By Jerome Ravetz

To start, ‘quality’ now means ‘goodness’.  But it is not a simple property.  In fact, it is complex, recursive and moral.  First, for any thing or action, there are a plurality of attributes of quality, each of which will have its own criteria and standards.  These do not come from nowhere; for each there will be a social system that defines and then monitors them.  This immediately raises the question in the Latin motto, ‘who guards the guardians?’

For each answer, the question is reiterated, and so there is a recursive process.  The tasks are different, at the different levels; and ultimately there is a sanction in an informal, perhaps indefinable thing called ‘public opinion’.  We see this most clearly in the case of school exams, where children are tested by special agencies, and these are inspected by other agencies, up to the political level where a Minister is responsible; and (as happened not long ago) if things go very wrong then the Minister resigns because public opinion has made their position untenable.

There is a distinction between quality control and quality assurance; the latter refers to the total complex process.  The maintenance of quality is very much a moral process.  This is because it is impossible to make a complete specification of tasks at the lowest level; evasion of imposed standards is always possible.  Hence if operatives do not believe in the system to some extent, it will fail.  Their adherence to the system will depend on their morale, and that is conditioned by what they observe of the behavior of those who govern them.  In that sense, corruption starts at the top.

(more…)

By Nils-Axel Mörner

Paul Driessen (photo left) and Ron Arnold just published a very interesting article (CFACT, April 17, 2016) where they write:

What we contest are false assertions that “humans are creating a dangerous climate change crisis.” We do not accept false claims that “the science is settled” and will not be limited to discussing only “what we must do now to avert looming climate catastrophes.”

That’s not just constitutionally protected free speech. It is the foundation of scientific progress and informed public policy.

The words are very well formulated, and it perfectly well fits with the basic idea of the foundation of our Independent Committee on Geoethics.

The authors continue:

Meanwhile, EPA and other federal agencies, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate activist organizations, state legal and environmental agencies, and legions of scientists who receive government grants for advancing the “manmade climate cataclysm” mantra are themselves engaging in what many say is truly misleading or fraudulent climate science, policy and regulation.

Millions in poor countries die annually from preventable diseases, because hysterical climate claims justify denying them access to affordable modern electricity and transportation that could be provided by coal, natural gas and petroleum products. In developed nations, climate hysteria has cost millions of jobs, adversely affecting people’s living standards, health and welfare. In European countries, thousands are dying each winter, because they can no longer afford proper heat.

The problem is not human intervention in the climate; it’s improper political intervention in climate science. It has corrupted scientific findings from the very beginning.

Let me congratulate the authors for their excellent review based on true Science and Geoethical principles. The full text is accessible on the web (address above).