I’ve been thinking of building a computer simulation model of a football game. The ball is kicked upfield from the goal, and it’s picked up by one of the players, who spins on his heels with it, and kicks it randomly in some direction. The ball is then picked up by another player, who does the same. In this manner, the ball moves up and down the field until it either goes into one goal or the other. I’ve been wondering which side would score more goals. Well, that’s pretty much what football’s like. Particularly if you’re listening to it on the radio.
But it wasn’t my renewed interest in football during the World Cup (which I now think Germany will win) that underlies my simulation model. No. Not at all. Instead it’s my interest in Global Warming. And it’s not really a model of a football game, but of a photon of light (the ball) emitted (kicked) by the earth’s surface (the goal) into the atmosphere (the football field) where it’s captured by a CO2 molecule (a football player) which retains it for a brief period before re-emitting it in some random direction. And I’ve been wondering whether more photons leave the atmosphere to outer space (the other goal), or return to the earth’s surface. If most leave, that’s a heat loss to outer space, and there’s only a small greenhouse effect. If most return to earth, to warm the earth’s surface, then there’s a large greenhouse effect.
I spent a while today asking climate sceptics on WUWT and climate alarmists on Realclimate what they thought of my proposed Photon Football model, and whether it reflected what was actually happening. And the general impression I’ve gained is that this is more or less what actually happens in the atmosphere. Photons of light – packets of energy – get kicked about in it.
Being a climate sceptic, I don’t spend much time on Realclimate, and so while I was there it was rather odd to encounter their upsidedown world. And they were worried. Public belief in global warming was sliding, and they were wondering how to restore confidence and trust. They felt they had to explain things better. More clearly. More simply. In their view it was quite simple: on one side there was a bunch of smart, trained, professional scientists, and on the other side there was the bunch of morons known as the general public. How did you get the knowledge of the former into the thick heads of the latter?
They’ll never succeed. And they won’t succeed because in their own view they are authorities, and they think that everyone should listen to them like the congregation in a church listening to the vicar’s sermon. And it’s not really like that. For the congregation in the church isn’t actually made up of numbskulls. It’s made up a lot of people with a lot of different abilities and skills, and a lot of different dreams and hopes and fears. And they don’t like being talked down to. Furthermore, any one of them can, at any moment in time, become a climate scientist. A scientist is just someone who takes a close interest in something. F’rinstance me. When I’ve written my photon football simulation model, I’ll have become a climate scientist. Not a very good one, of course. But I bet I’m the only person in Devon who’s building his own simple climate simulation model. Perhaps the only person in Britain. Apart from all the salaried boffins in the Met Office and the UEA, that is. And my climate simulation model will be just as inaccurate as theirs. Only more so.
The whole approach of climate scientists, of talking down to people, is more or less guaranteed to get up people’s noses. Some of us are not very trusting. Particularly of self-styled experts of any sort whatsoever. And particularly me. I want to be treated as an equal, not as some sort of moron.
That’s part of their problem. But the other part is that people have been finding out how climate scientists have been altering raw data (temperature measurements), and how their climate simulation models don’t work very well because there are all sorts of natural processes which are not understood very well (like the formation of clouds), and because they’ve been very unwilling to share their data and their methods, and they’ve worked to prevent papers by sceptics being published. A lot of this got learned with the Climategate scandal. People may not understand climate science at all, but they can understand dishonesty and deception and exaggeration. And that’s really why public belief in global warming has been sliding. And when people lose trust in other people, it’s almost impossible to regain it. After Iraq, would anyone trust Tony Blair again? So, after Climategate, climate scientists have an even bigger mountain to climb to get anyone to understand and believe them.
But it gets even worse. What climate scientists want to do is to decarbonise Western civilisation. And that would entail huge changes in culture and lifestyle. There’d be no cars. Houses would all be low energy housing with no heating, lit by low power dimbulbs. These are huge cultural changes being called for by ‘experts’ who alter their raw data and whose science is still in its infancy and whose simulation models don’t work. Why should anyone give up their traditional way of life, and change it in every detail, just because some expert somewhere thinks they should? They’re not going to like it. In fact, they’re going to hate it. And they’re going to resist it. And anyway, what if the new state-planned life in the new windmill-powered low energy houses turns out to be unliveable? Because they got something wrong, and the windmills were too small or something.
