The (Lack of) Intelligence of Pseudo-Intellectuals

3

When I first heard the purported link between terrorism and climate change, I assumed it was a joke. But now I see it is being treated as social-scientific fact. How did people, many of them regarded as leaders and intellectuals become so stupid?

I’m not sure if Bill Nye “the science guy” completely believes the garbage which is flowing from his mouth is this clip. He states:

“It is very reasonable that the recent trouble in Paris is a result of climate change.”

So the recent terrorist attack AKA “trouble” is the result of climate change? If you aren’t entirely convinced, Nye assures us there is currently a water shortage in Syria, which is of course caused by climate change, and as we know, water shortages (and climate change) naturally lead to terrorism.

Perhaps Bill Nye “the science guy” should familiarise himself with the scientific problem solving principle, know as Occam’s razor before he completely discredits himself.

This assertion that climate change is the cause of terrorism is truly a case in point in revealing how intellectually untenable and morally bankrupt the West’s so called progressive and self appointed intelligentsia have become. Of course, people like Bill Nye and President Obama know the motivations of terrorists better than the terrorists do themselves, even when the terrorists broadcast them to the whole world and shout it as they fire into crowds of infidels with their AK-47s.

Of course, terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, even when the terrorists tell us that’s exactly what it is about. It’s really just climate change, or Islamophobia, or some other imagined cause. It has absolutely nothing to do with Mohammed or Islamic texts that call for the world to be brought under submission. And so long as the imagined reasons prevent us from facing the true underlying cause of terrorism, all is good for President Obama and his enlightened progressives.

Truly, our progressive betters are so clever. They know what is in the hearts of terrorists, and they know what motivates them, more than the terrorists do themselves. And so convinced are they of their righteousness they will swear that night is day, and evil is good, even as their head is in the process of being separated from their body.

XYZ.

Photo by eschipul

3 COMMENTS

  1. I have been around some people that are truly smart. People that can solve very complex mathematical problems, quote from books they read years ago explaining the story line the key people in the book and about the author, and do this for literally thousands of books. I also know people that can build amazing things using a huge variety, of tools, math and physics to do so.
    To me these are the really smart people.
    Most of the political “intellectuals” are glib, and self important and could not solve a tough math problem, paint a car, wire a house or even change a tire.
    A couple of years ago a college professor was lost 1/4 mile from an interstate with a small body of water between him and the interstate. He sat down to die, Any 14 year old boy raised in a rural atmosphere would have gotten to the interstate in 10 minutes.
    So much for self professed intellectuals.

  2. IPCC Third Assessment Report
    Chapter 14
    Section 14.2.2.2

    Last paragraph:

    “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.

    If the climate is indeed a coupled non linear chaotic system (who can doubt the IPCC) then there is no rational or scientific basis to make a definitive statement about a future state of the climate.

    At this point the coupled non linear chaotic nature of the climate make scientific observations academically interesting but they have no relevance in predicting the future state of the climate. The climate is a system which means the relationships among these observations are what is important not the observations themselves.

    All the public discourse regarding the future state of the climate has been based on the false premise that the current climate models are predicting the future state of the climate when in fact the models are merely projecting these states.

    Predictions are the purview of science. Model projections can only agree with predictions when the models duplicate the real world.

    To base public policy on an unknowable state of a system defies common sense. However, too much money and political power is at stake for the Central Planners to do otherwise.

    I would argue that the Climate Model True Believers are the ones taking an unscientific approach to the subject.

    In January 1961 President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address identified the situation in which we find ourselves today:

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    Another relevant publication is: “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer.

LEAVE A REPLY