Climate Change Act Reconsidered

This is a ‘copycat posting’. h/t to R. de Haan for pointing to the original at:

http://rarereaders.seablogger.com/2011/12/the-climate-change-act-reconsidered/

I encourage everyone to hit that link and read the text there. It isn’t long and does set the tone well.

The bulk of the content is two videos, and I’m putting youtube links to them here. They are a bit long, but well worth the time.

The first is 38 minutes. It has the MC, Dr. Philip Stott, doing a lead-in introduction, then two speakers.

Dr. Ian Plimer sets a great perspective with a discussion of CO2, global climate change, and sea level from a geologic perspective (which is similar to the presentation he gave in Chicago a while back where I had the pleasure of sitting next to him in one session. A great fellow.)

The second is Donna Laframboise (about 20 minutes in) who gives an overview of her book that looks at the IPCC from a rather unique perspective. She basically asks “Are they telling the truth when they claim to be the worlds best scientists and unbiased?” and finds they are not very well credentialed, do some shoddy things, and have astounding levels of bias in their associations. I’ve now got two books for my Christmas shopping list…

The Second video is about 41 minutes long with two speakers as well.

Dr. Ruth Lea gives a financial overview of the impact of renewables legislation and carbon goals legislation (largely decarbonizing) will have on energy costs (short form: 25% to 50% higher, some forms even more, and industry looking for the door. Industrial subsidy to just put the costs on the same taxpayers who can’t pay their own higher energy bills.)

At various times the captions call her Ruth Lee or Ruth Ridley, neither of which looks to be correct. I found a profile of her here:

http://www.global-vision.net/ourteam.asp

Ruth Lea is currently Director of Global Vision and Non-Executive Director and Economic Adviser to Arbuthnot Banking Group. She is the author of many papers on economic matters and writes regularly for the press. Ruth was Director of the Centre for Policy Studies from 2004-2007. She was also Head of the Policy Unit at the Institute of Directors (IoD) between 1995 and 2003, before which she was the Economics Editor at ITN, Chief Economist at Mitsubishi Bank and Chief UK Economist at Lehman Brothers. She also spent 16 years in the Civil Service in the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Central Statistical Office. She has served on the Council of the Royal Economic Society, the National Consumer Council, the Nurses’ Pay Review Body, the ONS Statistics Advisory Committee, the ESRC Research Priorities Board and the Retail Prices Advisory Committee.

The photo looks like the same person to me, and I’ve got to think they have the name spelled right.

Again at about 20 minutes in we change speakers, to Dr. Matt Ridley, who gives a very refreshing look at the impact of the shale gas revolution on the world. I thought I knew about shale gas (and I do know a lot about it) but I had not thought of several of the points he made. The huge geographic distribution. The impact of the sheer massive size of it all. That the energy content of the shale gas from Pennsylvania alone is larger than the oil fields of Saudi Arabia… I think “this matters”…

IMHO he does go for the more optimistic end of things. The Marcellus shale has widely ranging estimates of content and he uses one nearer the higher end than the lower end. You can read a lot about that shale here:

<http://geology.com/articles/marcellus-shale.shtml

On the other hand, he did not mention the Utica shale that lies just below the Marcellus and is not even being exploited yet as you need to drill through the Marcellus to get to it and at that point you might as well stop and pick up a massive load of gas and save the extra drilling costs…

The Utica Shale Below the Marcellus

Although the Marcellus Shale is the current unconventional shale drilling target in Pennsylvania. Another rock unit with enormous potential is a few thousand feet below the Marcellus. The Utica Shale is thicker than the Marcellus, more geographically extensive and has already shown that it can be of commercial value. A generalized cross-section showing the relative positions of the Marcellus Shale and the Utica Shale is shown in the right column.

When the yield of Marcellus Shale wells start to decline, new wells might be drilled down to the Utica to continue a stream of natural gas production. Drilling for the Utica will be more expensive because of the greater depth, however, the infrastructure of drill pads, right-of-ways, pipelines, permit data and other investments will reduce development costs for Utica Shale wells.

The companion article on the Barnett shale is also worth a read. It discusses several other potential plays as well:

http://geology.com/research/barnett-shale-gas.shtml

So overall, I have to think the optimism is justified. For every “well, the field might not be that big” there is another “but there are so many we haven’t bothered to even look at yet”…

I think it worth mention that this was discussion was made possible by Sammy Wilson MP.

