Skip to content

Thoughts From Leo Smith

February 23, 2015

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Will Janoschka came across this comment on WUWT today, which really hits home:

 

 

Leo Smith February 23, 2015 at 1:59 am

” In one of Castenada’s novels there is a story about a young man who left his poor village in Mexico and went to the city to get an education.
On his return to the village years later he found that the villagers were in thrall to a man who had a book, out of which he read long passages. This book it appeared contained all they needed to solve their problems. However the young man noticed that the man was holding the book upside down.
“Your hero is a fraud: He cannot read” he declared “And I can prove it, he is holding the book upside down!”
“What difference does it make, to a man who can read, which way up the book is? ” retorted the man, and the villagers cheered…
The problem is, that when people reject all of science already, a scientific refutation of global warming is (politically) meaningless.
I too have been appalled by the standards of debate over this, and other, issues. I have come to a terrifying conclusion.
Perhaps less than 10% of the population understands science at all, and of that 10% probably less than 10% actually understand the mathematical principles involved in the AGW proposition. And most of those are not in climate science.
This is ultimately both something that has always been the case with science and indeed rational thought, and something that is deeply worrying right now, because we are in a deep crisis as a society and need better understanding than that.
Humanity en masse proceeds along more or less bigoted lines according to the fashionable prejudices of the age. The AGW protagonists understand this: their business is to move the fashionable bigotry along to suit their agenda.
If we step back a minute and regard the implications of what I propose to be the case, they are these: The vast majority of humanity is incapable for one reason or another of understanding the science and technology that forms the backdrop to their lives. And in a democracy that means they are more or less unfit to vote on matters that affect it.
A small minority of ‘movers and shakers’ – and these days they are (to borrow Jilly Coopers terminology) the ‘Tellystocracy’ , the media luvvies and those who use mass media to ‘inform’ public debate – are the ones who count. They are the new elite, the new lords and masters of the brave new world, and it is this group that has been so thoroughly targeted and infiltrated by all and any group with a political or commercial axe to grind. It doesn’t matter what some obscure group of scientists believe, or what the mass of people believe, what matters is what this group do in terms of forming (rather than informing) public opinion.
This group then are by and large the group that actually carries out political change. They are in charge of the fashionable bigotry that comprises what we have come to know and love as political correctness. That vast and loosely affiliated propaganda machine that tells us what to think about, and what to think about it.
What we need to do if we are to introduce truth into this tissue of lies and deceit, is to make the case to the media/political luvvies that in fact their particular brand of bigotry is deeply dangerous to themselves as a class.
In the case of AGW we have two main avenues through which this is happening.

