Michael’s second letter from Vienna
I was honored to receive another thoughtful and insightful letter from my close substack associate and partner in crime Michael BUERGERMEISTER Buergermeister. I am actually thinking that the two of us could have a show together in which we debate critical issues in the world today.
The first part of the letter concerns the pseudoscience, far more dangerous than bloodletting or astrology, known as “economics” which so many of our youth are forced to learn as part of their indoctrination.
Let me quote an article of mine on this topic from the Korea Times (August 17, 2018)
Do Korean universities teach economics?
Almost all of my undergraduate students take courses in economics and I greatly envy them for it. Sadly, I never had a chance to study economics as an undergraduate and do not consider myself to be qualified in the field.
So, in my ignorance, I started asking them questions related to economic phenomena during my classes on Korean and East Asian history.
But I discovered a remarkable fact about the study of economics in Korea when I made my questions to my students more specific about the impact of economics on politics and society: I found out that I had read more about economics than most of my students who had taken years of economics classes in college.
When I asked them about the fundamentals of economic theory, I discovered that in the course of their classes in "economics" they had not read any of the major works of Adam Smith, Max Weber, Karl Marx, John Keynes, or even contemporary critics like Thomas Piketty.
I was truly astonished. I, a mere literature professor, had read at least some of the major works of all of those theoreticians. One student then explained to me that economics textbooks did include short passages introducing the major theories of economics.
But the vast majority of the economics classes consist of employing advanced mathematics to solve given problem sets without a consideration of the nature of economics.
The "facts" of economics, from interest rates and deficits, to inflation and value, are presented in the textbooks as if they were natural laws, the equivalent of the second law of thermodynamics or the law of gravity. It is fabulously assumed that the student can discover the truth of economics through the mere process of calculation without any epistemological or metaphysical, let alone scientific investigation into the validity of those assumptions about the human activities defined as economics.
At that point in the conversation with my students, I regained my confidence. After all, extremely convincing arguments have been advanced by numerous thinkers that there are "laws" in economics only in the most limited sense and that the entire concept of an economy is so culturally specific, and so impacted by politics and practice that economics as a field is as much a science as is literature or art history.
I think that the most critical part of any economics course must be an introduction to the underlying philosophical and historical principles of the study of economics: how men have historically conceived of society, the state, money and commerce and how those factors interact with each other to produce what we call the "economy."
Part of that process should include a consideration of how vastly different the concept of "economy" can be from one expert to another, or historical period to another.
It is also critical that the study of economics contain substantial consideration of the ethical implications of financial and commercial activities. Economics is not a value-neutral field like the study of quasars, but is rather akin to politics: an all too human enterprise that demands ethical judgment about its function and its results.
This focus on the ethics of economics is not my idiosyncratic perspective. From Thomas Aquinas in the West to Mencius in the East, the ethical element of economics and politics has long been considered to be essential. I do not know exactly how the study of economics came to be seen as something that did not demand the careful consideration of moral philosophy.
In any case, Korea faces tremendous economic challenges today that cannot be addressed with what our students are learning in these economics classes focused on mathematics. Whether we are talking about the collapse of the global trade system, which is considered essential to Korean economic development, into isolationist and nationalist spheres, or we are considering the accelerating gap between the rich and the poor, the next generation will face serious problems that involve cultural and political issues. They have no hope of solving these problems with mathematical equations.
I fear that teaching economics as if it were a form of calculus will do the next generation a terrible disservice if we think even for a moment about the complex issues that they will face in the future.
The second part of the letter concerns the climate change hoax. As it is clear to me, after teaching an entire course on climate change, that although it is caused by many different factors, not just carbon dioxide, and although it takes place over decades and centuries, not years, that it is plenty real and plenty deadly. The Permian extinction, involving primary the impact of methane, the evil cousin of carbon dioxide, is the model for what can happen. I will not beat this dead horse any more.
I would recommend, however, that my brother Michael take the time to read David Ray Griffin’s book “Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?” (2014).
This book is written by a man who bravely took on the 9.11 hoax in 2001, before most people were even willing to uncover their eyes. His “A New Pearl Harbor” was one of the bravest studies done at the time.
To the end of his life, Griffin was unflinching in his dedication to the truth.
He focused on the massive criminal conspiracies of our age with an unmatched fearlessness. Why would such a man write a book promoting a climate hoax? Was he paid off by BlackRock and Al Gore? Please do give us all a break.
It might be useful to read the customer reviews of Griffin’s book on amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/portal/customer-reviews/0986076902/ref=cm_cr_dp_mb_top?
Much commentary (and perhaps his book which I haven’t read) is predicated on figures resulting from a poll/survey of scientists, presented with an underlying assumption that climate change is legitimately occurring. Given the underlying assumption, the survey solicited opinion on whether global warming/climate change is the result of human activity.
The results claimed and that “…99.8% of the world's climate scientists are in agreement that humans are causing climate change, and only 0.2% opposed that view.” This poll has been widely quoted, but in reality it is misleading.
What these statistics did not show was that the survey was sent to 1800 scientists, and only 77 responded. 1723 declined to respond, for whatever reason. So the statistics are derived from only 77 scientists, 75 of whom agreed “yes, man made,” with 1 responding “undecided” and 1 responding “no, climate change is not man-made.”
Considering only 4% of the total polled responded, this data is useless unless we know why the others refused to participate, or at least it should be cited in the original data how many were polled and how many declined to respond. To say “99.8% of scientists agree” that climate change is caused by industry, pollution and cow flatulence, etc., is at best misleading. No, 75 out of 1800 agree. Anything less than presenting all of the data is insufficient; it must include the total number polled, respondents and plus non-respondents for any “conclusion” possibly to be drawn. More information needed.
Taken to extreme speculation, it is possible that only 1 person out of 1800 thinks climate change is not man-made. On the other extreme, it is also possible that only 75 think it is man-made, and 1724 out of 1800 think climate change is not, one is undecided and only one of the 1724 dissenters chose to respond to the survey. And again talking extremes, if that is the case, then only 4% of scientists believe climate change is caused by man-made activity and 96% do not. And there are any number of possibilities in between.
Given the high level of censorship we are experiencing — which is an undeniable, easily observable fact — we simply cannot know what scientists think.
I have no idea about David Ray Griffin. I have always been a skeptic, but it took a while to figure out there is no Santa Clause, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. All the evidence supporting their existence was there — the gifts that magically appeared on Christmas morning, the eggs and candy, the silver dollar under my pillow, the endorsement by 100% adults — even though logically it made no sense. There was even a highly published letter called “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause.” At what point do we begin to think clearly about what we are told by authorities whether our skepticism confirms or denies the stories we are told?
In our post-truth era, is truth it possible?