Snow asserted that many literate people do not understand science, or the scientific method. Yet they are offended when their ignorance is demonstrated. Lindzen concludes:
?What C.P. Snow failed to note, I think, is that the group he describes is actually aware of their scientific ignorance, and this leaves them very insecure. This accounts for their need for simple narratives, however wrong. It allows them to believe that they actually do ?understand? the science, and, as we see, they become arrogantly proud of their alleged accomplishment. Of course, they forget that their ignorance extends to understanding what science actually is. They forget that the opposite of Science is ?The Science?. The situation is compounded when one comes to climate where most scientists are also ignorant, but where their support for the narrative comforts the non-scientists. On top of all this, I suspect that in a long period of wellbeing, this elite feels the need to show that they too have met challenges ? even if the challenges are purely imaginary. This seems particularly true for young people who are confronted with stories of the courage of the ?greatest generation?.
?One should note again that most ordinary people don?t have these problems.
?Our task is to show the relevant people the overall stupidity of this issue rather than punching away at details. In focusing on the details, we are merely trying to showcase our own specialties. My use of the word ?merely? is probably unjustified; the details can, in fact, be scientifically important. However, we are not considering either our target audience or the intrinsic absurdity of the issue. It is likely that we have to capitalize on the insecurity of the educated elite and make them look silly instead of superior and virtuous. We must remember that they are impervious to real science unless it is reduced to their level. When it is reduced to their level, it is imperative that we, at least, retain veracity. Whether we are capable of effectively doing this is an open question. However, at the least, we must stop treating the proponents of climate as an existential threat, as worthy opponents. Do not ascribe reasonableness to the other side?s position. It is not true, and not even plausible.
?Of course, there remains the obvious fact that the proposed policies ignore the agreed conclusion of even the IPCC that nothing done by the US and the EU will have a significant impact on climate. In a rational world, this would lead to the conclusion that the best policy would be to increase the resilience of the Western World to climate change regardless of its cause. Instead, the proposed policies would leave us more vulnerable. This strongly suggests malicious intent. This essay provides a curious possibility for this malicious intent. As I have noted, most ordinary people (i.e., working middle-class people), are sensible enough to not accept the notion that climate is so severe a threat as to warrant policies that while monumentally disruptive, destructive and expensive, will have imperceptible impact on climate regardless of what one believes about climate. The self-anointed elite, in response, assume the gnostic position of proclaiming exactly the opposite. I use the word ?proclaiming? rather than ?believing.? Frankly, I don?t think they actually believe what they are proclaiming ? especially when they buy mansions on the coast. Rather, they look forward to the pain their policies will cause to a group that they appear to despise. I still hope that this analysis is wrong, but, in today?s peculiar world, it seems all too possible.?