First of all the man in the street is getting fed up with falling standards of living, and his winters seeming just as cold wet and miserable as the summers are, despite claims it was the warmest year on record.
Secondly the more astute members of the tellystocracy are becoming aware that infrastructure is for everyone, and that includes them. Victorian sewers were to protect the elite of the day from disease, by eliminating it from the great unwashed. This is a potent line of attack – Wind turbines and solar panels become not source of individual profit, but a disaster for all including those that profit from them.
Ultimately the game is this: Science in its broadest terms is nothing more and nothing less than a means of predicting the future. Science says if we do this or that, the other will happen. The complex mathematical laws we deduce, infer or discover (according to your metaphysical picture of what Laws are) have no justification beyond the fact that they work, and what they say will come to pass, comes to pass, mostly.
Science that fails to predict anything is untestable, and if it fails to produce the result that reality provides, it’s junk science or no science at all. You can summarise this by saying that in the long term reality trumps bullshit.
Ultimately AGW either produces correct predictions or its junk, It’s looking to be junk. However that doesn’t stop people believing in it because it’s fashionable bigotry. But here we invoke Darwin. Societies that fail to realise what reality is, and cling to fashionable bigotry, will suffer accordingly. There are signs that the whole West will in fact ultimately collapse in an orgy of self destructive mutual deception and liberal angst. Or perhaps it will wake up and smell the coffee.
And in the end, that is the conundrum. It is true to say that people are reasonably easily led, and that even those that lead them, are themselves subject to fashionable bigotry. That is a fact of life that we have to deal with. In the end we have only one yardstick that works to dispel the fog of Belief In Bullshit and that is Reality herself, and Reality is a hard mistress. If She needs to destroy entire societies that are so infected with irrational bullshit that they can no longer support themselves at all, She will.
I don’t like to get political here, but this is to me the great argument for not having the sort of monolithic world government that the cultural Marxists of the UN and the ‘liberal and social’ democracies seem to espouse. that and we all go down together. Whereas having political islands of national ideologies at least allows for some diversity of political thought, and if the West becomes so decadent not because of Capitalism, but because of Marxism and its descendants itself, that it is in danger of falling to a stronger culture, maybe one of those political islands will have the tools and the strength to resist and prove to have the next line of fashionable bigotry to deal with the new reality.
From my perspective there are two completely different dimensions in play here, and it helps not to confuse them.
There is the technical and scientific reality of the data: that the world ain’t warming any more, never warmed very much, and windmills and solar panels are a complete waste of time and money, and destructive to boot, and if we want to stay alive in the absence of fossil fuel the logical alternative is nuclear power.
That these things are provably and demonstrably true is, however, irrelevant to the second dimension, which is what people think.
Or can be induced to believe. And here there is in fact a world war in progress, World War III. Its not being fought with weapons (much) that kill, directly, but with weapons that corrupt thinking. It is a war of propaganda and competing ideologies, none of which have a particularly strong basis in Reality, because Reality is pretty damned complicated, and its easier to get people to believe in simple stuff. ‘Four legs good – two legs bad’ sort of stuff.
I have to say that I have more or less given up on the science: The jury is in for people to understand the maths and the physics and how real science works. AGW is a crock of shit, and that’s that.
The real game is the war for hearts and minds. And that is a game of psychology, propaganda, money, power, politics, greed, fear, uncertainty and doubt. If we can’t win it, it will in the end destroy Western civilisation, and so it should. If we have no answer for lies, we don’t deserve to make it.
Once we had a system that worked. The brightest and best, and a few of the rich, got excellent educations and were indoctrinated with a culture of care for those less fortunate, and a sense of duty towards the masses. They did what they considered to be right, after duly listening to the problems.
Today that is destroyed by egalitarianism, which ensures that no one at all gets a good education that everyone cannot afford. Except for a very very few – too few – people who espouse state education but manage to avoid it in the case of their children. Worse, they dont educate them into the actualities of science and technology even then, they educate them into the practical techniques of propaganda. We have in short a generation of peole who are highly skilled in the manipulation of public opinion, but no idea how a smart phone works. People ideally placed to control and dominate a society, and take from it all its riches, but without actually having even the most basic understanding of how those riches are created.
Such a situation is dynamically unstable. We, the technologists, are not screaming out for recognition ‘because its unfair’ or ‘because its morally indefensible’. No, we have a much quieter but devastatingly powerful message. “If you don’t take at least some notice of Reality, you will in fact die of ignorance, and likely take us with you”.
*shrug* If they don’t listen, it’s Goodnight Vienna. We wont be the first culture to commit racial suicide in pursuit of idiotic beliefs.”

35 Comments
  1. Brad permalink
    February 23, 2015 11:57 pm

    ++++1,000,000,000,000, etc etc….

  2. February 23, 2015 11:58 pm

    Thanks, Paul.
    “If you don’t take at least some notice of Reality, you will in fact die of ignorance, and likely take us with you”. Is a really powerful statement, a call for action now.
    Thanks, Leo Smith.

  3. February 24, 2015 12:12 am

    Bravo!

  4. Liz permalink
    February 24, 2015 12:17 am

    I wanted to weep with relief knowing that someone has the gift to articulate so well what so many of us think. Just hope that someone in the broader media is listening.

  5. February 24, 2015 1:51 am

    “There is the technical and scientific reality of the data: that the world ain’t warming any more, never warmed very much, and windmills and solar panels are a complete waste of time and money, and destructive to boot, and if we want to stay alive in the absence of fossil fuel the logical alternative is nuclear power.”