Seen this way, my objection to climate science and decarbonising economies has exactly the same origins as my objection to the smoking ban which was, once again, demanded by a bunch of self-appointed experts who think they know better than everyone else how people should live their lives. The new ‘smoke-free’ pubs are awful. And they have destroyed my social life, and the social lives of millions of other people, and bankrupted thousands of pubs and clubs all over Britain. And now another bunch of ‘experts’, the climate scientists, want to destroy my culture some more. And I already know that that’s going to be another disaster. But I’ll have no more of a say in that than I had with the smoking ban. My opinion doesn’t count. But then, that’s always how it is when you’re dealing with people who regard themselves as authorities of one sort or other.
Same with the EU. That’s another huge cultural change being forced on people without their consent. No more MPs in Westminster, and our lives will be run by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. They already are, very largely, run by them through their willing proxies in the British government, whose faces we can at least see on TV every day (those of us who still have TVs, that is). Somehow or other, political pundits have decided that we should all belong in a European superstate, in which everything has been ‘harmonised’, which means that all cultural differences will be eradicated, and everywhere in Europe will be like everywhere else. And it’ll be ‘smokefree’ too, because the EU parliament has already passed legislation for a draconian smoking ban over the whole of Europe. It just hasn’t been put into effect yet. And this is another huge assault on traditional cultures which have grown and evolved over centuries. And to which the planners of the new utopian superstate are utterly indifferent. It’ll be a complete disaster, of course. There is no possible other outcome. And the cracks are already opening as the one-size-fits-all euro has come under growing pressure. I can see why a lot of people compare the EU to the Soviet Union. Like Mikhail Gorbachev:
And Vladimir Bukovsky:
They knew what they were talking about. They knew why it didn’t work. Now it seems all Europe is going to have to learn the same lesson the hard way, as central state planning and regulation drives the whole of Europe into a new dark age.
Because state planning and state control throttles everything. And it’s bound to do so, as Friedrich von Hayek explained in The Road to Serfdom. We are all being made into serfs that are managed by antismoking climate alarmists in Brussels. For our own good. Because they know better than we do how we should live our lives.
At the moment it’s just a few demonised and marginalised smokers and climate denialists and eurosceptics who hate the lot of them. But soon it will be everybody. Absolutely everyone will hate these arrogant, strutting bastards.
And it’ll probably be much worse than in the Soviet Union. Stalin was a cigarette smoker, and so smokers didn’t get persecuted in the Soviet Union. Nor were the soviets climate alarmists. So people could have incandescent lightbulbs and log fires. In the new gulags which will spring up over Europe, there’ll be no smoking, and there’ll be no heating. And no meat or sugar or salt.
What drives it all is a conviction that everything must be centrally controlled, because otherwise there’ll be chaos. In fact the opposite is true, and things work best when people are left to “chaotically” make their own individual choices, and not have to conform to some central 5-year plan. But that doesn’t make sense to authoritarians. And once they’ve embarked on the path of centralised, authoritarian control, they can only keep going that way. And it’s this logic which leads to the gulags. The camp commandants are already waiting in the wings. There was one (and only one, mercifully) on Realclimate today. His name was Veidicar Decarian, and he wrote:
Your chosen method [of patient education] might make some progress over the next 30 to 60 years, as it has with smoking.
I think progress is needed at a slightly faster rate.
Don’t you?…
Rapidity requires breaking some heads.”
Anyway, tomorrow I’ll try to start to put together my Photon Football simulation model.
When they come to take me away to the gulags, I will insist that they see my simulation model results first. I’ll show them. They’ll see. And I’m sure they’ll understand. They’ll understand that everything they’re doing is utterly nonsensical and self-defeating. And they will shake my hand in gratitude. Oh yes.