There is also a note at the bottom of the SeaBlogger page that says they picked up the video from another site, so I’m including that link here as well:

http://climaterealists.com/?id=8773

End Note

Yes, it’s a long video. It is WELL worth it. There is something in the flow and context that makes it ‘click’ for me. Seeing some folks give straight forward presentations that move from context, through considerations of the providers of the political movement, to the economic impacts, and ending with “This Way To The Energy Exit”; all in a meeting room sponsored by an MP. Well, it gives me some hope for Great Britain yet…

Frankly, just the ‘context setting’ from the presentation on the scope of shale gas changes your view of things. How can you find a few Saudi Arabias of fuel more or less evenly distributed over the planet, with cost to produce that have driven the price from $12 / unit down to $4 / unit in the USA (where the $12 was more or less an oil equivalent price) and that can be used to make electricity as well as power cars; and not get a paradigm shift?

The formula for ‘fracking fluid’ was described ( Almost entirely water and sand with a bit of detergent and some acid in it) and that gives the lie to the notion that it is some horrible chemical stew. That, too, gives a bit of a ‘mind flip’. As we watch the histrionics that will inevitably come about ‘fraking pollution’, it makes it clear they are driven by a political agenda, not a real environmental risk.

So please, brew a cup, sit back, and soak in a bit of fresh air…

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Climate Perspective, AGW Science and Background, Economics, Trading, and Money, Political Current Events and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Climate Change Act Reconsidered

  1. Yes, I watched these when first posted. I considered them worthwhile.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  2. R. de Haan says:

    E.M, Thanks for putting the magnifying glass on the subject and your own valued and much appreciated opinions.

    As I wrote earlier I think the shale gas development without any doubt kills the peak oil doctrine, it will (should) change US foreign policies.
    Our current weather, wide spread information about the climate change scam and the totalitarian aspirations of the Globalists killing our economies and personal economic prospects as well as our freedoms.
    Without the burden of the climate taxes and the “greening of our economies, read wind mills, expensive smart grids, bio fuel mandates and loads of red tape economic recovery should be around the corner.

    The quicker we stop the madness, the better.

    However, what obviously counts for now is what we don’t read in the press.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/09/durban-what-the-media-are-not-telling-you/#more-52760

  3. R. de Haan says:

    Also read Matt Ridley’s report “Shale Gas Shock”
    http://marcellus.psu.edu/resources/PDFs/shalegas_GWPF.pdf

  4. cm says:

    Did you know that the modern Petrochemical industry was another Scottish invention? James “paraffin”Young set up the worlds first “modern” refinery in a town called Bathgate,in West Lothian…When i look out of my window i can see the largest shale tip in Britain. I love it,i take my Gas Gas trial bike up it regularly..Surprisingly,most of Scotlands shale is still to be mined.It became uneconomical when the Arabs started to sell cheaper oil…I live in a town called Broxburn that was built to mine shale(most of the towns in West Lothian are /were mining towns). I have been concerned about “fracking” since i first heard of it as it would be the perfect way to exploit Scotlands shale reserves if it can be done without polluting the drinking water(if it is actually fracking that causes the water to ignite on the videos i’ve watched).
    Unfortunately for me.Even if Scotlands Shale could be magically refined for 1 pence ber barrel,the price i pay at the pumps will never go down,it will only go up because of the so called fuel-escalator rip-off being continually justified by the AGW sophistry routinely deployed by the “hired help”.
    If you fancy a couple of hours learning about shale mining then type in “Broxburn shale tip”, “Broxburn shale mining” or “paraffin young”. See how my Grandfathers earned their living..I have to thank the Arabs,if not for cheap oil then i would have probably ended up down a pit shaft mining shale.And that would have been heavy. :)

  5. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/11/new-eu-research-confirms-roman-warming-period-in-arctic-regions-warmer-than-modern.html And the Roman warming wasn’t even that warm compared to the Minoan and Holocene Climatic Optimum

  6. R. de Haan says:

    Philip Stott: The BASIC Truth About Durban
    Posted on December 11, 2011 by Ron de Haan
    The basic truth about Durban, the latest and 17th Feydeau farce passing as serious UN climate talks, is simple: the BASIC countries – Brazil, South Africa, India, and China – played a blinder.