    Can’t be said any better than this. How this minute warming somehow equates to “the greatest challenge of out times” to paraphrase both President Obama and Secretary Kerry escapes me – unless they are simply cynically mouthing platitudes – and I suspect they are. But why?

    I haven’t been able to see why the AGW scam is so desperately kept alive by media, and governments. Some say it’s for the power and money but how many more mansions can Al Gore live in and for God’s sake the governments have more power than they know what to do with – power over whom? Here in the US, where we have the highest per-capita prison population on the planet, what’s the goal? Put everyone in prison?

    I appreciate the clarity of Leo Smith’s comment, but I still don’t understand why the scam is being so heavily and hamhandedly backed by the establishment. I guess I just don’t understand what’s in it for them. Like I said, they already have plenty of money and all the power.

    • February 24, 2015 2:07 am

      Govt’s bought into this scam either to mitigate costs to their economies inflicted by Kyoto and/or to raise tax revenue. Now the scam is shredded on a daily basis they and their media enablers have egg on their faces. They don’t know how to exit gracefully, especially after motivating the lunatics in society who, like Japanese soldiers lurking in tropical forests for decades after the second world war, will fight on until they die.

      At least that’s my take on it.

      • David A permalink
        February 24, 2015 5:48 am

        When I grew up I remember my dad saying, “If politicians could tax the very air you breath, they would. In my view as succinct of a summary as there is.

        In detail these “rule the world” Blackbeards have always existed. Statist governments have failed in the 20th century, while murdering hundreds of millions. Without the threat of global destruction, their centrist message was failing; thus CAGW became a natural path for their ambition.

        “Such is the nature of the Tyrant, when he first appears he is a protector.” Plato. (Not much has changed, except the word has shrunk.)

      • Gerald Wilhite permalink
        February 25, 2015 9:23 am

        Obama has laid the groundwork for a 17 year free ride for China. India will demand and probably get the same. IMHO, the search is on for a salable public fear — the final key.

        My guess is the Paris conference will deliver Obama’s keystone legacy for his final four years — [1] major reforms of the IPCC process and major overhaul of climate models,[2] a landmark political global climate agreement committing the world to a clean-up and selective avoidance of harmful human impacts producing atmospheric and water pollution, including [3] a rigorous, intrusive, and irritating watchful eye on the impacts of CO2 and residential energy efficiencies.

        I think the Paris agreement will also include [4] an official global blessing for ‘economically essential’ (whatever that is) increases in fossil fuel and fracking, and very importantly [5] a continuing global commitment to the US based petrodollar. To calm the True Believers, the agreement will conclude with [6] a smattering of flashy commitments to modest programs addressing a few public fears that are still salable … e.g. coral bleaching, better asteroid surveillance, better volcanic and tsunami prediction, ocean exploration, genetically modified food — mostly stuff with research growth potential that can start as relatively low cost insurance against remote disaster concerns.

      • February 25, 2015 2:28 pm

        Yes, like that explanation.

  6. February 24, 2015 2:17 am

    Thank you Paul! I would like to see Wordsmiths like Brad Keyes and Pointman develop this so all can understand. 🙂

  7. February 24, 2015 2:35 am

    Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
    “AGW is a crock of shit, and that’s that.
    The real game is the war for hearts and minds. And that is a game of psychology, propaganda, money, power, politics, greed, fear, uncertainty and doubt. ”

    Amen to that.

  8. February 24, 2015 2:49 am

    Thanks, Paul, for posting the message from Leo Smith. It is well written, especially . . .

    “If you don’t take at least some notice of Reality, you will in fact die of ignorance, and likely take us with you.”

    Do you know Leo Smith or anything of his background? The Reality revealed by science and religion appear to me to be one and the same. I.e., current world leaders and their scientists lost contact with Reality (God) and will be destroyed if they continue to try to rule the world by deception.

  9. February 24, 2015 2:54 am

    Will The Internet Now Be Destroyed To Hide Reality?

