, but in fact “the average” is a round Earth heated on only one hemisphere as a function of the cosine about the solar zenith.  The average is a round Earth heated on only one side…that’s the true average.  This actual average heat input to one side of the spherical planet has a temperature value of +49C, with a maximum at about +100C.

This obviously changes everything in regards to assuming that sunlight is too cold to heat anything and that the atmosphere must provide more energy to heat the surface of the Earth than the Sun provides, even though the atmosphere is not actually a source of energy.  But, people choose to go with the appearance of confidence rather than understanding what a physical unit actually represents, and what are the correct and incorrect ways to average it.  PhD’s in climate science suffer from this problem, let alone the sheople herd following along.  All of the -18C input models are simulacra, because by their mathematical definition of assuming a flat Earth, they do not represent anything real, but only a false simulation which creates a “cause”.


So the point is, a simple Meritocracy could be one of the easiest things of all time for a parasite class to infiltrate, and the simple reason for this is that most people are too unwary to be able to detect a manufactured simulacrum of expertise.  It actually isn’t just a matter of a people’s education, it is a matter of the human condition in general, because of how easy it is to distract people, trick people, and lead people, and that parasites seem to be ineradicable and ever present to exploit such “advantages”.  We already have real-world examples of how and precisely why a Meritocracy can fail miserably.  People will follow the appearance of expertise and they will follow it even if it means creating more starving children and letting more of them starve to death.  How would we protect the Meritocracy from simulacra, from the appearance of expertise, given that most humans are unable to recognize actual expertise?

Vote for Who?

The obvious problem which would need to be regulated is conflict of interest.  Just as unqualified people shouldn’t vote on subjects they know nothing about, no voting with conflict of interest is equally as important.  A Meritocracy in today’s world that didn’t prevent conflict of interest would almost immediately result in experts (or actor-experts) voting for their own self-interest.  An expert cannot vote on something which they are going to directly benefit from at the exclusion or expense of the general welfare.  It is obviously satisfactory if an expert votes on something which they will benefit from via the benefit of the general welfare.

As far as voting for people, it would be amazing if votes were for experts, rather than politicians.  Politicians generally aren’t expert on anything besides creating appearances and hounding for money with strings attached.  It makes no sense, none at all, why we vote for politicians.  And it makes no sense that money is so important for political campaigns.  Politicians are there only to create an appearance and the appearance they create is whatever it needs to be to get the money with strings attached.

Politicians and political campaign financing should both be removed from politics entirely.

I dare any non-parasite to disagree with that.

Of course, we’d still have the problem of actor-experts and an unwary sheople herd.  Yes, we can leave voting to the experts instead of to the non-experts, but of course, an entire organization of experts can become infiltrated.  An entire organization that’s pretending a complete fiction (but just slightly too complex to be detected by the sheople herd) and declaring themselves experts on it can also arise.  Real experts from related fields can criticize the fakers on their fictional area of expertise and their fictional science, but, then it simply becomes a confidence game and there’s little guarantee that the sheople herd will follow what is rationally true vs. what is emotionally riveting; in fact, that is the guarantee.

I would venture that the entire climate alarm fiasco was a stress-test, or perhaps more accurately a demonstration, of the potential failure points of Meritocracy.  If you want to make a study and case example of whether or not human society would actually benefit from Meritocracy, vs. if it would simply be taken over by the traditional powers that be for their own purposes, selling slavery to the masses while telling them it’s gold, then you couldn’t find any better material than in the Climate Alarm fiasco.  If I were looking in from the outside, I am not sure whether humanity passed the test.  (Well, I think we did, but barely.)  Yes, Meritocracy would be good for humanity under the right conditions, but those conditions do not currently exist.  The threat of hyperreal simulacra has proven too easy to use to lead humans to lies.

The Academy

Setting up a democratic meritocracy in today’s world with today’s type of people would be a complete and utter disaster for the people.  We need more than simply experts.  I hate to use the reference, but to make the point, what we need is a Jedi Academy to watch over a Meritocratic Republic.  Except we wouldn’t call it a “Jedi” Academy because then we’d be sued.