    They outwitted comprehensively the ever-zealous, naive, and hypocritical EU to ensure that they achieved their fundamental goals, which were to delay any agreement on a replacement for the failing Kyoto Protocol until at least 2015, and any actual action to cut emissions until at least 2020. And, of course, by then, the plate tectonics of world politics may have altered even more radically, so that further delays will be eminently possible, or the global warming narrative – we can only hope – will have withered away permanently into perennial greenhouse history.

    Clever Tactics

    I watched their basic tactics with growing admiration. First it would be China, then India, to raise objections, while South Africa, the host nation, often seemed to lack “urgency” or “ambition”, as certain commentators bemusedly observed.

    Meanwhile, the US simply tagged along, playing the game to adapt the BASIC strategy to their own advantage. In the end, the BASIC countries got precisely what they wanted, and, in doing so, saved us all from the immediate imposition of billions of dollars of further debt. We owe them a lot.

    Of course, the BBC and other media with a basic global-warming agenda have tried to ‘Pangloss’ and ‘Polyannaerise’ the whole debacle, although even they have had a harder job this time round, so comprehensive are the built-in delaying mechanisms achieved by the BASIC bloc.

    Climate Realities

    Moreover, these COPs, these appalling-named Conferences of the Parties of up to 15,000 hangers-on, seem increasingly ludicrous against the backdrop of what is happening with the world economy, and with respect to what is really occurring with carbon emissions.

    The hypocrisy of the UK is staggering. Figures for 2010 on 2009 give a provisional estimate for the UK of 491.7 million tonnes, up 3.8% on 2009. On a world scale, 2010 figures indicate a provisional rise of 5.9% on 2009, and 4.5% on 2008. What is more, while emissions rose by 5.9%,

    the world economy only grew (yes, some places are still exhibiting growth, thank goodness) by 5.1%, thus even indicating a rise in global carbon intensity.

    So much for the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol. Why anyone would want another protocol is beyond me!

    Ship of Fools

    Regrettably, the global-warming Ship of Fools carries so many spouting Kyoto-like nonsense; witness the barmy desire of Oxfam and the WWF to add further economic burdens in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions onto international shipping, the very agent for trade and growth in the developing world. I confess to have given up entirely on global-warming embracing charities like Oxfam and Christian Aid. I thought that they were about preventing poverty.

    But, above all, there is the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the absurdly-dire Chris Huhne, who is more and more worthy of Swiftian parody and scorn.

    Unfortunately, Huhne is beyond a mere joke, because his energy policies could well cause lasting damage to UK competitiveness, and to life on this island.

    We must devoutly hope that, like one of his overly-expensive turbines, he goes down very soon in flames, as the winds of change blow dramatically over the global warming madness.

    But, at least, we now have the BASICS in place to build a defensive wall against such suicidal policies.

    Philip Stott is Emeritus Professor of Biogeography in the University of London, and a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.

    From The Global Warming Policy Foundation

  7. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M. : Last but not least: George Carlin´s on “Save the Planet” w/spanish captions, for your spanish speaking who still believe in “El Calentamiento Global”:
    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vURE4N0W4CQ&w=420&h=315%5D

  8. tckev says:

    @George
    “I think you should know that the Scottish government had ensured that Scotland can get cheap, sustainable electricity for their people…”
    http://www.cawt.co.uk/index.php?mact=CGBlog,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=504&cntnt01returnid=19

    I believe that a bent market is an inefficient trash can.

  9. E.M.Smith says:

    @Adolfo:

    Feel free to post links with / in Spanish to ANY of the videos I post or link.

    Not only can I use the practice, but I know a few of the folks who visit here are Spanish speakers.

    Frankly, that goes for anyone who’s primary language is other than English. I can generally work my way through French and German Lite OK, and several other romance languages are ‘close enough’ to read. Some of the North Germanic group too (Swedish and Dutch with some work) Only ‘sticking point’ might be Russian. That, only because there are so many Cyrillic spams that I’ve taken to just hitting ‘delete’ on the Cyrillic ones. (I translated a few hundred of them for a while… they were 100% spam…) But if a ‘known name’ wants to put up a Cyrillic comment, I’d let it through (assuming I noticed who it was first).

    Basically, I’m not fixated on English…

    @Tckev:

    Love this line:

    A spokesman for renewable energy company Infinis, which owns the Ardrossan wind farm, said the site had been disconnected from the National Grid as a precaution.

