Readers: The entries in this blog are built around the assumption there will be a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Entry #400 was the most recent “sense check.” 

I continue to be struck by how the Republican Party has only one answer to any proposal. “We can’t do that,” sometimes phrased as “That won’t work!”

Like a parrot with a very limited vocabulary, the “can’t”/”won’t” response is never followed by a suggestion how to correct what is perceived to be the problem with an idea.  No Republican seems to have any meaningful ideas on how to solve problems.  Pardon me, the “Republicants” do have one recommended solution no matter what the problem is.  The solution is, “Cut taxes for the wealthy because…”  Why would cutting taxes fix the problem?  Oh, it doesn’t matter why.  And it doesn’t matter to Republicants there is ZERO empirical evidence to support their logic.  For Republicants, the answer is, “Just cut taxes.”

A few days ago I watched a hearing held by the House Select Committee on Climate Change. My interest was twofold. One, I’ve spent much of the last 30 years focusing on developing practical solutions to help reduce emissions, primarily CO₂ emissions.  A current project is working with a group of fellow MIT alumni on that very issue. The second reason I watched was one of the people testifying has been a longtime colleague and wanted to view his testimony.

Of the three people testifying that day, two had real-world experience in implementing practical solutions to reduce CO₂ emissions.  While their party affiliation was not discussed in the testimony, because they were working to reduce CO₂ emissions, some Republicans on the committee, maybe all Republicans, apparently thought the two were some of “those liberals.”

The third person testifying was a climate-change denier.  Ironically, in his remarks he actually raised a couple of valid points about issues that need to be addressed. But like most every Republicant inside the Beltway, he offered no solutions.

One Republicant House member decided no serious questions were necessary and instead used his 5 minutes to put on a good show for his right-wing constituents. Some of his diatribe included, “We can’t afford the Green New Deal. The Green New Deal won’t work! Instead, we need to build more roads to reduce congestion.”

Building more roads is not a solution to climate change. Whether or not you believe in science, burning gasoline creates CO₂.  CO₂ is a major contributor to climate change and global warming.  Climate change is real and no amount of denial, diversion or blaming someone else will stop the impact.

I’m sure many climate-change deniers don’t care, but the Green New Deal is a set of ideas and not any legislative proposal. From a Republicant perspective, I guess the country cannot afford to even discuss new ideas.  Why?  Yikes, discussions might lead to answers.   

Republicants claim to be objective and fiscally responsible, well at least when a Democrat is president.  So let’s just look at the cost of addressing climate change.  The cost of climate change maybe can best be described by a commercial from the 1970’s/1980’s for FRAM oil filters, “You can pay me now or pay me later.”  Except the payment for climate change will be exponentially greater the longer we wait.

In addition, the cost of waiting will also include excessive loss of human life, excess loss of wildlife, and may result in an uninhabitable earth. But no, let’s not discuss climate change.  Let’s deny climate change and pretend it doesn’t exist. 

While we’re pretending climate change doesn’t exist, let’s pretend the FBI or some liberal group, you know that Antifa group, stormed the Capitol 01/06/21 to make Trump look bad.  Since someone else was responsible, let’s investigate it.  No, no, I really meant to say “Let’s not investigate the Capitol insurrection.  Well, I’m not sure what I mean other than “no.’”   (Republicants have a selective memory problems as well.  Saying “no” to examining the cause of the insurrection seems a bit different than the wild enthusiasm by Republicants to investigate Benghazi.  Jim Jordan, cat got your tongue?)   

“Quit trying to confuse me.  Here’s what I know.  Instead of spending money on addressing climate change, America should spend more money on roads and drill for more oil.  Our politicians should start acting like real Americans should act and quit acting like a bunch of liberal wimps.  Stay tough and keep saying no, just like we did when Obama was president.”

This kind of “Always say no” mentality is a major contributor to why the US is headed for a 5^th Revolution and why I’ve labeled the revolution the Revenge Revolution.  Always saying “no” and never offering ideas inhibits progress.  Always saying “no” would have resulted in America not taking the lead in the development of the automobile, aircraft, space exploration, communications, computers, the internet and a host of other technologies and large-scale projects, including the interstate highway system.  FYI, Republicants interstate highways are roads. 