One example of something approaching the idea of an “Academy” is Lyndon LaRouche’s Political Action Committee (LPAC).  After a few years of studying them, I can say that they do genuinely have the interest of the common good at heart and in mind, and they definitely dislike and know all about the problems of infiltration by parasites and banksters and other types of degenerates.  They also have what they call their “Basement Research Team” which produces and develops extremely high quality science and applies this science to the economics of the general welfare of the human species.  In general, the scientific, economic, and historical knowledge level and philosophical breadth of the LPAC group is unsurpassed, finding a rival and a superior only in the work and the presumed group behind the production of the writings of the “Illuminati” (which I linked to here).  This is meant as a huge compliment to either of those groups, but I am not sure they would agree.

It is this “Illuminati” which best fits the ideal of “The Academy”.  The scientific, philosophical, historical, psychological, religious, and economic knowledge this group possesses is an essential Grand Unified Theory of the human condition.  They do seem to have the best interest of the general welfare in mind.  And most importantly for the humans of today, they have a liberating religious system to unify all of the knowledge of the human species into a spectacular, wonderful, and exciting practise.  The religion of Illuminism is, quite literally and mathematically precisely, infinitely more religious and infinitely more spiritual than any of the traditional religions.  Infinitely!  In fact there isn’t really any true spiritualism in traditional religion at all!  You either have subservience or nihilism…how is any of that good for the soul, or even relevant to it?

If you require an analogy for thinking about the proposed “Illuminati Academy”, think of the Jedi but whose skills in the mental domain come from being the most intelligent, rational, philosophically and historically informed people on the planet, not just people “in tune with the force”, whatever that means.  They have “the force” because they are the most brilliant people on the planet, and, they are on the side of the “light”, of the good, of service.  Think of them as the Monks of Monks of the Philosophers of Philosophers.  They’re the Philosopher Kings, unexceeded par excellence.

We require a class of Philosopher Kings

An honoured class of the most truly intelligent people on the planet.  In the service of watching over the weaknesses of humanity and the political systems we set up to try live together peacefully.  An Academy which is known to the people and is honoured and respected among people for its true philosophical value…rather than just stupid rich people, fake politicians, and empty headed celebrities and sports players being looked highly upon.

It is important to understand that this class is not meant to run things for us.  That’s not the purpose of The Academy.  We have to run ourselves, because if we’re just taken care of by some other superior group, then we’re just their slaves, and become their burden.  They can help us set up a political system and get it started, but after that, we have to run it ourselves.  Perhaps only if we are really messing the situation up would they step in to do something about it, but there might not even be a guarantee of that.

Of course, the whole point of George Lucas’ storyline was that even with such an Order watching over things, they can simply be overpowered.  Well, that IS our problem, isn’t it? We have to run things ourselves to the best of our ability and to constantly be on guard against the forces of darkness.  There are ways to help make that vigilance easier, which you can read about, for example.  But we can’t be the burden of a superior power unless we wish to be enslaved.  

The purpose of The Academy is to provide an openly-known role model of rationality, of transcendence of any of the dialectical dichotomies of the less rational.  The Academy must have an answer for the materialist scientists; it must have an answer for those who wish to be enslaved and for those who wish to subjugate; it must have an answer for those who prefer faith over reason; it must have an answer for those who want to worship some form of higher power; it must answer the nihilists; it must answer the psychologists; it must even answer the dietitians; it must answer the emotionally drawn;  it must have an answer for how to rationally satisfy the lusts of its members and that of society; it must have a system for recruiting only the most brilliant rationally transcendent service-to-others personalities.  It must have a safe place to congregate, several places, and have cells in all nations.

Humans will have to value the rational for this to work, and the rationally transcendent Academy will have to demonstrate its value to the mass of humanity.  If humans do not value rationalism, it is not like plain Meritocracy would ever work either.

The Tax Solution

It is certainly true that a 100% inheritance tax would do much to level the playing field and allow a Meritocracy to function.  If we all start off at the same place and with the same high-quality education, with no special benefit given due to people just because they had monetarily “rich” parents, or demerits just because they had monetarily “poor” parents, then the best and hardest working and most meritorious will take the lead rather than simply rich kids without much of a clue starting and staying way ahead but without true personal merit.  100% inheritance tax would mean those who get ahead got ahead because they earned it.