    So… no power if no wind. No power if lots of wind. And if the wind is Just Right, disconnected from the grid….. This works, how, again? :-{

    @cm:

    Nice bit of history. FWIW, in several of the ‘burning taps’ videos, the gas has been traced to non-fracking sources. Sometimes it was there all along and the folks just hadn’t noticed.

    Generally the well casings are cemented into the surface rocks and the actual fracked rock is way deep. Like a mile deep. If you have shale gas near the surface, then it is likely already leaking, and reducing the pressure by pumping it out is a feature…

    @George:

    Maybe then can use some Scottish Windmills ;-)

    @R. de Haan:

    BASICS… has a nice ring to it… “We need to get back to BASICS” ;-)

    Durban? Fehh…

  10. R. de Haan says:

    Must See: Fall of the Republic

  11. Pascvaks says:

    I have an old saying about hunger, it’s probably something I heard once, I’ve never been too original, I know it’s something I felt once, it also applies to lack of heat and a number of other human necessities -

    “When people get hungry enough they’ll eat anything, and anyone.”

    (Substitute ‘cold’ for hunger, and ‘burn’ for eat, etc.)

    PS: All these copper thieves must not know that Hollywood Mansions and Gore-plexes have loads of copper. Hell they even have gold faucets. Imagine stealing copper from a Church or School or Grave Yard. I’ll bet Big Al and the Screen Actors Guild might even give them a penny or two if they lost some weight and asked real nice. I hear the UN building is full of the stuff.

  12. E.M.Smith says:

    @R. de Haan:

    Interesting video, but a bit heavy on the Evil Corporations Did It. Corporations are not particularly evil. They are just legal vehicles to hide groups of people acting as one fictional person. It’s the people who do the evil. I have no doubt that there are many people driven by greed, power lust, etc. desiring a global game where they call the shots, nor that many of them hide inside the corporate form.

    So, for example, I think it would be fairly simple to say that only natural persons can make campaign contributions and support candidates. Couple that with a ‘no stock trading’ while in office (assets in a blind trust) and districts set by the people (or just demanding that they have at most 5 or 6 line segments defining them one or two of which could be state borders) and you’d get most of it cleaned up.

    I’m also not convinced that folks are either smart enough nor competent enough to pull off that big a conspiracy. Stupidity can cover a lot of turf, then some simple self dealing covers a lot more. Is there a lot of insider dealing? I’m sure of it. Was it carefully planned and coordinated? Doubt if the guys as Lehman felt that way… It’s easier to just say that the folks who went through the Great Depression had died and folks no longer believed Glass Stegall was needed as they had never seen it. In short, Barney Franks was dumb. Then the bankers were greedy. Kind of covers it, IMHO.

    Add in the paranoia about Fed secrecy and it’s pretty clear some of the anti-banker stuff is over done. During a time when some banks were failing due to bank runs, to demand Bernanke list what names were getting collateralized loans is just dumb. It would have broken the banks fairly rapidly. Should the congress critters have access behind closed doors? Perhaps, but not as long as they can do self dealing in stocks…

    The section on propaganda is also a bit around the bend. The Ancient Greeks had sports. The Romans had games. Adult sports have been around nearly forever. Is there propaganda? Sure. Is it the hockey game on TV? I don’t think so… Have folks always been willing to delegate their decision making to others? Yup, for all time. Sometimes it’s the pastor at church. Sometimes it’s the guys at the pub or the club. And sometimes it’s the tv and the talking heads. Will folks try to use that? Sure, but I’ve listened to a lot of it from the USSR et.al. and it didn’t have much effect. I’ve been bombarded by GM propaganda for decades, never going to buy one…

    The idea that moving the money creation back to directly inside the government is also a bit suspect. There is a long history of various government politicians using the treasury for their own purposes and ruining currencies too. There isn’t enough space to give a history of fiat currencies, but the short form is it doesn’t matter who runs it, it runs to ruin… Gold and Silver bimetalism has issues too, but IMHO are lesser problems. (Though I actually like the idea of a money system based on a larger basket commodities. A basket with several natural hedges in it would have less cyclicality problems.) In short, some of the fixes on the banking and money side are a bit simplistic.

    Frankly, I think better minds than mine thought through all of this long ago. Simply return to the original meaning of the constitution and follow it.

    Small limited government, most of the departments gone, No federal police functions (yes, no FBI et.al. just like it was before…). No military funding for more than 2 years w/ congress to renew. Congress has to declare any war. None of this UN or NATO making decisions for us. Etc.

