The Change Equation.
So will the cost of change and the resistance to change outwiegh the inertia to change and the huge propaganda of fear telling Americans that Donald Trump would spell disaster. Well lets look at the equations and consult the experts?, Just Kidding. Experts are fallable, also group think is not un-known in close knit elitist groupings, Google Hybridisation in Elites if you find that hard to believe.
Political Change is of course man made and the climate in the US may well reflect the severe political climate turmoil in Europe. Also man made. Anthropogenic Political Climate Chnage no Less. Was it the CO2 wot done it? CO2 is a component of the hot air expelled by bucollic blowhard politicians and spin doctors, I feel a Blow Hard tax coming on people. Time to explode the myths and question not just more but everything!#MAGA
Gleicher (original) version: C = (ABD) > X
The original formula, as created by Gleicher and published by Beckhard, is:
C = (ABD) > X
C = change,
A = the status quo dissatisfaction,
B = a desired clear state,
D = is practical steps to the desired state,
X = the cost of the change.
Dannemiller version: D x V x F > R
Three factors must be present for meaningful organizational change to take place. These factors are:
D = Dissatisfaction with how things are now;
F = First, concrete steps that can be taken towards the vision;
If the product of these three factors is greater than
Climate Change IS real, The Political Climate is Man Made and the Atmosphere has entered a paradigm shift!
SÖNDAG 6 NOVEMBER 2016
Physicists and mathematicians such as Peter Woit
, Leonard Susskind
and Terence Tao
have come out as strong supporters of Hillary in the presidential race, and then of course as strong opponents to Trump. This is unusual because scientists seldom (openly) take on political missions.
Why is that? Isn’t science beyond politics? No, not in our time, and then not in particular climate science, which has become 100% politics. Climate scientists don’t like Trump, because he says that climate science is 100% politics and not science.
Is it the same thing with physics and math? Is a pure mathematician like Tao and a string theorist like Susskind fearing that a questioning non-opportunist Trump would be more difficult to deal with than an opportunist Hillary representing (scientific) establishment? What if Trump would question the value of string theory, as he did with climate science?
Claes Johnson is one of my Intellectual Heroes, he has combatted the slings and arrows of the academic community to question the statistical turn in Physics and the flight from Skeptisism to political consensus. Claes Blog is an incredibly informative and witty repository for all enquiring minds.
ONSDAG 12 JUNI 2013
This is a continuation of the previous post.
Consider the following special case with T(t) = T_0 for t < 1970, T(t) increasing linearly for 1970 < t 1998. The corresponding solution C(t) of the equation dC/dt increases linearly for t < 1970, quadratically for 1970 < t 1998 as sketched by the solid lines in the following graph:
We see that after 1998 the temperature stays constant while the CO2 increases linearly. The solid lines could picture reality.
Contrast this with Bill Gates, who one assumes supports Hilary Clinton and Not Donald Trump.
“Here’s what I came up with: P * S*E*C = CO2,” Gates wrote. “That might look complicated. It’s not.
“On the right side you have the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) we put in the atmosphere. This is what we need to get to zero. It’s based on the four factors on the left side of the equation: The world’s population (P) multiplied by the services (S) used by each person; the energy (E) needed to provide each of those services; and, finally, the carbon dioxide (C) produced by that energy.”
Gates quite simply is a blowhard who is not reasoning correctly as well as being accused of plagarism by one of the great Anthroprogenic Climate Change Crooks Michael Mann, yes its the same ´´ClimateGate´Guy, being re-cycled.
CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE: In order to
reason well …. it is absolutely necessary to possess … such virtues
as intellectual honesty and sincerity a
nd a real love of truth (2.82). The cause [of the success of scientific
inquirers] has been that the motive which has carried them
to the laboratory and the field has been a craving to
know how things really were … (1-34).
[Genuine inquiry consists I in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake
(1.44), … in actually drawing the bow upon truth with in
tentness in the eye, with energy in the arm (1.235).
[When] it is no longer the reasoning which determines wh
at the conclusion shall be, but … the conclusion which
determines what the reasoning shall be … this is sham
reasoning…. The effect of this shamming is that men
come to look upon reasoning as mainly decorative….
And Contrast it with Murray Saltby here in this video.
Climate Scientist Murry Salby Demolishes the Global Warming Alarm
Motives of the Globalist Establishment – from ‘Global Warming or Global Governance?’
My Hero again.
TORSDAG 20 JANUARI 2011
This is amply illustrated by the fact that my ebook BodyandSoul: Mathematical Simulation Technology (to be published and available for inspection upon request) asking students explicitly to think themselves, be critical and always ask Why? Whatfor? and not accept anything by mere authority, has been subject to censorship by my own university KTH.
Why? Whatfor? Because BodyandSoul encourages critical thinking!
Quines Two Dogmas of empiricism gives many insights to the limitations of technocratic faith systems.
´´ As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries — not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits18b comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer’s gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise.´´