But we still have the human condition.  It would be very little time until the wrong combination of the “meritorious” came along and decided to begin gaming the system for their personal advantage at the expense of others.  Humans tend to forget why they’re living in a particular society in the first place and what its history is, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Law in the U.S.A. is a great example.  Glass-Steagall was put in place during the F.D.R. administration in order to separate commercial banking from investment banking, so that losses in the speculative investment banking market wouldn’t hurt the commercial banking sector, i.e. people’s actual savings and credit.  It meant that if an investment bank got too greedy and then failed, it simply went under.  Once Glass-Steagall was repealed under the Clinton administration, the banksters went straight to work developing a system which would create the largest crash in history, with the only solution to the crisis (which they would create) being the outright theft of the credit and savings of the masses of society.  Few people in society had even heard of the Glass-Steagall law and what it meant by the 1990’s, and its death went by without any notice in the public conscious.  Today, people are so out of touch with the reality of their invisible enslavement and what credit and their savings actually means, that they probably just think that it is normal for the bank to take money out of your account, never to be seen again.  The banksters could probably remove 50% of the people’s savings from their accounts overnight, and I doubt that more than 3-4% of the people would realize there was anything wrong with that.  Even if people did realize there was a problem, Psy has a new music video.

The point is, regulations are not sufficient because people become complacent.  The parasites are always there to take advantage of the complacency and change the regulations.  You still have the human condition.

Meritocracy + The Academy

The human condition needs to be modified.

The simple recognition of rationality needs to become part of the human condition.  Please realize this.  The recognition of rationality is not currently a part of the human condition.  It has been said by some that the point of a human life is for our soul to experience what it is like to be human, to learn something from it.  Well in those terms, rationality obviously has nothing to do with whatever it is that human experience is supposed to be about!  In fact, in those terms, we might easily conclude that the purpose of experiencing a human life is to experience abject stupidity.  Humans are really stupid…maybe that’s the point.

But I’m not settling with that.  We need to make the recognition of rationality a part of the human condition!  We need to have people realize that rationality exists.  People simply do not recognize that rationality exists, plus, there’s this historical stigma of “original sin” still seared in the mass subconscious which identifies reason and knowledge with evil, thanks to Abrahamism.  In my own example, I loved knowing stuff and I loved the philosophical questions, I liked the question of “why something exists rather than nothing”, I knew there was a problem with relativity and I had answered those two problems in a similar way to Illuminism it turned out.

But I didn’t really appreciate and realize that pure rationalism was actually such a powerful force in the mind that it could do what the Illuminati have done with it.  I had not imagined anything so grand, and realizing that it existed was realizing that the mind is really real and that rationality is really true.  This realization changed the condition of my experience.  Having gone through science training in core physics, obviously I had picked up the mind-denying and philosophical confusion from that paradigm.  Everything just seemed like a hodgepodge of random ideas, some of them good, but with no real structure, and a lot of room for doubt and nihilism (the scientific mindset in other words).  I think that in general it would be easier to convince non-scientists that the mind and rationalism are real!  I think the people simply need a demonstrated standard.

But of course, reading books works for me and it won’t work for most of everyone else.  So, how do we make rationality become a condition of the human experience, in that it simply becomes recognized as a real thing among people?  And that it can be recognized in a class of people who would provide the standard and example, in order to maintain the impression?  A Rationalist Academy that people recognize is worth something.  (Rather than rationalism being associated with nihilism, as I think it is now.)  We have to recognize that we can be smarter about things, and that being smarter is actually real rather than simply a tool for self-interest.

One way of modifying the human mental condition it is to make a giant spectacle.  What grand spectacle could the rationalist academy perform in order to gain its place in history, in order to gain for rationalism a place in the human psyche?  Look at 9/11 for example, and how it has been seared into the mass conscious.  What can a rationalist academy do that is equivalent in impact to that?  Obviously not in a “terrorist” way!  But in a way that demonstrates the existence of reason?  Of reason for the collective interest which also satisfies individual interest.

Opening to comments…all the best.