    How to get it? I’m getting to the point where I think it will take the several states rising up and taking back the government they created. By either constitutional convention or perhaps just amendments if that could be done cleanly enough.

    OK, overall I think it’s worth watching the video, even if it is 2 hours and 25 minutes long… At least at the 1:43:00 part they get into some Global Warming stuff… At 1:55:00 or so they have some of the best stuff. I’d almost quit a several times by then… That canard about the “CIA created Al Quaida” is a bit much too. Sorry, but radical Islam didn’t need any help to hate and attack us. (And yes, I know he got money and guns and experience from the CIA FUNDED anti Russian Afghan covert op. A stupid side effect is not a well oiled conspiracy..) Then again, that 2:12:00 or so about the elimination of the Posse Comitatus law was a bit of a surprise… I suppose I’d be more worried if I thought the government was actually competent and if the average American was not a bit lazy and prone to telling government to bugger off… Sloth and apathy will stop more conspiracies than anything else, IMHO. Look at the OWS folks. Small squeakers that had their 15 minutes of fame and now have just faded away…. Unable to motivate the average Joe to join their progressive cause.

  13. R. de Haan says:

    E.M, I agree with your assessment.
    I too almost quit watching several times.
    The format and some of the material presented is typical Alex Jones stuff that comes with a high paranoia factor.
    Just like you I filter out the paranoia and try to get a grip on the big picture.

    The question is if we are really dealing with a global conspiracy set to de- industrialize our civilization, reduce consumption and world population by design.

    Durban (and Copenhagen for that matter) made very clear what the UN is up to and the insane treaty proposals should be a wake up call for all of us.

    Durban confirms the claims made in the Jones video.

    It’s not difficult to cross check claims made in the video with publications in the press and government policies that further support the general picture sketched by Jones.

    The Dutch for example are a trading nation. Rotterdam Harbor is one of the biggest in the world and Schiphol with almost 50 million transit passengers one of the biggest airport hubs in the world, in other words a lot to loose.

    Now here we have a secretary of the Dutch State from a conservative party make a Durban speech demanding world wide CO2 shipping regulations.

    The same secretary is also in favor of taxing all incoming flights at Schiphol.

    We are building wind parks that cost billions, hike energy prices, mortgage our industry and reduce public spending.
    All this happens while the Dutch have natural gas and shale gas stocks available to secure centuries of energy consumption.

    As for the Al Qaida claims I am also with you but I still wonder what those Al Qaida flags are doing on public buildings in Libya.

    I wonder why are our big banks are on a suicide mission?

    Why does the US Congress adopts legislation that takes away our civil rights?

    Even today Drudge features an article about Congress to consider internet
    censorship.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/overkill-on-internet-piracy/2011/12/11/gIQA9TK6nO_blog.html

    A few years ago I first visited the Green Agenda blog and rejected it’s entire content as total hog wash.
    http://green-agenda.com

    Today I think every claim they have made at this blog is true.

    So here we are spending billions in alternative energy sources while with centuries of conventional stock available.

    Here we are promoting world wide poverty, destroying the Middle Class in the rich countries with consumption and population reduction as a primary objective while we are already in a phase where population reduction has become inevitable through natural causes see Spengler’s latest article about the problems we will face because of the falling birth rates.
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/ML13Dj05.html

    My conclusion:
    The Club of Rome and the UN conspiracy is real but the people in control are ravingly mad and should be removed from their positions ASAP.

    Europe no longer can be saved from financial and economic collapse but the US still has a big chance to escape the slaughterhouse if America elect Ron Paul who IMO is the only person determined enough to de-fund the Federal Government, the UN and the only politician who can be trusted to make a serious attempt to stop the current madness.

    A second term of Obama or a heck like Newt Gingridge treplacing him is the last thing we need.

  14. E.M.Smith says:

    @R. de Haan:

    Your conclusion is wrong.

    It ought to read:

    “The Club of Rome and the UN conspiracy is real but the people in control are ravingly mad, incredibly stupid, and ought to be removed from their positions ASAP.”

    I know it’s common to use “should” for “ought”, but it ought not be ;-)

    I’m firmly convinced from having seen way to many of them speak, that folks like Al Gore and other Club Of Rome folks have some kind of stupidity defect. Too much of their brain has been trained and consumed by the parts that do “social stuff” and “suck up and posture to be sucked” and that leaves insufficient brain cells for understanding reality.

