Author: Captain Obvious

Be wary of any politician or corporation that makes promises so far into the future that the individuals making them are very likely gone. It is sobering to look to the past and reconcile promises made decades ago about almost anything and square them up with where we are today. I can tell you from firsthand experience, the odds are against any form of accuracy.

Some trends are certainly persistent, but the pace of change is always elusive. Before Steve Jobs changed everything in personal electronics, few would have forecast the expansive range of his innovations. Xerox management’s inability to understand the future of paper copiers stands as a stark reminder that we tend to see what we want to see in the future.

So, when CEOs of car companies talk about 2030 and beyond, you should take anything they say with a grain of salt. I tried to warn all our clients about the claims of the Nikola startup about their trucks and how they were going to revolutionize that market. Car and Driver has an excellent summary: https://www.caranddriver.com/nikola

Aspirational goals are always interesting and welcomed in most situations. Who would want to argue with raising the standard of living for all, affordable food, housing, education, and healthcare. Let’s add in peace on earth and make the world safe for everyone.

The reality is quite a different matter. The devil is in the details. Things are never as easy as they seem, nor as cheap as promised. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t dream and follow our dreams, but it should make us pause when someone gets in front of us and makes bold promises of sweeping change.

I still remember my college professor’s admonition about forecasting the future. He called it the “seer sucker theory” … which he explained as for every person who believes they can see into the future, there will always be suckers who believe them.

Transitions are often quite slow. Even when something is clearly a better alternative, those who are comfortable with what they have are rather unlikely to switch, and those who haven’t are generally slow to adopt. These are called market penetration half lives … the time it takes for half of the market to adopt an idea. These half lives are most often decades long.

Electronics is one of the shortest … 2-5 years, so there is always the possibility of rapid market adoption there. Energy systems like heating cooling and ventilation equipment are decades. We only have about 5-6 years before we hit 2030 … therefore promising anything much more than a small adoption by that time is without precedent.

Politicians of course want you to believe they can work miracles and who doesn’t want something for nothing. But remember my “seer sucker theory” comment. Who then is being played for a sucker? Right … you should be angry and vote accordingly.

The claim that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is an existential threat has finally been officially debunked. A group of very smart people dove into the reference literature and published conclusions, and can now explain how we got here … and it is not pretty. In fact, the summary of their work is that the science community has lost almost all its credibility for not speaking up.

An article in the WSJ says it all: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-more-honest-climate-science-82f928a0?st=sqtyga6kczap3en&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

The reason they have remained silent is due to the tactic climate activists have embraced which include alarmism and outright attacks. The scientific community has been hijacked by a relatively small group of environmental activists who have a clear plan of what they want and are taking shreds of evidence that support their position while ignoring mountains of evidence that refutes everything they are saying.

The movie and podcasts available through www.aclimateconversation.com exposes how a history of alarmism and eco-socialism resulted in the canceling of scientific debate and reason. As with so many other social issues, there is no longer any room for debate.

David Legates is the author of In Climate and Energy, The Case for Realism, the #1 bestseller on Amazon. Co-Written with E. Calvin Beisner, the book also features contributions from a host of other scientists. The book provides a clear, cogent, and beautifully written history of climate alarmism; how it began, what the drivers were, and how the economic agenda of the major players, who are far more well organized than may be realized, is the true aim, is not “saving the planet” as a matter of changing climate.

Dr. Legates has a PhD in Climatology and has witnessed, and been a significant player in, the great climate crisis for 30 years. Dr Legates has taught at Louisiana State University, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Virginia, and was a Visiting Research Fellow at the National Climate Data Center. There can be no credible argument that Dr Gates is not an expert in the field of climate who knows more about atmospheric and temperature effects and their measurement than the vast majority of scientists involved in the IPCC.

The largely untold and unknown story of climate alarmism, which can fairly be described as a contrived crisis led to eco-socialism that is the driving UN goal: global wealth redistribution. The authors prove that prosperity has been driven by hydrocarbon-based energy, has produced longevity and reductions in mortality on a dramatic scale.

As you watch the free movie available on the website you will be confronted with the facts that carbon dioxide is a beneficial agent for feeding our modern world, and that the ideology of banning fossil fuels without realistic and affordable alternatives, is like jumping out of a plane at altitude without a parachute.

There are some issues the movie fails to capture, like how since the 1960s Clean Air Act our cleaner air is also increasing the earth’s temperature, and that the planetary load resulting from bringing all citizens of this planet up to our standard of living is unachievable. And, the plastic garbage problem is pictured but none of these professionals had the time in this film to suggest what to do about it.

Another documentary that speaks volumes on this issue is Planet of the Humans available on Amazon Prime Video or for free with ads. In it, the most telling scene is an interview with Al Gore and Richard Branson who are both making fortunes on the alleged Climate Crisis. They are asked if they consider themselves prophets. Their telling answer, “It depends on how you spell Profits!” And they laugh hysterically.

No … it isn’t funny at all. We are all paying for something we are not getting.

I grew up with the adage that if you build a better mousetrap people will beat a path to your door. My second masters degree is in product innovation and new product introduction. Central to my training was the idea that improving a product would result in people beating a path to your door. It is interesting to note that the origins of this phrase are murky but most people know the adage and will repeat it indicating it is a somewhat universal belief.