This entry was posted in Illuminism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Meritocracy: Its Weaknesses and How to Improve It, a Lesson from Climate Alarm

  1. squid2112 says:

    Wow! … Great article Joe! … I’m going to have to digest this a little bit, but great stuff!

  2. urbster1 says:

    Well I am hesitant to comment– I am in 100% full support of meritocracy, but I’m not sure I would be willing to deny climate change, although I am open minded– it has nothing to do with believing everything Al Gore says, and I don’t support human extermination or population control by any means. Have you seen this most recent study? “Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”
    So on your view, there is no POSSIBLE way that usage of fossil fuels extracted by humans is causing this? And if it is even a possibility, should we not address our policies of resource extraction, distribution, and usage? If not, do you believe that there will be an infinite supply of fossil fuels, or do you propose a better solution to the problem of peak oil?

    Interesting post, thanks for the link to LPAC, I will check it out!

  3. Max™ says:

    “The example of the police force provides the example: ” might ought to be rephrased as “The case of the police force provides an example” or something along those lines?

  4. Hi ubster,

    I am not aware of anyone who denies climate change.

    The cited study shows that it was warmer than it is today 1400 years ago. How could that be if there was no fossil fuel usage? Points to other larger causes behind climate change. Climate change isn’t alarming in any case because it has always occurred. The historical periods warmer than today show that such warmth was beneficial. The cited study does not show anything that falls outside the historical climate variation record. Here are a few plots which put the historical range in a more complete perspective:

    Fossil fuel combustion creates heat during the combustion process. After that the end products are gases with no more source of heat or energy…they’re just inert, and do not continue to create heat. Also, CO2 is plant food and the increasing CO2 level has increased crop yields.

    Yes we should address resources etc, but the solution is not by making rich people richer and poor people poorer, as with any carbon trading or tax system would necessarily do.

    The solution to energy is technological development to higher orders of energy flux density in production and usage. Keep going to the future, don’t stop. LPAC talks all about this. Fusion power.


  5. Greg House says:

    Joseph E Postma says (2013/04/23 at 5:01 PM): “I am not aware of anyone who denies climate change.”

    I do not see the allegations about climate change since the last century as scientifically proven. I do not see any scientific basis for that. I see studies, yes, but very little science. I do not buy it.

    The same goes for allegations about past climate. I do not believe that the Medieval Warm Period is a scientific fact or that the Little Ice Age is a scientific fact, because I have not seen scientific evidence for that. What about 400,000 years ago? Right, no or very little scientific evidence either.

    The problem is that the organized “climate science” knows very little to make any conclusions. But they have a collective big mouth and, of course, have to deliver, because that is what they do for living.

  6. Greg House says:

    urbster1 says: (2013/04/23 at 4:29 PM): “do you believe that there will be an infinite supply of fossil fuels, or do you propose a better solution to the problem of peak oil”

    Supply of energy is practically infinite, in one form or another, there is no actual “peak oil” problem.

  7. urbster1 says:

    There isn’t an infinite supply of fossil fuels, though, which our economy and money are based on. We’re going to have a lot of dead, empty cars and gas stations at some point. How do you propose we deal with it? Simply the fact that the universe contains an abundance of energy isn’t enough to solve this problem, we need an actual solution and steps to implement it. Saying “there is no actual ‘peak oil’ problem” shows remarkable unwillingness to face reality, IMHO. We can’t make cars or destroy them with sunlight and dandelions, and we can’t yet produce solar panels or wind farms or anything else without our existing fossil fuel technology. We can’t make cars out of hemp yet either; we need an entire paradigm shift. It’s something that needs to be addressed this decade as oil prices keep rising and supply is unable to keep up with demand in places like China and India. But at any rate I don’t want to derail this discussion, so perhaps it would be useful to suspend it for a later blog entry?

    [Reply: Yes, thanks, Good idea.]

  8. Max™ says:

    Interesting paper I was using for an assignment, goes over the effects of volcanic eruptions on the climate, which is more complex than it is usually presented to be:

  9. Greg House says:

    urbster1 says (2013/04/23 at 6:26 PM): “Saying “there is no actual ‘peak oil’ problem” shows remarkable unwillingness to face reality, IMHO.”