    It is well attested that using one part of the brain and not using adjacent areas will have the unused cells ‘re-purposed’ into the highly used area; so this isn’t an exotic thesis. Just that they are so over trained to be social manipulators and impress the right folks and so trained NOT to have reality based thinking due to law degrees et al requiring a certain ‘moral flexibility’ that those area take over.

    I’ve met too many of these folks for it to be accidental or a statistical quirk. Highly educated in a very narrow area (so know nearly nothing else), trained to expect to be important and right (even if clueless they are expected to be judges et. al.) and highly connected socially (but only to other folks like them so all ‘sucking their own exhaust’ and doing group think.) If at a cocktail party of these folks there is an expected “Good Topic and Belief” list. Talk to it, and be a ‘positive person’ with the ‘right beliefs’ all is well. Stray from it, expect them to THINK or to look at any aspect of the “problem” other than the pre-determined ‘appropriate attitude’ and you are a foreign irritant to be avoided. So “being green is good” is accepted. Show in any way that is NOT true, you are “being negative” for starters and “embarrassing someone who might matter” for another.

    So in that context does it really need a lot of Evil Conspiracy? Or just that they are too “reality dumb” to know that it’s suicidal to tax their own shipping?

    Remember that Daddy Bush didn’t know what a price scanner was. Didn’t go to grocery stores. I had a Senator ask me, when getting into a Hot Air Balloon, “So, is it the hot air that makes it go up?”… (At least he was curious, even if he was standing under a 5 foot tall flame at the moment… )

    Blissfully ignorant of how things actually work ( as that is the work of hired hands and serfs and engineers, not executives) and blissfully ignorant of how real economies work ( everyone just KNOWS how money and power work, it’s about who you know and influence… all that academic stuff is for teachers and other lessers…)

    They really DO think that the government can create jobs with jobs programs, and when they ask their academic friends, get a Keynesian Salute, so know they are right… They ask the central banker friend who spent his whole life being told central bankers are able to control money supply such that they can print money and not have inflation if they ought to print money to stimulate? And get a yes… Not asking about the details like “during economic downturns only”… so we get bubbles and stagflation.

    Try to explain it to them? That is SOOooo last crisis … and being negative… and making them think against their will… and NOT being very Socially Aware and kissing the right things while embarrassing noone…

    In that context you don’t really need a conspiracy; you have a social order of “Let Them Eat Cake” proportions.

    Will there be SOME in that strata that have a clue? Sure, but not enough and they know to keep quiet and work the crowd. Are some of THEM going to be basically manipulative bastards? Yup. But I think it’s a small minority. (Could be wrong, I’ve not met a large enough sample).

    Listen to Pelosi and Obama when his teleprompter is off line. Ask if Baby Bush is really all that bright. Is it possible that Daddy Bush and Cheney were the bright ones pulling the strings? Sorros and Hillary too? I suppose so, but that’s one heck of a large “puppet to stringmaster” ratio given the apparent dumbness of the Spoiled Brat Cream of the Cream floating on the top of things…

    At least, that’s my view from just one step up from the gutter… Maybe it will change when I’m elected to the Senate ;-)

    FWIW, Stanford used to have a coffee house on campus (they most likely still do, but it’s been a few years for me). A few friends used to go hang out there from time to time. (Pre-Starbucks it was one of a few places to get decent coffee). You would meet interesting people, too. Folks with rich parents buying them the best ‘contacts’ money could buy; education not so much. The occasional bright guy (often from a lower class background) to keep up the reputation of the institution. Very odd mix. Very enlightening.

    Knowing that many of those folks were destined for ‘positions of power’ was chilling… (I consulted to one, a lawyer, on a couple of cases that involved how things really worked. Like a suit against the power company about 3 phase power. It is an interesting thing explaining “magic” to someone who has to explain it in court to someone equally dense on the topic such that he can win… I’d not have trusted him or his brother to get gas into the gas tank reliably without special training… just not mechanically inclined; but great ‘on stage’. He also ‘got it’ that having one leg of 3 phase shut off can have the other one live and damage equipment. Or at least he could repeat it…)

    So my reluctance to embrace “conspiracy” simply comes from having observed first hand that stupidity can cover an awfully large turf… and that stupidity does NOT diminish with advanced degrees from name schools.

Comments are closed.