The Entrance of the Amateurs
Erik Bye
March 2024
Background
A boyar is a member of the old Russian nobility. The title was used for the members of the prince's guard, the druzhina. This was originally a guard force that developed into a council for the princes. In the Muscovite state (1480–1689), this council, the boyar duma, could limit the prince's power to some extent. The power of this institution was significantly curtailed by Ivan the Terrible (1533–1598).
I am fascinated by the music, and thought of the music when the members of the Parliament enter the House of Parliament (Stortinget, The Great Parliament).
I am thinking of the Political discussions like a soldier's fight against his enemies.
So, the background is a musical march, and my actors are the politicians. Most of the politicians do not have enough knowledge, and the results and their decisions correspond to this.
When the curtain rises on this stage, the famous piece of music is played:
"The Entrance of The Boyar."
The scientist and the politician
Every time I see a climate scientist or a politician on screen, I get a feeling of discomfort. There is something similar in the way the message is delivered! Two examples show how two different fields of study can act with the same degree of distrust. The two examples are man-made climate change and electrification. In both cases, I am convinced that both speak against better knowledge.
Can man rule?
The climate scientist claims that humans control the climate. The politician promotes electrification of the shelf as a green measure to improve the climate. Nothing could have been more wrong, both scientifically and in terms of measures.
Lack of documentation
The climate scientist has no documentation of human management skills. The politician lacks any credibility when electrification is supposed to assist Norway in the green transition.
How to govern Norway
The climate scientist resorts to power tactics to silence the debate, claiming that "science is settled." The politician claims that electrification will put Norway in the driving seat, and take the reins into a successful green transition. Can we do more then?
Lack of trust
Both have the same problem: They completely lack trust in large parts of the population. In the last major survey, only 35% were sure that humans could control the climate (YouGov). Around 2010, only 20% doubted this.
Government politicians need and use taxes, something the public avoids like the plague!
Criticism-free society
To ensure that critical voices are silenced, the climate scientist emphasizes that: "We have never been so safe." The politician maintains: security for everyone.
The plan and the meal
Plan me here and plan me there, is it a covert planned economic system?
If there is anything that "drives" us as a nation at the moment, it is the demand for plans and goals for the future. Climate plan, emissions plan, emissions targets, sustainability targets, temperature targets, oil money spending targets, the action rule, land rent tax, overconsumption of electricity, quota rules. When it comes to the UN's sustainability goals, climate scientists are being sidelined; this is not their place. They are concerned with the factors that indicate that humans control the climate. And they follow this course slavishly, completely regardless of other scientific communities protesting loudly. Politicians demand sustainability. Here it is important to keep pace!
Homeopathic climate policy
Climate scientists are more certain than ever that fossil CO2 threatens our survival. This is the 0.0004% of it in the atmosphere. This is so little that we are approaching the magic power of dilutions in homeopathy. Without a molecule in the solution, it was the memory of what had been there that represented the effective force! Most politicians prefer the big numbers, such as. The green shift. But sometimes it slips. For now, Barth Eide is not allowed to go in peace. Too little, too late, too slow. What? Reduction of CO2 emissions? The problem is perhaps that there is so little of it? Climate homeopathic surgery, doomed to eternity!
When competence fails
Bjørn Samset from CICERO was interviewed (2015) about the heat that suddenly disappeared. The missing heat for almost 20 years (The Hiatus)
was supposed to have disappeared into the depths, without observations, without a mechanism for how to transport heat through cold water and down to the depths. It was only when the IPCC mentioned The Hiatus that Samset came forward and talked about the "flat" temperature. This was also up in the House of Commons, with Gerhard Hellberg on TV2, together with Ivar Giæver. With a flat temperature and a CO2 level that increased steadily, there was something wrong with the IPCC hypothesis, according to Giæver. This had to be rejected, Giæver claimed rather dryly. After that, Samset fell silent. After his senior harassment in Morgenbladet, it must have been a strange affair to be exposed to Giæver's experience. Experience, something you only get through training and aging.
Currently (October 2022) we have an electricity crisis. The water reservoirs are empty, cables are selling electricity out of the country, and at the same time the politicians want to focus on the green shift, with enormous electricity consumption. Do they have control? Do they have an overview of the "hidden electricity costs", which is called "electrification"? Many are worried that the electricity is controlling itself. (The water situation has improved in November.)
Ruling technique
Here, the scientist has taken control. To the point of boredom, "science is settled" and "We have never been so sure before" are repeated. Of what then? That humans control the climate! Apart from FrP, everyone in the Storting also agrees that we humans are capable of this. It is shouted almost in unison: Everyone goes along, everyone should join in! The politicians do not care about the death of debate, or that critical voices are not heard!
The microphone stand
This is the moment that politicians have seized upon, where the microphone holders are completely passive in the interview situation. What the climate scientists do is refrain from giving interviews. They take the lead themselves, acting in staged situations. There is no room for critical questions, it is all about conveying the crisis message, where the earth may become uninhabitable.