Just saying “no” is a strategy for decline.  And the decline affects more than climate change.  Republicants continue to say no to having more people vote, to examining acts by the Trump administration that compromised national security and to a host of other important issues.  And Republicants claim to be patriots.  Mmm, Republicants seem more like parrots. 

Booklets you might find interesting:

Revenge Revolution — description of what form the revolution might take, 20 01 07 Start of Revolution

Who took out the Donald?  Who/what groups are most likely to “take out” Trump? The booklet was written early in the Trump administration but still worth a read. Who Took Out the Donald Entries with Update

Working with Lee Iacocca after he left Chrysler, 2019Q3 Iacocca Personal Observations. 

GM EV1 — behind-the-scenes events affecting development and introduction of the GM EV1, the first modern electric vehicle. 2020Q1 GM EV-1 Story Behind the Story Booklet  Note: in January 2021, GM announced that by 2035 all light-duty cars and trucks sold by GM worldwide will be electric. “Automotive News” had a special section published Earth Day 2021 about the GM EV1. Lots of celebration about the engineering accomplishments, and rightfully so. Little, if any insight why the GM EV1 was cancelled.

Readers: The entries in this blog are built around the assumption there will be a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Entry #400 was the most recent “sense check.” 

This past week I had two conversations that left me puzzled and bewildered, although I guess not surprised. One “conversation” consisted of a series of texts and the other occurred during a business call.

The first conversation was a follow-up to a birthday greeting I sent to someone I’ve known for 35+ years. We met when she was a student intern in one of the departments I managed. Sometime thereafter she asked me to be an advisor for her thesis.

Over the years we’ve stayed in touch, mostly chit-chat and rarely, if ever, politics.  Well, no politics that I remember until Trump.  Someplace along the way she migrated from being working-class to middle-class Democrat to a hard-right Trumpster. And the change in attitude wasn’t for any economic hardship.

I’ve given up trying to understand why she shifted political views because every time I’ve asked what I thought was an objective and rather innocuous question about Trump, the answer was filled with snippets from the far-right sheet of talking points.

So when I sent a birthday text recently I made sure the content read more like a Hallmark card with no reference to politics or even state of health.  The last message I sent several months ago mentioned we had gotten shots and asked if she had also.  The response was another series of texts telling me why vaccines were bad.

The response to the birthday message?  I should have known better.  “Thanks for the note” followed by another round of conspiracy stuff, this time focused on last November’s presidential election.  I was also informed not to watch any news on the broadcast networks or cable.  Even Fox was off limits.  These channels are trying to brainwash viewers.

Instead, I should watch news broadcasts on local channels. No mention, of course, that many local channels are owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, a company promoting far-right views.  Or, no mention that many allegedly local stories are either scripted by Sinclair or fed to local outlets by Sinclair and forced to broadcast. 

For national news, a credible source was some guy on an internet website who really told the truth.  Seriously?  How does one have a meaningful conversation about policy with someone who thinks like that?  

The second incident happened during a business call. We were discussing a product that could be used to help manage the transition from fossil fuel to 100% electric in transportation and homes/buildings.  The transition to 100% electric is a key element in plans to address climate change.

Part of the conversation was about the likely consequences of not addressing climate change aggressively and immediately. The response to my comments about likely consequences was something along the lines of “Predictions about the future are always wrong.”  As proof he noted that how wrong a prediction was made in the 1950s about life in the 21^st Century.  What the prediction was I don’t know.

The implication, at least in my view, was that since predictions or forecasts are always wrong, one should not base behavior on such predictions. Rather, one should wait until it becomes clear what the outcome is going to be and then take action. Such an approach might work for whether to deploy an umbrella but it won’t work for climate change.  

Waiting until the effects of climate change become incredibly obvious is a formula for disaster.  By then the earth will have passed the tipping point and it will be far too late for any action to make a meaningful difference.  Think of taking action on climate change to jumping out of an airplane.  One can wait only so long to deploy the parachute.  Beyond the “tipping point” the outcome is the same – splat. 

In response to the comments about forecasts I mentioned virtually my entire career has included being responsible for some type of forecast, often longer term.  I also agreed there is one certainty about forecasts; yes, forecasts are always wrong.