Similar Thoughts Today
You actually came to mind twice (now three times I guess)today, Frank.
The first time was when I saw a news item. Where I am here in the US, we’re having record high temperatures. I’m sitting here sweating as I type this with a fan blowing on me. During the past winter, though, temperatures were exceedingly cold. At the time, climate skeptics asked “Where’s Al Gore and his climate alarmist gang these days?” In reply, warmists rebuked skeptics for confusing temporary weather patterns with long term climate.
So, I felt certain that climate alarmists, especially following Climategate, would never again have the audacity to say that a heatwave was evidence of global warming.
Of course, I was wrong. The author at the link below goes to great pains to explain what I’ve written above. Then he just plows ahead anyway.
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/07/06/turning-up-the-heat-on-climate-change/
I seem to recall you addressing this hypocrisy at some time here.
The second time was reading “The Road to Serfdom” earlier tonight, which I’ve been reading at a snail’s pace for some time now.
It was the first two page of Chapter 7 that brought you to mind. I can’t quote what Hayek wrote here because it’s too long, but it made me think of Idle Theory. (And I know you’ve already read it and probably noticed it yourself).
At the end of Chapter 6 though, Hayek wrote something that made me think of smokers. It’s shorter, so I’ll share it.
“It has been shown there [Central Europe]that it is possible to pursue a policy of ruthless discrimination against national minorities by the use of recognized instruments of economic policy without ever infringing the letter of statutory protection of minority rights. This oppression by means of economic policy was greatly facilitated by the fact that particular industries or activities were largely in the hands of a national minority, so that many a measure aimed ostensibly against an industry or class was in fact aimed at a national minority.”
Is Hayek only talking about religious or ethnic minorities? I’m inclined to believe he meant something broader, including the poor or the working class. As long as you can define a minority by some distinction, does it matter what kind of minority it is? It can be smokers and drinkers as well as it can be Jews and gypsies. The only thing required is to be outnumbered.
I’ll shut up now.
-WS
Similar Thoughts Today
You actually came to mind twice (now three times I guess)today, Frank.
The first time was when I saw a news item. Where I am here in the US, we’re having record high temperatures. I’m sitting here sweating as I type this with a fan blowing on me. During the past winter, though, temperatures were exceedingly cold. At the time, climate skeptics asked “Where’s Al Gore and his climate alarmist gang these days?” In reply, warmists rebuked skeptics for confusing temporary weather patterns with long term climate.
So, I felt certain that climate alarmists, especially following Climategate, would never again have the audacity to say that a heatwave was evidence of global warming.
Of course, I was wrong. The author at the link below goes to great pains to explain what I’ve written above. Then he just plows ahead anyway.
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/07/06/turning-up-the-heat-on-climate-change/
I seem to recall you addressing this hypocrisy at some time here.
The second time was reading “The Road to Serfdom” earlier tonight, which I’ve been reading at a snail’s pace for some time now.
It was the first two page of Chapter 7 that brought you to mind. I can’t quote what Hayek wrote here because it’s too long, but it made me think of Idle Theory. (And I know you’ve already read it and probably noticed it yourself).
At the end of Chapter 6 though, Hayek wrote something that made me think of smokers. It’s shorter, so I’ll share it.
“It has been shown there [Central Europe]that it is possible to pursue a policy of ruthless discrimination against national minorities by the use of recognized instruments of economic policy without ever infringing the letter of statutory protection of minority rights. This oppression by means of economic policy was greatly facilitated by the fact that particular industries or activities were largely in the hands of a national minority, so that many a measure aimed ostensibly against an industry or class was in fact aimed at a national minority.”
Is Hayek only talking about religious or ethnic minorities? I’m inclined to believe he meant something broader, including the poor or the working class. As long as you can define a minority by some distinction, does it matter what kind of minority it is? It can be smokers and drinkers as well as it can be Jews and gypsies. The only thing required is to be outnumbered.
I’ll shut up now.
