Scientists On Average Growing Dumber: 11,000 Scientists Want You To Die To SAVE THE PLANET

Scientists On Average Growing Dumber: 11,000 Scientists Want You To Die To SAVE THE PLANET

We talked many times of the expansion effect. A small core of experts, real and true great (or at least good) minds on some subject, are injected by design with an influx of newcomers. For instance, because of Diversity quotas or because of the curious (and false) idea everybody should receive a college education, thus the need for more professors.

It is then necessarily true that the average intellectual output of this expanded set of experts decreases. The newcomers are dumber by definition, thus average quality must decrease, even if the output of the top minds remains stellar.

But then the output of the top minds doesn’t remain stellar. They are soon bogged down by the mass of lesser minds, who now have to be managed, and who (if you will) contaminate the better minds with bad ideas.

The lesser minds, being greater in number, and most organizations increasingly run like democracies, soon occupy positions of authority. Then everything becomes political, because politics are easier than real science.

Which brings us to climate science. The expansion effect does not, of course, fully explain the extraordinary rapid decrease in quality, there is also mass activism and our new environmental religion, but expansion surely accounts for a good chunk of it.

Enter the new paper in Oxford University Press journal BioScience, “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency”, by Ripple and others.

Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators ­presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.

There is no “climate emergency”. The statement is purely political.

A true “climate emergency” can be defined in a scientific way, such as great confidence that the global temperature will soar to Venus-like levels. No such confidence in any similar statement exists.

Even the best forecasts have proven to be too hot, and the confidence in average forecasts is low, and does not even reach, in many cases, the criterion of skill. Meaning you would do better by saying next year will be like this year, than you would by using the world’s top models.

And then we have media forecasts which promise and promise and promise doom that never arrives. Never mind: what counts are the forecasts, which are take as evidence that the doom has happened.

In any case, “climate emergency” is purely political. You might have thought, as you looked out your window, that things weren’t so bad outside, weather wise. But if so, then you wouldn’t see the need to “do something!” And since doing something is the goal of the “climate emergency”, you must be made to believe conditions are worse than your lying eyes are telling you.

Proof of the expansion effect is in the list of signatories, most of which (a glance through shows) are from universities and similar institutions from scientists of every stripe, astronomers to zoo keepers (yes). The good climate scientists, of which there must still be some, are overwhelmed by the mob.

Proof of the degradation in quality of science is provided in the graphs Ripple et al. provide. All of which are without any indication of uncertainty, and all of which reify a statistical model above Reality. The first shows population increasing, but then another is the per-capita increase in meat production, which increases at a goodly rate. A normal person would see this as a good thing, because it means meat, the healthiest food there is, is now cheaper and more accessible.

As population increases, so do things like air travel, but showing air travel increases is itself not a separate indication of climate change. It’s just a proxy for population change. Yes, more CO2 is emitted, but that itself is not everywhere bad, and is often good, many plants being CO2 limited. How do scientists forget that almost all of a plant’s mass, trees includes, comes from the air (including water)?

The most inept graph is the last, the annual losses claimed due to weather. This increases, very roughly. Of course it does! Population is increasing! Costs of homes is increasing! Therefore necessarily the costs of losses must increase!

Why didn’t they do per-capita losses here? Because, I suspect, it would show a decrease.

Here’s the key to all this, which they put last and emphasized:

…the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity. There are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies make family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women.

Now I ask you (again) how in the unholy hell did we move from “climate emergency” to “human rights” and “full gender equity…especially for girls and young women”?

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here


  1. John B()

    …especially for girls and young women who are not actually girls and young women

  2. Gary

    Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.”

    And the scientific evidence/argument for this assertion is … ?


  3. Karl

    It is very plausible that scientists are getting dumber, but if someone wants us to die, the operative word is “evil”.

  4. Dam

    “and achieve full gender equity for all… especially girls and young women.”

    There you have it; they know full well that feminism destroys a society, literally.

  5. Yonason

    “Then everything becomes political, because politics are easier than real science.” – Briggs

    Don’t forget that actual politicians, who, being (on average) stupidest of them all, set the bar. And since they are the gatekeepers of funding, the stupid (and often even the smart but cowardly) scientists adopt the prevailing political message as a means of self preservation. If they don’t, the dough dispensing spigot could be shut, and trough might run dry. OH NOOOS!

    So, IMO, self preservation is the primary motivator here.

    And it isn’t just science. I would postulate that at some point self preservation eventually becomes the goal of any large institution, to the ever growing exclusion of whatever good purpose their founding was allegedly based on. While a select individual has a conscience, and can accept the worst rather than give up his/her ideals, a group of individuals has no conscience, nor even a consciousness. It’s only as strong as its weakest link. And there’s always a weak link. If not now, then tomorrow or the day after,…

  6. Sheri

    I think of science as a zombie occupation—it’s dead, but still doing massive harm pretending it’s alive and devouring that which is alive.

    Politics and lies have always gone together. It’s how Hitler operated, it’s how any cruel, evil entity or person operates—FAKE sincerity and FAKE truth. Convince people it matters and the fools will run off the cliff with the lemmings every time.

  7. Sander van der Wal

    Perhaps these scientists could volunteer? Like some scientist developing medicines do sometimes volunteer to test the stuff on themselves, a practice known as “eating your own dog food” among programmers.

  8. Dave

    Gender equality is called for because it’s caused a fertility collapse everywhere it’s been tried. Educated, liberated women marry late and have few children.

    The problem with this cure for overpopulation is that Muslims are wise to it. The Taliban and Boko Haram know that girls’ schools are denying them fertile young wives.

  9. Ray

    Professor Stephen Schneider said this in his 1989 interview in Discover magazine. He later denied he was advocating lying but it sure sounded like it when he said you have to decide between effectiveness and honesty
    “On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

  10. Yonason

    …”how in the unholy hell did we move from “climate emergency” to “human rights” and “full gender equity…” – Briggs

    That’s rhetorical, right? I mean, you do know that was a part of their plan all along, don’t you?

    I was going to say it was their “end game” all along, but that wouldn’t be quite correct. Like “climate change” it is just a stepping stone along the way to their real end-game, the destruction of free-market capitalism, i.e, Western Civilization, with themselves as the wise and benevolent (so they would have us believe, and don’t you dare doubt it, or else) unaccountable rulers.

    When you know what they really want, everything else they do makes sense in that context.

    “If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
    – Judi Bari,
    principal organiser of Earth First!


    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
    – Maurice Strong,
    founder of the UN Environment Programme”

  11. Uncle Mike

    The author of the “paper” is not a climate scientist. He is ostensibly an “ecologist” whatever that may mean. The weird thing for me, and I’m not bragging or apologizing, is I actually know the guy.

    Really, I’ve met him and had some interaction. It was years ago. He was an idiot then. Made a complete fool of himself at a seminar. I held my tongue but the grad student sitting in front of me called him on his BS. It had nothing to do with climate. This was years before Climatism. But anyway she let him have it. I was relieved that I didn’t have to, proud of her, and glad the rest of the group had some brains.

    The author is still an idiot. The condition hasn’t dissipated. He’s a political animal, a sort of weasel who follows the trend, but does it poorly because he’s a moron. He’s a retarded weasel and pathetic in every regard.

    Those are the actual facts. I know from personal experience. You have my word on it.

  12. Karen

    So all of you want to keep women from going to school? If not, what is the problem with girls getting an education? They won’t be moron-doormats for men anymore?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *