On the 19th of December (2023) I received an email from an editor of a national media outlet, asking for my comments on a Brown University Report regarding offshore wind energy. I found that this was put out by CDL self-described as: “The Climate and Development Lab is a student-faculty think tank informing a more just, equitable and effective climate change policy.”
Note: even though I was “prominently mentioned” in this report (16 times!), no one from CDL/Brown bothered to contact me to verify what they wrote about me was accurate. Not surprisingly, most of it was irrelevant, misleading, or false. Their likely defense is that they just copied what they found on the Internet. Clearly, double-checking would be an unreasonable burden. Worse it might reveal that some of their underlying, unscientific narrative might crumble.
Not surprisingly, this report is rife with errors of omission and commission — way too many to go into in a commentary of this length. To keep this digestible, let’s just briefly look at the assignment itself…
It appears that the Brown Pied Piper professor instructed the children to do something like this:
1 - Get the names of all the main US people opposed to offshore wind.
2 - Guess who they connect with regarding offshore wind.
3 - Speculate about any funding involved, and where it may come from.
4 - Cast aspersions willy-nilly, to try to undermine their credibility.
The first question is: let’s say the neophytes do a competent job fulfilling the oracle’s commands: What then? What meaningful bearing on the offshore wind energy issue would this have? None. Zip. Nada.
A second question is: did the high priest direct his acolytes to do a similar report about offshore wind proponents? Not surprisingly, there is no evidence of that. Does that sound “just and equitable”?
I’m only a physicist, but if these were my students, an assignment I’d give them on this topic would be:
1 - Get the names of all the main US people opposed to offshore wind.
2 - Carefully document each of their objections to offshore wind (e.g., mine are here).
3 - Equitably assess the merits of each of their objections.
4 - Comprehensively and objectively determine whether offshore wind is a net societal benefit.
Now the students would be: a) producing a report that has real value, b) getting educated about a national energy issue, and c) learning how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Such an assignment is designed to undermine cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias — rather than reinforce these (i.e., what this “report” does).
Put another way, in my recommendation the students would actually be doing Critical Thinking about the offshore wind issue — whereas there was zero Critical Thinking in the CDL/Brown assignment they were subjected to.
As readers know I’m extremely concerned that our education system is annually producing millions of non-critical thinking lemmings (e.g., see my Education Report). This sad story is just one of many solid pieces of evidence that this is continuing to happen.
PS — I sent the Big Cheese and his entourage a polite but pointed email about this travesty. So far no response.
PPS — After reading the above commentary, an experienced associate sent me the following short video, that makes clear the effect our progressive education system is having on students —who will soon be voting citizens…
Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?
Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).
Oh my, I might have to stop reading such a heretical stack.
From the 'report":
--You helped organize a conference of 'climate deniers' & locals...
--You are still signing 'obstructionist' letters and policy comments (I'm guessing wind obstructionist stuff)
--Training thousands on 'anti-wind' strategies
...you subversive
Unfortunately, Brown is in my neck of the woods (as is Haavad and MIT et al. Those at large can read about the stupidness and lack of respect exhibited by these young adults. I bump into it regularly in the grocery store (yeah, I shop Whole Foods), on the roads, just about any public venue. It's mind boggling and saddening.
The entire "report" is a sad commentary on the scientific academy. I suggest a better "Statement of Purpose" might read as follows:
The collective West has failed to truthfully address the subject of "climate change’, in large part because of a well-funded and strategic campaign to cloud understanding of the problem and its implications. These efforts have undermined trust in science and even attacked the character of university-based scientists who are attempting to apply scientific processes to the understanding of climate. Universities’ missions are to uncover truth and to educate and prepare our students, so we have a unique responsibility for providing a setting for open inquiry on all subjects, including on climate change. The challenge to truthfully and honestly understand climate change will hopefully result in the greatest benefits- environmentally, social and economically for the most human beings.