-WS
Re: Similar Thoughts Today
I dug out my copy and read the first two pages of Chapter 7. Hayek is there saying that the idea that a purely economic dictatorship which doesn’t impact on other ‘higher’ values is an illusion. There isn’t an ‘economic motive’ that is separate from other motives. Money, he says, “is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented”.
I agree with him. I’m not sure why the passage should have reminded you of me though.
Oddly though, when I set the book in front of me, it fell open at the end of chapter 11.
The desire to force upon people a creed which is regarded as salutary for them is, of course, not a thing that is new or peeculiar to our time. New, however, is the argument by which many of our intellectuals try to justify such attempts. There is no real freedom of thought in our society, so it is said, because the the opinions and tastes of the masses are shaped by propaganda, by advertising, by the example of the upper classes, and by other environmental factors which inevitably force the thinking of the people into well-worn grooves. From this it is concluded that… we ought to use this power deliberately to turn the thoughts of the people in what we think is a desirable direction…
In any society freeom of thought will probably be of direct significance only for a small minority. But this does not mean that anyone is competent, or ought to have power, to select those to whom this freedom is to be reserved. It certainly does not justify the presumption of any group of people to claim the right to determine what people ought to think or believe…
This [free] interaction of individuals, possessing differnt knowledge and different views, is what constitutes the life of thought. The growth of reason is a social process based on the existence of such differences. It is of its essence that its results cannot be predicted… To ‘plan’ or ‘organise’ the growth of mind, or, for that matter, progress in general, is a contradiction in terms… and must sooner or later produce a stagnation of thought and a decline of reason.
The tragedy of collectivist thought is that while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason…
And we see it happening all around us.
Frank
PS. I’ve modified my yellow badge in response to yours and other people’s suggestions. The result is in the right margin.
Re: Similar Thoughts Today
I dug out my copy and read the first two pages of Chapter 7. Hayek is there saying that the idea that a purely economic dictatorship which doesn’t impact on other ‘higher’ values is an illusion. There isn’t an ‘economic motive’ that is separate from other motives. Money, he says, “is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented”.
I agree with him. I’m not sure why the passage should have reminded you of me though.
Oddly though, when I set the book in front of me, it fell open at the end of chapter 11.
The desire to force upon people a creed which is regarded as salutary for them is, of course, not a thing that is new or peeculiar to our time. New, however, is the argument by which many of our intellectuals try to justify such attempts. There is no real freedom of thought in our society, so it is said, because the the opinions and tastes of the masses are shaped by propaganda, by advertising, by the example of the upper classes, and by other environmental factors which inevitably force the thinking of the people into well-worn grooves. From this it is concluded that… we ought to use this power deliberately to turn the thoughts of the people in what we think is a desirable direction…
In any society freeom of thought will probably be of direct significance only for a small minority. But this does not mean that anyone is competent, or ought to have power, to select those to whom this freedom is to be reserved. It certainly does not justify the presumption of any group of people to claim the right to determine what people ought to think or believe…
This [free] interaction of individuals, possessing differnt knowledge and different views, is what constitutes the life of thought. The growth of reason is a social process based on the existence of such differences. It is of its essence that its results cannot be predicted… To ‘plan’ or ‘organise’ the growth of mind, or, for that matter, progress in general, is a contradiction in terms… and must sooner or later produce a stagnation of thought and a decline of reason.
The tragedy of collectivist thought is that while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason…
And we see it happening all around us.
Frank
PS. I’ve modified my yellow badge in response to yours and other people’s suggestions. The result is in the right margin.
“I’m not sure why the passage should have reminded you of me though.”
You’ve written about how you’ve shifted away from the political left over time. I don’t know how the timeline of that shift fits with the timeline of you thinking about idle theory. Hayek wrote: “If planning really did free us from less important cares and so made it easier to render our existence one of plain living and high thinking, who would wish to belittle such an ideal?”
Isn’t Hayek saying, in other words, “If planning was so great, we’d have more idle time, and who would be against that?”
