Woe is me, the expert, because all the non-experts don't trust me. Rather than address why that is, the elitest expert condemns the non-elitest commoners and worries that it portends the end of, or at least a "giant problem" for, (elitest-controlled) society.
Trust us you must, he argues, because you know too little to make decisions for yourselves.
Has he ever stopped to consider how juries operate without "experts"? Or basic infantry platoons, or thousands of small businesses, or small towns - none of which operate on the basis of experts/expertise?
An alternative perspecrive from a physicist/enginner/venture capitalist who was named Energy Writer of the Year" in 2016 by the American Energy Society.
This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”
Among the reasons:
Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability. In practical terms, this means that spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines, or solar panels will each, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh)—while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh.
Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.
Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.
The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.
Therefor you are making an assumption that compounds/reinforces your confirmation bias as opposed to actually seeking further further information to determine whether the article is correct? Is that a close-minded approach or a knowledge seeking approach? To what other "professionally interested" group do you also automatically give the benefit of doubt?
Woe is me, the expert, because all the non-experts don't trust me. Rather than address why that is, the elitest expert condemns the non-elitest commoners and worries that it portends the end of, or at least a "giant problem" for, (elitest-controlled) society.
Trust us you must, he argues, because you know too little to make decisions for yourselves.
Has he ever stopped to consider how juries operate without "experts"? Or basic infantry platoons, or thousands of small businesses, or small towns - none of which operate on the basis of experts/expertise?