    There is no “peak oil problem” because there is no evidence that the oil is scarce. There is supply meeting demand. The prices could be much lower, if there was no cartel dictating the prices.

    The idea about oil not being infinite has nothing to do with our reality. Again, there is plenty of oil in our reality. As for the future, the mankind will be definitely able to find replacements for oil. It has already, actually, but they are still too expensive etc., so it is not reasonable to use them.

    The “peak oil problem” is just an excuse to make people’s life harder, exactly like “global warming problem”. Some people just like seeing others suffer, a sort of political sadists.

  10. johnmarshall says:

    Greg House:- Paleo climate studies do provide the science that climates have been warmer than today. Documentary evidence of the MWP shows warmer climates round the globe. Evidence from the Roman occupation of the UK show that red wine was produced north of York and now the similar varieties will only grow south of Dijon in France some 300+ miles to the south.
    Oil production may decline but current research has shown that modified bacteria will produce a fuel suitable for diesel engines. Currectly biodigesters produce methane for turning into electricity/heat and using the CO2 produced to enrich the atmosphere of greenhouses growing salad crops. Waste plant material is fed into the digester. So ”fossil fuels” or their replacements are here now.
    The future can be bright with ample energy available for the technology to develop. Together with this must be Third World development so they can help themselves get to our standards of living. The Third World needs fossil fuel use to do this and current ”liberal” thinking is to deny them this vital resource on grounds of climate change. Bloody Hypocrites

  11. squid2112 says:


    And in 1879, we couldn’t make cars at all! So what?

    As for your “peak oil” issue, it is a NON issue as any “peak” in oil availability on this planet is many decades away. Fossil fuels are not derived from “fossils”, and there is an abundance of petroleum on this planet that can easily carry us for another 100, 200 or more years. The markets and human ingenuity will produce suitable replacements when the time comes, just as we did by inventing the automobile, the airplane, the space shuttle, etc… These thing come about best when they are vetted in their own due course, not pushed by political and social agenda. What we will know in 100 years is unimaginable today. Petroleum will be replaced with higher density, more efficient fuels in the future. Wind, solar, bio and the rest of the “green” fuels that are talked about by our political elites and environuts, will NOT be in the energy mix in the future, this you can be assured. Why? Because of the simple mathematics. It all comes down to energy density and efficiencies (including costs).

    I take great offense to your suggestion of the “precautionary principal”; that is what kills people. The precautionary principal is simply cover for lack of leadership, intelligence and agenda. More people have been slaughtered through this engagement than just about anything else. The precautionary principal is why “never let a good crisis go to waste” works so well. Sheople buy in to this principal not fully realizing the costs (liberty and life).

    Well, my two cents, but hey, what do I know? I’m just a stupid computer geek (which we didn’t have 50 years ago either!).

    [JP: I edited some of the words to make them refer to what you meant them to. Hope that’s OK :)]

  12. squid2112 says:

    JP, thanks! … I speak computer better than I do english .. 🙂

  13. Greg House says:

    squid2112 says (2013/04/24 at 9:32 AM): “I take great offense to your suggestion of the “precautionary principal”; that is what kills people.”

    This is what some of them would like to do: “World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.” (Jacques-Yves Cousteau in an interview to The Unesco Courier, November 1991, p.13

  14. Greg House says:

    johnmarshall says (2013/04/24 at 3:29 AM): “Greg House:- Paleo climate studies do provide the science that climates have been warmer than today. Documentary evidence of the MWP shows warmer climates round the globe. Evidence from the Roman occupation of the UK show that red wine was produced north of York and now the similar varieties will only grow south of Dijon in France some 300+ miles to the south.”

    Round the globe? Yeah, I am rolling on the floor laughing.

    As I said, big mouth and no science, this is the organized “climate science” today.

    [JP: Let’s not quibble over this. We all know what is out there and what the studies may or may not show. The climate is not static and never has been etc.]


    Read these posts and my comments therein and the response to them. This is a classic example of actor-experts defending their simulacra with sophistry and bluster. They literally said that it was irrational to speak of the Earth being round.

    Anyway just using that as an example relevant to some of the subject matter in this post. If the regular commentators want to discuss this specific stuff more, do so on the other big thread on Willis’ shell game.