I wondered if this was the same belief you held at one time–that more planning would mean more idle time. The whole topic he’s discussing there made me think of your ideas about how humans seek to be “idle” as you define it, but never really become idle. Unfortunately, I don’t have the book with me at the moment.
On the point you quoted–well, it pretty much speaks for itself. I’ve noticed with that book that you can open it up to almost any page and find a deep vein of thought to jump into midstream.
-WS
“I’m not sure why the passage should have reminded you of me though.”
You’ve written about how you’ve shifted away from the political left over time. I don’t know how the timeline of that shift fits with the timeline of you thinking about idle theory. Hayek wrote: “If planning really did free us from less important cares and so made it easier to render our existence one of plain living and high thinking, who would wish to belittle such an ideal?”
Isn’t Hayek saying, in other words, “If planning was so great, we’d have more idle time, and who would be against that?”
I wondered if this was the same belief you held at one time–that more planning would mean more idle time. The whole topic he’s discussing there made me think of your ideas about how humans seek to be “idle” as you define it, but never really become idle. Unfortunately, I don’t have the book with me at the moment.
On the point you quoted–well, it pretty much speaks for itself. I’ve noticed with that book that you can open it up to almost any page and find a deep vein of thought to jump into midstream.
-WS
Oh, and the badge looks good. Thanks. WS
Oh, and the badge looks good. Thanks. WS
Isn’t Hayek saying, in other words, “If planning was so great, we’d have more idle time, and who would be against that?”
I guess it didn’t jump out at me. But then this morning I was skimming through it. I concentrated much more on the page where the book fell open.
As for timelines, I’ve been thinking about Idle Theory for about 35 years – over half my life -. It has changed me. And I have changed it.
I think I first read the Road to Serfdom about 25 years ago, probably because Hayek was quite closely associated with Margaret Thatcher (who I didn’t like). The book didn’t have a big impact on me. But I don’t remember disagreeing with it much. It’s a book that has gradually grown on me, while other books have fallen away.
I think Idle Theory had a much bigger impact, for a variety of reasons. I think that one of the principal impacts came from its explanation of ‘profit’. Up until then, I simply didn’t understand why someone should make something and sell it at more than cost price to someone else. To me that looked like theft. But with Idle Theory I now had a very simple explanation for it. And I think that having this idea that profit is theft or something is fairly central to being leftwing. For the left, ‘profit’ is a dirty word. And once I had Idle Theory’s explanation of profit, I ceased to be quite as left wing as I had been (not that I was ever strongly leftwing).
For me, belonging to the left expressed itself more in a sense that we should be living in a more equal society. And that belief of mine got expressed in Idle Theory. There are quite a few essays in it which state this. But it wasn’t a complete equality in everything. What I felt was that in a 70% idle society, everyone should be 70% idle. If some people wanted to spend their idle time making and selling luxuries (e.g. music), good for them. If other people wanted to engage in ‘high thinking’, then good for them too. I wanted an equality of idleness, but not an equality of all the good things that could be made and done in idle time.
But over the last 5 years or so I’ve moved away from this rather strict notion of equality. I’ve begun to think that inequality is something inescapable. Perfect equality is something that can only ever be found either in zero idleness societies (in which everyone is working all the time) or in perfectly idle societies (in which nobody works at all). In between, there is an inevitable inequality, which reaches a maximum at about 50% idleness.
And this has meant a further move away from the left.
But I’m not sure that it means that I’ve become rightwing, exactly (although that’s usually how I express it). My explanation firstly of profit, and more recently of inequality, are not typically rightwing explanations. They’re explanations that came out of Idle Theory, and nobody else thinks in its terms. What I do find, however, is that my attitudes, however they may have arisen, tend to conform much more to the political right than to the political left.
Frank
Isn’t Hayek saying, in other words, “If planning was so great, we’d have more idle time, and who would be against that?”
I guess it didn’t jump out at me. But then this morning I was skimming through it. I concentrated much more on the page where the book fell open.