The ideal is a journalist who just holds the microphone in the right position.
It has probably been agreed that critical questions should be avoided so as not to blow up the schedule, and politicians can do this. The walking hall is as if made for adults. Here, rituals are practiced, and the result is what happens. The dissemination of knowledge and information is completely according to the form, this goes completely according to the set plan. The enormous investments are approved, and the stage lights highlight those who go with the flow. Loyalty is 100%, and the Stortingsborg has established perimeter security.
Comic Ali
For now, no attempt is being made to assign this unpleasant and very unflattering title to a role model. Here it is entirely possible to be apprehensive. Espen Barth Eide is of course emerging as a possible winner. A variant could be Samset who continues to dose relentlessly, each time with "science is settled" and "We have never been safer". This despite all the mistakes and shortcomings. Here there are lists as long as painful years, pointing to the reasons why the IPCC's climate hypothesis must be rejected.
Electrification
In fact, the researchers are surprisingly silent on this question. Do they see that the economic consequences of the election will be completely devastating for Norwegian society? They have realized the possibilities of the broken back tactic. Then it will be the politicians who have to rake the embers. But the costs associated with the green shift are probably beyond anyone's control. No one has any thoughts of estimating a framework. Presumably there are more people who envision a cost sum that no one dares to talk about?
The pedestal
Electrification of the shelf is not a climate measure. The gas is sold outright, then it is the neighbor who has to book the emissions. The climate does not notice the difference. Climate scientists are silent about this spectacle. Politicians boast about the extremely clean Norwegian oil and gas production. How is it possible to live in this false self-image?
Battery production
Green battery production, green, blue, brown and violet hydrogen and green fertilizer, these are hot topics at the moment. For researchers, there should be a clear line between presenting data and possible consequences, and getting down to prioritizing between the different consequences. At that moment, the researcher breaks an unwritten rule, about leaving the decision about how many people should "suffer" from the different priorities to the politicians. The politicians are faced with choices, linked to the enormous costs of each individual green initiative. There are obviously no discounted choices here, every green step has unmanageable and almost insurmountable costs.
Meeting with experience
In 2015, as previously mentioned, the stage was set for a debate between Bjørn Samset and Nobel Prize winner in physics, the Norwegian Ivar Giæver. The debate was almost over before it began. There, it was experience that managed to bind the young, the inexperienced.
In the Storting, there is a discussion about whether it is young enough? Can one get by with a little less experience, in exchange for "the forwardleaning" ones?
Writing a book
There are many choices if you want to write a book, in the middle of a personal development period. A brilliant choice is to write a book about the future. A bit like "Jules Verne", but this is a bit challenging. Bjørn Samset writes about 2070! Then he cannot be held responsible for the astrological guesses, due to his expected age. So contrary to what all circles agree on, Samset predicts climate in 2070. A climate that cannot be predicted. A bit daring? When large parts of science give a negative finger to this, trust is further weakened. Politicians choose between defending their choices, or describing the party's choices, with the author as an opponent. Selfdefense, which many feel the need for, most often ends in further accusations.
Meeting the press
Climate scientists have introduced a politically ingenious strategy to avoid direct critical questions from their opponents. They have made themselves
almost inaccessible. And when the state governs and ensures almost immunity from debate, then climate scientists can move around uninfluenced. The politicians line up in the walking hall. The lucky ones are drawn out to make statements, and bask in the demand to obtain funding for the green shift. Who wants to play with whom? Who wants to play with me? No one wants to?
The main reports and the state budget
Certain situations are the occasion for the great experiences. It is when large, substantial paper promises are to be discussed and distributed. The climate report is the bible they swear by, and which is renewed at regular intervals. Give me my daily climate…. In the Storting, there is a celebration at the opening of this year's piggy bank. The green shift sucks, the financial items demand loyalty. The billion-dollar investment controls the politicians' independence.
The big meetings
The big meetings under the auspices of the UN, where the reports are written, are good places to be, Hedvig. It is said that competence increases with distance from home. And the attachment to the climate mast hardens when climate consensus increases. Everyone is on board, no one dares to object! Some are given (or have) the task of representing Norway outspokenly. Being able to stand up, with loads of cash, sit in the driver's seat and lead the way in the spending inferno, strengthens the self-esteem of the pygmy country! Here it is easy to see the similarity to the "generous" politicians. Surely everything can be bought?
Is it too much to ask that neither climate scientists nor politicians act like amateurs?
We get the politicians we deserve, they say. No, we didn't deserve this!
Election of official scientists? It would have been nice to have truthful and knowledgeable scientists. No one would have thought that we would be exposed to fake news, in connection with the climate issue, right?
TOTAL LACK OF TRUST – THE KNOWLEDGE DEFICIT IS STRIKING!