June July 2021
people who have studied a particular
branch of technology or knowledge and
(usually for a fee) will provide an
opinion on their area of
expertise. An expert's view can
cover the full spectrum. So if
you had an economic interest in a
particular outcome, you would seek out
the experts who believe the opinions
you want to propagate.
matter of losing weight.
diet devotees will say ignore
calories, just do not eat more than 20
grams of carbohydrates each day.
Calorie counters will say
carbohydrates are irrelevant, just eat
less than 2,000 calories a day.
So if you own a patent on a
particularly tasty carbohydrate that
only has a few calories, then you
should avoid Atkins specialists when
advertising the virtues of your food.
Then there are
experts on Covid.
Covid-19 is still a hot
topic. Some "medical
experts" are of the opinion that
Covid-19 is nothing but a slightly
nastier version of the flu, and
that the 1% of deaths are mainly
of immune compromised older people
who were about due to die
anyway. Other medical
experts are concerned that
Covid-19 seems to be mutating into
more virulent forms such as the
Delta variation, and that the
vaccinations are becoming
So we are having
violent, disease spreading
demonstrations by mostly young,
not at much risk people who
listened to the experts who do not
think Covid-19 is anything to
worry about. Those experts
had outrageous publicity (no doubt
supported by AstraZeneca's
competitors) that "AstraZeneca is
killing people under 50" when in
fact it was killing about one
person in each million.
experts on "Climate Change".
years ago as a Mechanical
Engineering student, it occurred
to me that we were burning all
this coal and oil, and I wondered
what was the effect of adding all
that carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere. I asked one of
my lecturers, and he dismissed my
concerns by saying the balance was
forward forty years and someone
else thinks of the issue. And
carbon dioxide (CO2) is
described as a "greenhouse
gas". Which means that, like
the glass in a glasshouse, it
allows light through, but blocks
infrared (heat) radiation.
However the temperature
rise is not directly proportional
to the increase of Carbon Dioxide,
but to the log of that
increase. So the increase
that produced a 1C rise must be
doubled to produce the next 1C
rise, and doubled again to produce
the next 1C rise. And so on.
Not only that, but
photosynthesis becomes more
efficient and needs less water as
the CO2 concentration rises.
This is called "negative feedback"
because the higher CO2 rises, the
faster CO2 is removed from the
atmosphere by photosynthesis.
Of course that extra
carbon dioxide will cause warming.
But when I looked into global
temperature history, I learned
that for the last two and a half
million years the world has been
going into an ice age, which
experts have named the "Quaternary
ice age". Every
hundred thousand years over the
last two and a half million years
we have a ten thousand year
"window" which the experts call "inter-glacial"
periods. I found this all on
Wikipedia, and wrote it up with
graphs on the CLIMATE page above.
(See top left of this page for a
link. Figure 2 is from
I also noticed that five
million years ago, (more than four
million years before Homo
Sap appeared) the
global temperature was 2C higher
than now. And that 15,000
years ago the average global
temperature was about 16C colder
than it is now.
So to me, the people who
want us to pay for windmills and
photocells are paying for one
class of experts, and I wonder
where their $$$$$ comes
from. The other experts, who
know that the Quaternary ice age
is about to resume, are branded
"deniers". Colour me a
denier. I am less worried
about turning up the aircon than
about my great grandchildren
having to escape glaciers.