  16. squid2112 says:

    Oh boy, and now we have Dr. Spencer attacking the Slayer’s again with this gem:

    I sure wish I were more adept at physics, radiation physics and especially thermodynamics, as I can spot several holes in his juxtaposition. More “thought” experiments from Spencer?

  17. squid2112 says:

    On the Spencer thing, I just don’t understand how a basic principle, that for which a cooler object cannot heat a warmer object, is so fundamentally misunderstood. How many times do we have to go around this mulberry bush? The same physical laws still apply and you cannot, no matter how many different ways you approach it, you cannot get around those physical laws. This is becoming all too tiring for me. I am really getting sick and tired of the “new” ways they continue to try to use to circumvent physical laws. It’s just stupid beyond belief.

  18. Spencer: “The temperature of anything heated will increase until the rate of energy *loss* equals the rate of energy *gain*. So, temperature can be increased by increasing INPUT, or decreasing OUTPUT.”

    When energy input equals energy output, then the system is in equilibrium. In this state the system will not be hotter than the input. So he’s trying to say that if you just reduce the output then you can increase the temperature above the input. If this were possible, then you could use the target to go back and warm up the source some more, since the target was now hotter than the source. But then the source would be hotter and so you could heat the target some more. The source and target heat each other indefinitely. How do they not recognize a basic violation of thermodynamics and a perpetual motion machine?

  19. Martin Hodgkins says:

    Vote for Who? “It makes no sense, none at all, why we vote for politicians.” Well maybe it doesn’t but please look at this link to UKIP energy policy because I actually want something to change and there is an election next week in the UK.

  20. Wow. Yes, something needs to be done about that.

  21. squid2112 says:

    Wow, I read all your stuff over at Spencers. Great stuff!! … I just don’t get why Roy continues down this path. His example is just sheer stupidity. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Spencer, and the work that he and Christy do with their satellites, but give me a break. This is getting soooo worn out. How many times can he attempt to spin this stuff?

  22. Martin Hodgkins says:

    Joe, I thought the UKIP policy on energy was good. If it isn’t then let me know why, really I am asking you, I respect your judgement on these things.

  23. No that’s what I meant! That something needs to be done about the austerity in energy.

  24. Martin Hodgkins says:

    Thanks Joe for your reply. Another thing is what is rational? I am not being awkward it is just that from his point of view the chap at work who is a warmist thinks he is being completely rational. I think he is nuts. A class of philosopher kings could comprise of the likes of me (lets say you) or the chap at work – he knows he is right because he did his degree in that sort of thing. I know what logic is – I have fixed bugs in MQ that IBM couldn’t fix using logic but what is rational??? I think my analysis on all matters is sound but so does the chap at work. So, Joe, what is the killer rationale?. And regardless, most regards.

  25. Rational would be not thinking of ways to create austerity and poverty – this is not rational. The difficulty is that stupid people believe themselves to be rational but don’t know any better. It is a difficult problem. That’s why we may need to create en example of rationality that people would follow, because that’s the only thing most people can do, is follow. We want to get the stupid people following the smart people, just because it made some impression on them – not that the impression was necessarily rational(!). Those Illuminist books go into great detail on the problem here and what approaches can be tried, etc.

    Rational is transcending good and evil – this is a good definition. It is evil to harm people; rational to help them become smarter; evil to make them stupider; neutral to give them free material stuff without anything else; evil to give them stuff and make them dependent upon it; rational to help them develop and get more stuff while becoming smarter; rational to help them understand that more and more “stuff” isn’t that important. Could go on and on…lol.

  26. And of course, in terms of stupid people following smart people, stupid people can’t actually tell what a smart person is, and so they will follow only those who appear to be smart and who are very good at reinforcing that appearance, that simulacra. This is again why we need a true class of Philosopher Kings. Even then, the danger persists…

  27. Another sophist actor-expert (R.S. Courtney) has said that it is ludicrous to ask the questions we ask.

    It is not ludicrous to state that the distribution of solar energy is a cosine function about the solar zenith, and that this distribution has an integrated average of +49C, as the input. What is ludicrous is that people deny that the Earth is round and think that +49C vs. -18C doesn’t matter. I do detect some ludicrousness when it is said that the mere statement of these facts is supposed to be ludicrous.