    Is the entire future of the internet now at risk, as Tom Fernandez suggests?

    http://tomfernandez28.com/2015/02/24/future-of-entire-internet-at-stake/

  10. Doug Brodie permalink
    February 24, 2015 8:05 am

    Well said Leo! I recently wrote a paper which draws partly on Leo’s previous sayings called “The Climate Change Act is Based on Junk Science”. I’ve grown tired of the futility of trying to persuade politicians on this issue. Instead I sent my paper to my local planning councillors (over 60 in total) to try to persuade them to stand up against the politicians, see http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Junk-Science.pdf

    Leo’s arguments are supported by the book “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” by Dr Tim Ball which my paper also draws on. Dr Ball writes: “Historians with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight will wonder how such a small group [the UN IPCC organisation] was able to achieve such a massive deception” and goes on to list nine plausible reasons why the public was so deceived. The preface to his book with these nine reasons is available online, see https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/dr-tim-ball-the-deliberate-corruption-of-climate-science/

    • David Richardson permalink
      February 24, 2015 10:56 am

      Doug – that pdf is an excellent pulling together of much useful material – thank you.

      I have tried to do my bit over recent years, doing many presentations. I stick to empirical evidence and leave those in the audience to make up their own mind. One talk was entitled “Things you will not read in the Grauniad or see/hear on the BBC” . I always start my talks with a slide

      “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. ”

      Daniel Patrick Moynihan

      BUT even with people of a science and engineering background I get ranting at times. When you are dealing with a religion, logic is often of no use.

      The 9 reasons are very true – I have come to realise that

      8. People find it hard to believe a deception on such a grand scale could occur.

      is more important than I gave it credit – it is often powerful enough to overcome peoples better judgement.

      Where is it possible to find more of Leo Smith’s writings?

      • Doug Brodie permalink
        February 24, 2015 1:56 pm

        David: It’s no secret that Leo Smith is the proprietor of the website Gridwatch, see http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/index.php. If you go there and click on Info you will find a link to his paper “The Limitations of ‘Renewable’ Energy”. He also pops up regularly in comments on blogs like WUWT and Bishop Hill.

  11. sabretoothed permalink
    February 24, 2015 9:47 am

    Before climate change was made up 😉 http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/lost-cycle-time-part-1-001494

  12. Retired Dave permalink
    February 24, 2015 10:22 am

    Well Paul, I guess there will be few of your regular readers and commenters who will find much to disagree with in Leo Smith’s well crafted and logical words.

    There is no doubt that a lack of education both by schools but also by parents has lead to an unrealistic expectation of what life holds – certainly in the UK we have a generation or more that now thinks they are owed a living. After all half of them have been to University (which is of course the opposite of Diversity). And if they can’t earn it, then they deserve a cut of someone else’s money. I call them degenerate entitlement junkies. The UK is a country full of people with rights and no real responsibilities.

    Many will see this as a conservative view (small “c”) or at least a right of centre, middle class take on things – BUT 60 years ago this was the outlook of most folk in the working class as well. Nye Bevan warned against the risk of a welfare dependency culture right at the start of the welfare state, and Herbert Morrison made speeches that castigated the work shy in a manner that no right wing politician would dare to today. These guys would be appalled at the benefit culture that has been created.

    Those who brought about the welfare state, including one of my great uncles who was on the LP council (committee?) in the 1920/30’s, wanted fairness and support for working people not a lifestyle choice for the lazy and feckless.

    You may feel that I am off topic here, but the society with no consequences which rewards lazy feckless behaviour generates the lack of critical assessment of where politicians are taking us.

    Reality will bring change but I expect to be scattered amongst the roses by then.

  13. Young John permalink
    February 24, 2015 10:58 am

    i’m very much taken with the content of this web site, which is new to me. However, how do we explain the undoubted retreat of glaciers worldwide? Isn’t this at least an indication of warming?

    • February 24, 2015 11:58 am

      Have a browse at the “Glacier” tag, on my blog. Also the lia (little ice age).

      Glaciers advanced massively from the Middle Ages through to the 19thC, when, in Iceland for instance, they were reckoned to be at their fullest extent since the Ice Age.

