“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” (Albert Einstein)
The above quote is actually “attributed” to Einstein, as he did not say such a thing in those words. In as similar fashion, the Mark Twain quote in the upper right of this blog, “It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled” is merely attributed to him. He did write, says AI, in 1906: “How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!” I have tried now for years to substitute the real quote for the attributed one, but WordPress will not allow it.
It’s OK, however. It is the content of the words rather than to person that matters. Using famous people like Einstein and Twain adds gravitas to words, but the words themselves carry enough truth that no further adornment is needed. The whole of the quotation business is a small industry with various agencies mining each one to get to its source, admirable work, in my view.
I have had an exchange now with Michael Booth, who writes for the Colorado Sun, and I think it is at an end. I quoted his article Climate Change in Colorado extensively. I have found Mr. Booth to be, as I suspected, smart, young, genuine, and a product of the education system such as it is. I won’t quote him, as his article (March of 2026) is a fair representation of his attitude and point of view, and I don’t have permission outside of that to use his words. However, his private words do not do any disservice to either him or his article. He’s a nice young man.
Back to the Einstein quote: my last words to Booth were to the effect that Climate Change, the latest in a long series of eschatological perils that threaten us, is really just a product of perception management and power of suggestion. I have therefore simplified it in violation of Einstein’s unstated “but not simpler” warning. But I maintain steadfastly that we are not threatened by Climate Change (beyond asteroids and comets).
But what of the science? It’s real, but not spectacular. I came across a zoologist at the University of Wyoming who received a grant to study the ice around Yellowstone Lake. She did that work honestly, finding that said levels had not changed in twenty years! (When Bad Journalism Reports on Bad Science). But that doesn’t wash, not in the current climate, so to speak, and so she concludes,
“Things aren’t changing right now. But at some point, they will start changing and we need to keep an eye on the ecosystem and keep collecting data to understand how these changes will affect the ecosystem and how our species of interest could be affected by these changes in the future.”
She has to say that, otherwise her next calling in life might be “Can I take your order?”
So where does all this Climate Change science originate? A little background is helpful. We are all aware of president Eisenhower’s farewell address, in which he warned us of the Military Industrial Complex, now our reality. In that same address, he also warned us that
“…in holding scientific 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.”
Those words have garnered far less attention over time, but the “scientific-technological elite” warning played out as well as the MIC. Vannever Bush (last name coincidental as far as I can tell) worked under FDR during World War II, and was a force behind the Manhattan Project, which is the modern-day model for much of what passes as science. Beyond nuclear power, which resulted therefrom and offers such great hope to humanity if ever fully implemented, he fostered the system of centralized funding of scientific research that Manhattan exemplified – heavy funding, hidden true outcome, and propaganda. Bush (1890-1974) advocated creation of the National Science Foundation, which became reality in 1950.
The effect of centralized funding of scientific research was to marginalize real science, often done in garages, with funded science, which is subject to political pressure. Thus today do we find in many fields, from climate to Tronstad’s zoology, a pressure to conform and a system of punishment for deviance from that conformity. Climate Change today is largely a politically scientific endeavor funded by NSF and various NGOs, all of which are centered around the idea that climate change is real and a danger to our existence. In a rendition of Gresham’s Law (“bad money drives out good”), bad science drives out good due to centralized funding.
Thus do we have the modern version of the Red Scare and nuclear weapons, which frightened us to death as kids of my generation. Climate Change is not real in the sense that it is not a force for evil. Weather, as we see all around us right now, can be really nasty. It is not brought about by human interference beyond a very slight degree, and is scaring the shit out of kids, many of whom are opting not to reproduce as a result. That Red Scare aspect is surely intentional. The objective is so obvious to me, to limit use of fossil fuels, and thereby available energy, and thereby population, wealth, and growth. I mentioned to Booth and others that I found the Climate Change hoax, which will limit growth in impoverished areas of Africa, South American and Asia, as having colonialist aspirations.
So I urge, when confronted with the Climate Change Industrial Complex, which is heavily financed and has a life on its own fostered by a controlled media, to relax. It is power of suggestion, it is perception management, and it is bad science. The “news” monopoly adds to its power.
Piece of Mindful 