As for timelines, I’ve been thinking about Idle Theory for about 35 years – over half my life -. It has changed me. And I have changed it.
I think I first read the Road to Serfdom about 25 years ago, probably because Hayek was quite closely associated with Margaret Thatcher (who I didn’t like). The book didn’t have a big impact on me. But I don’t remember disagreeing with it much. It’s a book that has gradually grown on me, while other books have fallen away.
I think Idle Theory had a much bigger impact, for a variety of reasons. I think that one of the principal impacts came from its explanation of ‘profit’. Up until then, I simply didn’t understand why someone should make something and sell it at more than cost price to someone else. To me that looked like theft. But with Idle Theory I now had a very simple explanation for it. And I think that having this idea that profit is theft or something is fairly central to being leftwing. For the left, ‘profit’ is a dirty word. And once I had Idle Theory’s explanation of profit, I ceased to be quite as left wing as I had been (not that I was ever strongly leftwing).
For me, belonging to the left expressed itself more in a sense that we should be living in a more equal society. And that belief of mine got expressed in Idle Theory. There are quite a few essays in it which state this. But it wasn’t a complete equality in everything. What I felt was that in a 70% idle society, everyone should be 70% idle. If some people wanted to spend their idle time making and selling luxuries (e.g. music), good for them. If other people wanted to engage in ‘high thinking’, then good for them too. I wanted an equality of idleness, but not an equality of all the good things that could be made and done in idle time.
But over the last 5 years or so I’ve moved away from this rather strict notion of equality. I’ve begun to think that inequality is something inescapable. Perfect equality is something that can only ever be found either in zero idleness societies (in which everyone is working all the time) or in perfectly idle societies (in which nobody works at all). In between, there is an inevitable inequality, which reaches a maximum at about 50% idleness.
And this has meant a further move away from the left.
But I’m not sure that it means that I’ve become rightwing, exactly (although that’s usually how I express it). My explanation firstly of profit, and more recently of inequality, are not typically rightwing explanations. They’re explanations that came out of Idle Theory, and nobody else thinks in its terms. What I do find, however, is that my attitudes, however they may have arisen, tend to conform much more to the political right than to the political left.
Frank
To fart in church
Your “photon football” idea is a standard piece of undergraduate physics known as a random walk. Its solution is given by the diffusion equation, which describes how an odour spreads through a room.
I don’t know if you’re the only person in Devon who’s building this particular model right now, but it’s a lot easier than you think. Just light up, and be thankful Mr. Decarian has consented to having some sense knocked into him with a cricket bat.
To fart in church
Your “photon football” idea is a standard piece of undergraduate physics known as a random walk. Its solution is given by the diffusion equation, which describes how an odour spreads through a room.
I don’t know if you’re the only person in Devon who’s building this particular model right now, but it’s a lot easier than you think. Just light up, and be thankful Mr. Decarian has consented to having some sense knocked into him with a cricket bat.
Re: To fart in church
A random walk would certainly be an easy thing to programme. Move some distance in some direction, and then change direction randomly, and walk the same distance. Starting at the same point, particles would gradually diffuse outwards.
But is that the same as infrared emissions from the ground being captured and re-emitted by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere? Where there isn’t much CO2, almost all of it would be lost into outer space. Where there’s a great deal of CO2, hardly any would. (Although I haven’t written the model yet, so I don’t actually know.)
I may be re-inventing the wheel. I have a habit of doing so.
Frank
Re: To fart in church
A random walk would certainly be an easy thing to programme. Move some distance in some direction, and then change direction randomly, and walk the same distance. Starting at the same point, particles would gradually diffuse outwards.
But is that the same as infrared emissions from the ground being captured and re-emitted by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere? Where there isn’t much CO2, almost all of it would be lost into outer space. Where there’s a great deal of CO2, hardly any would. (Although I haven’t written the model yet, so I don’t actually know.)
I may be re-inventing the wheel. I have a habit of doing so.
Frank
Pingback: Airless Planet Temperature | Frank Davis