Well … maybe not if this New York Times article is any indication … https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/nyregion/glue-trap-rodents-nyc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.gk0.QKot.aq4J-js-6hF3&smid=url-share

Banning glue traps is the latest in what some would insist is governmental overreach. I think we all understand the arguments about abortion, but are we really concerned about the suffering of rats? I have used and do use glue traps to catch cockroaches all the time and frankly, I know my wife is not sympathetic to how they die. It is funny to me how much these insects freak her out. She can’t go near a dead one no less be anywhere near a live one. She is less afraid of poisonous spiders or snakes. But, I do have to admit I have some empathy for field mice.

I know people who won’t even swat a mosquito because killing an insect is wrong to them. Sorry, that doesn’t bother me at all. However, the idea of a field mouse dying a slow and painful death does disturb me a bit. I have used glue traps and put a few of those little critters out of their misery when I found them in the traps.

Product innovation has moved from “utility” … aka how well a product works to achieve an end result to something much fuzzier to define. How do we define ridding the house of something that lives and whose life might be deemed valuable?

Rats bring less sympathy to my mind and heart than field mice. I have never been successful in using live traps for either. I have used live traps to relocate a whole family of raccoons from our back yard successfully. They didn’t like the process, but none of them were harmed. Interestingly I have been warned that you had better move them at least 10 miles from their natural habitat or they will find their way back.

My wife is in a perpetual battle to keep deer out of our garden and to stop them from eating her favorite plants. I love the product named “Not Tonight Deer” which repels deer by coating the plants with an odorant. This seems innocent and effective. The name is a hoot!

Setting all the anecdotes aside, I do find that today’s consumer attitudes are less knowable in these areas without awareness and education. Otherwise, It seems we have selective sensitivity about the pain and suffering of animals. Dogs and cats would never be trapped using inhuman methods … at least knowingly.

But, what about those adorable dolphins we see performing at SeaWorld? Now that we better understand how killer whales have been treated the days of their lives in captivity are numbered. Watch the movie Blackfish if you want to understand that issue. So, once again, if the American consumer is made aware of the “rest of the story” they respond.

The New York Times article points out that today’s consumer perspectives are much more nuanced than the simple attributes we used to justify product innovation. Simply said, it matters how a product is improved and the full supply chain for the product itself. We all remember when diamond mining was discovered to endanger the lives of Africans … we called them blood diamonds. Today’s EVs have a similar supply chain characteristic with the mining of lithium and other metals used in batteries. Fortunately, governments are onto these abuses and the horrible impacts of current production methods are likely to change for the better.

If you want to see how modern methods to reduce cost in things like garlic, chocolate, etc. please watch “Rotten” or “Seaspiracy” and of course “Planet of the Humans.” In every case innovation might cause people to beat a path to your door, but only as long as they are kept in the dark about how they are killing off their brothers and sisters on this planet.
It is time to present the full picture and let the market decide whether they care or not. The jury may still be out on rats, but personally I find our complacency toward the sickness and death of others pretty damning.

I do have a suggestion someone made that we should stop using rats for biological testing and use lawyers instead. Their reasoning was that we were running out of rats and seemed to have an excess of lawyers. Secondly, you don’t become nearly as attached to lawyers. And, finally, there are some things you just can’t get a rat to do.

So far this too has just been a suggestion.

Wow … what a wild word we are living within! A Harvard professor is implying his team can bring the fountain of youth to reality. Of course, there are skeptics and calls for his termination as well. https://www.statnews.com/2024/03/05/david-sinclair-harvard-longevity-scientist-reversing-aging-dogs/

Do you all remember when superconductivity was claimed at room temperature? Take a look at this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01174-6

The scientific community has become tainted by opportunists and frankly … liars … who are so hungry for funding they will compromise their ethics and “fake it till you make it” as the Silicon Valley adage goes. Theranos is the classic example but we have so many these days that the abuse of public trust and investor confidence is tragic.

I suspect we are about to see similar reversals of praise in the climate change claims of so many. The attraction of simple answers to complex questions always lures us. Knowing professionals realize how complex today’s questions have become.

A recent New York Times article in the New York Times struck me as refreshing.  These paragraphs are IMHO some of the most profound writing I have seen:

“I warn my students. At the start of every semester, on the first day of every course, I confess to certain passions and quirks and tell them to be ready: I’m a stickler for correct grammar, spelling and the like, so if they don’t have it in them to care about and patrol for such errors, they probably won’t end up with the grade they’re after. I want to hear everyone’s voice — I tell them that, too — but I don’t want to hear anybody’s voice so often and so loudly that the other voices don’t have a chance.”

“And I’m going to repeat one phrase more often than any other: “It’s complicated.” They’ll become familiar with that. They may even become bored with it. I’ll sometimes say it when we’re discussing the roots and branches of a social ill, the motivations of public (and private) actors and a whole lot else, and that’s because I’m standing before them not as an ambassador of certainty or a font of unassailable verities but as an emissary of doubt. I want to give them intelligent questions, not final answers. I want to teach them how much they have to learn — and how much they will always have to learn.”

There is a lot we can learn from these recent articles which should cause us to question almost everything we are being told. We need an informed electorate or we are going to elect charlatans again and again.