      They then began retreating rapidly from the late 19thC, long before man had any impact. In Alaska, as the glaciers recede, they are discovering the remnants of forests dating back 1000 years, showing that climate was warmer then. Same in Patagonia.

      Yes it has warmed up since the 19thC, but is it anything more than a natural cyclical event?

      • Young John permalink
        February 24, 2015 12:09 pm

        Thank you! I’ll look at that.

  14. February 24, 2015 11:48 am

    What a fantastic article, one of the absolute best I’ve read on the current state of science (or what passes for it in some places), AGW, politics and “fashionable bigotry.” The case laid out by the author is stunningly correct and enough to strike fear into the hearts of those who see the truth in what he says.

    One of the biggest problems our society faces (and the AGW hoax is the best example) is the wholesale indoctrination and brainwashing that takes place in the state run public “schools” and the fact that there are so few intact families where parents take responsibility for raising and educating their children. Many women put their babies in daycare from the age of 6 months and it is expected that 4 and 5 year olds are to spend most of their waking hours in a classroom outside the home where they learn what to think about virtually everything.

    In my opinion, this is one of the reasons it has been relatively easy for the degenerate politicians and their allies to get us to the point where pretend climate change has become an actual religion. Try arguing with anyone under 40 about this topic and see the absolute nonsense that they spout off. My young grandchildren are already worried about the polar bears and rising tides thanks to the BS they’ve been taught.

  15. Kelvin Vaughan permalink
    February 24, 2015 2:07 pm

    This is my problem.

    Roughly speaking, 200 extra parts per million CO2 has to absorb and heat up sufficiently to raise the other 999800 parts per million of the atmosphere by 1°C, from15°C to 16°C.

    CO2 has to absorb 10,000 times the energy nececessary to raise the atmosphere by 1°C. This is a continuous process otherwise the atmosphere would cool down.

    At this rate to raise 1 square metre of atmosphere by 5 watts CO2 would have to absorb 50,000 watts?

  16. Ron C. permalink
    February 24, 2015 2:49 pm

    In the US the media have mounted an attack on Dr. Willie Soon, perhaps as a distraction from IPCC scandals, or to discredit possible expert testimony at the Senate.

    In attacking Dr. Soon, green journalists display a quite stunning world view. Behind their writings you can see their logic:

    Climate scientists are paid to publish results supporting Global Warming.
    Dr. Soon’s results don’t support Global Warming.
    QED Dr. Soon is paid by those against Global Warming.

    Seeing all the fame and fortune going to true believers, they can not imagine a scientist motivated by his own integrity. After all, in their view, all published results are bought and paid for.

    Green journalists attacking Dr. Soon reveal their operating assumption: Climate science is totally corrupt. . .well, 97% corrupt.

  17. G. Watkins permalink
    February 24, 2015 4:28 pm

    Thanks Paul and Leo for an excellent summary.
    I echo the views of most commentators and I hope ‘Young John’ will do some reading and realise the propaganda that has been produced by the ‘dark side’ is not substantiated by science and real world observations

  18. Doug Brodie permalink
    February 24, 2015 6:35 pm

    I exchange the occasional email with Pat Swords who is waging a very determined battle against the Irish government’s plans to carpet the countryside in useless wind farms. What he is doing is fighting them in the courts, challenging the legality of their actions, e.g. against the Aarhus Convention. Having got nowhere myself in trying to argue with the politicians I think it’s probably the only approach. It could produce results fairly quickly, whereas waiting on the passage of time to demonstrate the futility of establishment policies on climate and energy policies (as it surely will) could allow huge damage to be done in the intervening years or even decades. The only problem is that it is a very difficult undertaking.

    In the run-up to the general election the establishment political parties have come to a cross-party agreement on “tackling climate change”, see https://decc.blog.gov.uk/2015/02/16/time-to-build-a-lasting-global-consensus-on-climate-change/ This cosy agreement disenfranchises a large proportion of the electorate on this important issue. They pretend, maybe they even believe, that they can reach a global legally-binding agreement which will prevent dangerous climate change whereas those of us living in the real world know that this is impossible, even if the IPCC’s fraudulent alarmist climate predictions were true. They pretend, maybe even believe, that they can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, but they seem blind to the fact that this would involve returning to some kind of de-industrialised, almost medieval, form of society – which seems to be the misguided objective of the UN IPCC and their green acolytes all along.