    The cosine function is real. An integrated average is real. Sunshine is really hot. You can’t average energy input into a geometry where it doesn’t exist. These are all rational facts. It is ludicrous to ridicule those of us who state them and want to explore what effect and changes it has on the usual assumptions. As we have shown, the changes are not insignificant. Both the wet and dry lapse rate can be calculated precisely without any reference to GHG radiation, for example. Latent heat itself holds the temperature higher than it would otherwise be, for example. This is science. It is ludicrous to ignore it.

    What is ludicrous is the mental degeneracy of your average scientist. They don’t even follow their own rules. It has completely devolved into a junior high party. Question is, are these scientists actor-experts, or are they just mentally retarded followers? Both probably.

  28. Rosco says:

    History is littered with examples where the “experts” in power were proven to be nothing more than a glorified “cheer” squad promoting their own self importance.

    In all cases where the orthodoxy which supported the prestige of the “experts” was challanged the author of such challenge was criticized and ridiculed, and if that failed ostracised and often imprisoned.

    Some examples include – say – Semmelweiss whose crime was to suggest doctors -male – should observe midwifes practices of washing their hands after cutting up rotting corpses before they examined live patients. God knows how many new mothers died from infections spread this way whilst midwives had almost no cases of puerperal fever.

    Semmelweiss ended his life in a mental institution and was never acknowledged as being right during his life – sound familiar Lewandowsky ???

  29. Allen Eltor says:

    And speaking of which Roscoe I was sitting here with this link loaded and figured, okay…….THERE and landed here.


    University of Penn

    * * *Dr.MICHAEL MANN* * *

    There he is on the list, having FAMOUSLY REPRESENTED HIMSELF as a NOBEL LAUREATE, in a LAWSUIT
    where he SUED someone who SAID he LIES.


    Nofrakkingconcensus, a place I don’t personally go to much or visit, having something on the REASON for the LAUNCH of Fake Nobel Laureates. I didn’t read it in entirety.

  30. Gavin Taylor says:

    “Tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn.” ― Benjamin Franklin

    All this reminds me of one of the strongest feelings I’ve always had, something akin to wanting to be in-sharing or -cooperation on the most direct level possible.

    But where/how to find these people to start a Rationalist Academy? I am one of them. Maybe I’m procrastinating here and the form of what I’m conceptualizing will be derived from completing the rest of the action(s). If you or I want to start such a Rationalist Academy, what form would it take? Working from my own ideas about conveying things to the world, the key effect itself would involve visual presentations on Youtube in a format similar to, let’s say, Stefan Molyneux’s show (, applying ontological and psychological insights to offer a connected-up view of how the world works, and applying/comparing those insights to everyday experiences. (And responding to questions possibly). But rather than unload intellectually-heavy words onto an audience like RT’s occasional guest Peter Joseph, it would be more accessible, more exoteric. There’s a reason for this.

    I hadn’t tried yet because I thought I was alone in this type of thinking. Then I found the God Series. There are other possibilities that I think about, concerning narrative.

    There are other aspects to it, as with any fundamental of existence. Maybe the best option of all options is to write a “guide to life”, but that idea gets invalidated because, of that audience, how little read books? What if it got assimilated into collectivist culture and otherwise ignored? And of course it takes too long, anyway, to deconstruct and explain *everything* in society and its flawed thinking although I had made a good start. For which no-one, potentially, has the attention span. What about the stuff urbster1 said here? And so on. This entire “problem set” of, ultimately, “the problem of human civilization” as we might call it, simply isn’t suited to the way in which we are behaving right now. Fundamentals. Everything is [related to, and will remain dependent of, e.g. politically,] everything. It is not enough to simply apply rationality to modern society at its crawling pace. If it’s fundamental, radical change which is desired, then radical behavioural and environmental changes are required. Otherwise “history repeats itself” since those elements surrounding the historical narrative, the substance, has/ve not changed (“Hitler was evil”). If the universe is coherent, then working in reverse, substantial societal change must have required something equally substantial before it.

    “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.”
    — Albert Einstein

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s