However, the goal of a forecast is not be 100% correct but rather to minimize errors in estimates of key variables. My experience has been the most useful forecasts are guided by the 80:20 rule. Spend time making as accurate as possible the forecast for 20% for the variables that account for 80% of the outcome.  The remaining 80% of the variables that account for 20% of the outcome should receive some attention but are mostly noise.

For naysayers of forecasts, novices to forecasting, and conspiracy theorists it is easy to focus on errors in estimates of the 80% of variables that are the noise.  Focusing on the 80% allows one to develop a long list of items in the forecast that were wrong, thereby “proving” forecasts are of no value.  The naysayer group spends very little time evaluating the accuracy of the forecasts for the 20% of variables that matter.  Doing so would disprove whatever argument they are trying to make.

When discussing climate change, what are some key variables? One is understanding the major sources of CO_2; another is understanding how CO₂ is generated by that source.  A 3^rd is understanding how the ecosystems will be affected as the Earth’s temperature rises or falls.

The list of practical solutions to climate change includes replacing fossil fuel with electricity or non-carbon fuel in transportation and homes/buildings.  While the solution is certainly feasible, even with available technology, what is unknown and frequently overlooked is how to ensure an adequate flow of electricity when the electricity is generated from renewable sources, primarily wind or solar.  Electricity from wind and solar is highly variable and unlike coal or nuclear which have a relatively constant flow of electrons.

Technology exists to store electrons. The unsolved problem, and one that needs to be forecasted reasonably accurately, is how to store enough electrons from solar and wind to make sure there is adequate amount of electricity available to meet peak-load demand.

Another head-scratching data point about “How Are They Thinking?” is a series of entries on Facebook.  One FB friend has repeatedly claimed Covid-19 is a hoax.  Further, the vaccines for Covid were being promoted by the government to control people’s behavior.  His solution to Covid-19?  Just avoid being infected.  How was never explained.  Besides, if someone contracted Covid, then no big deal since only a small percentage of people died. 

He further claimed the number of deaths due to Covid was greatly exaggerated and part of the plot by the “government” to control one’s behavior.  When I pointed out that during 2020 the total number of deaths, regardless of cause, was more than 500,000 above-normal – at least 3 and probably 4 standard deviations from the norm – he offered no response. I guess 500,000 people wanted to die early and thought the year 2020 was a good time to go.

Where do these examples leave us? The three people cited are all college educated and who should be reasonably rational in their thinking.  Somehow they have become irrational.  Early on in the Trump Administration I wrote that many of his ardent supporters appeared to have been brainwashed.  Although there is no clear answer how they became brainwashed – maybe watching the bloviators on Fox was enough – I’m even more convinced today of the brainwashing.  Otherwise, why would someone continue to promote theories with no hard data or any conceivable logic?   

Trying to “un-brainwash” this group of people likely cannot be accomplished before a portion of them take actions similar to storming  the Capitol or beginning widespread attempts to assassinate elected government officials and judges who are perceived not to support the Trump election fantasy.

Actions by Trump supporters does not bode well for mitigating a 5^th US Revolution.  In fact, when history is written about the 21^st Century teens and early 20’s, I think the conclusion will be that in 2021 the US had begun the 5^th US Revolution, the Revenge Revolution. Historians will also note, and I hope I’m wrong about this forecast, the discord continued to intensify after 2021 until the fighting broke out a few years later.  More to come.

Booklets you might find interesting:

• Revenge Revolution — description of what form the revolution might take, 20 01 07 Start of Revolution
• Who took out the Donald?  Who/what groups are most likely to “take out” Trump? The booklet was written early in the Trump administration but still worth a read. Who Took Out the Donald Entries with Update
• Working with Lee Iacocca after he left Chrysler, 2019Q3 Iacocca Personal Observations. 
• GM EV1 — behind-the-scenes events affecting development and introduction of the GM EV1, the first modern electric vehicle. 2020Q1 GM EV-1 Story Behind the Story Booklet  Note: in January 2021, GM announced that by 2035 all light-duty cars and trucks sold by GM worldwide will be electric. “Automotive News” had a special section published Earth Day 2021 about the GM EV1. Lots of celebration about the engineering accomplishments, and rightfully so. Little, if any insight why the GM EV1 was cancelled.