    Surely is not sufficient for them simply to put this nonsense in their manifestos to justify the nonsensical actions they are taking on our behalf? We ought to be properly consulted, with a proper choice. They seem to be admitting to culpability/liability for past so-called climate change based on nothing more than the IPCC’s junk science, exposing us collectively in the West to $100 billion per year of fake “reparation payments” to the developing counties. Why should we have to put up with such madness? As Leo points out, their fantasy plans based on useless technologies like wind turbines are wasting decades which could be used to make realistic preparations for a future of depleted fossil fuel supplies. And this might come sooner than they think.

    Rant over, I’m off to burn lots of fossil fuel going on holiday to the Caribbean!

  19. Peter Brewster permalink
    February 25, 2015 1:08 am

    Good to read the truth. Congratulations

  20. Brad permalink
    February 25, 2015 5:57 am

    This might get some national coverage…. Watch for it.

    • JWood-the-other permalink
      February 26, 2015 5:21 pm

      It’s too long and requires thought to understand. If it can’t be stated in 30 seconds it will get no coverage in the popular media. It needs to be condensed to something like “four legs good, two legs bad” before the public gets it. Slogans work! That’s why we are in this situation.

  21. alan3thompson@btinternet.com permalink
    February 25, 2015 9:26 am

    Message to Paul Homewood. Dear Paul, I am now receiving your posts and find them generally very interesting. However, I find that when I click on the “Read More” button, no further information is displayed. Can you tell me what i need to do to get access to the full stories? Many thanks Alan Thompson

    • February 25, 2015 10:53 am

      It’s not a problem I’ve come across before, Alan. Maybe try a different browser?

      However, to get round it, you can just click on the story on the right hand menu bar. This will bring up the whole story.

      • Brian H permalink
        February 27, 2015 4:30 pm

        Care must be used if add-ons like NoScript are used. They block unapproved JavaScript, used by most sites. It must be ‘allowed’, and then the page’s HTML will work. Use with caution.

  22. Louis Hissink permalink
    February 26, 2015 7:12 am

    Reblogged this on Louis Hissink's Crazy World and commented:
    A quite rational assessment of the present day political swamp/morass we are in.

  23. Martin Goodman permalink
    May 29, 2016 3:50 pm

    I wish to thank you for your outstanding paper on “renewable” (solar and wind in particular) energy that explained in detail the flaws in what I have long presented to those I know as a fraud and a scam.

    It’s one of the best papers on the subject I have seen, and I have recommended that many of my friends read it.

    That said, I was disturbed by the final sentence in that paper.

    “And if you are not Concerned About Climate Change (and let’s face it, a world with no electricity at all is a lot more terrifying than one a degree warmer) there’s several hundred years of coal, which the Chinese will be burning anyway. ”

    The sentence is arguably racist. But more important, it’s IMPLICITLY factually false in several respects.

    It can easily be seen as an example of deceit by selective neglect of data in that it fails to mention or taken into account:

    (1) China specifically plans reduce or even eliminate use of coal this century by developing nuclear power.

    (2) China is currently far and away THE WORLD LEADER in pioneering development of 4th generation nuclear technology, It is at this moment preparing to open three or four distinctly different types of 4th generation nuclear power plants at or close to commercial power output levels.

    (3) China specifically explicitly plans, after evaluating some of these full scale beta-test experimental plants, to start MASS PRODUCING on an Assembly Line basis nuclear power plants of various sizes, and not only using them to replace their coal plants, but also sell them to other nations around the world.

    This is technology that will greatly facilitate nuclear power to more easily replace coal and other fossil fuel all over the world.

    Given all this, the implicit sneer in that final line of your otherwise truly outstanding paper seems to me quite inappropriate, and mars an otherwise excellent paper.

    With the intent of being constructive,

    —marty

    Martin H. Goodman MD

Comments are closed.