Categories
Uncategorized

July 2, 2013 – Boris Johnson, expert on energy systems, attacks windfarms

Ten years ago, on this day, July 2, 2013, Boris defuckhead Johnson writes in his column in the Daily Telegraph “newspaper” that  “Wind farms couldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was overpaid hack Boris Johnson needed to write a column. And attacking wind farms is always easy if you’re a conservative. Johnson, of course, didn’t bother to do any research. Why would he, that’s not what they were paying him for. You don’t ask a clown to have evidence based policy and you should not ask a clown to be Prime Minister or World King, Offshore wind was in a precarious position but was beginning to make headway.

OTHER OLD WHITE MEN

’ Mr Peter McGauran MP, the federal Minister for Agriculture and member for Gippsland, went further in June 2006, saying ‘Wind farms don’t live up to the hype that they’re the environmental saviour and a serious alternative energy source.

(Prest, 2007: 254)

ABC, 2006. Pete McGauran says wind farms a fraud. AM Program, 29 June. 2006

Old white men just can’t bear to be dependent (Hudson 2017)

What I think we can learn from this commentators especially right wing ones, can say any old fact-free shit that they like and suffer no consequences. Wind power now provides a decent (and climbing)  percentage of our electricity needs, on an annual basis in the UK. (Please note I am not advocating a 100% wind energy economy nobody is that’s a straw man. That’s a trap.)

What happened next

Boris Johnson became Prime Minister and by between the narrating of this and the uploading, probably Prime Minister again. [no, actually he is toast.] 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Uncategorized

June 3, 2010 – Merchants of Doubt published

Thirteen years ago, on this day, June 3, 2010, one of the best books about climate denial and its historical roots was published: Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been earlier books (including two by Ross Gelbspan which I would recommend) about climate denial. Oreskes and Conway had been working hard to show the history of organised denial of basic science by industry and how the climate people had learned from ozone and tobacco, same playbook, and how certain personnel were the same. It was published maybe a year too late to have the impact that it could have, if it had come out. Before Copenhagen, it might have exposed and neutered the sort of climategate bullshit, but here we are. The book is really, really good. And I would strongly recommend that you read it. 

What I think we can learn from this

Good books can change folks’ perspective (duh).

What happened next

They made a movie. Everybody knows, who wants to know, that there have been systematic programmes of lying to us. But because those liars are well-protected, and don’t suffer consequences, and because it’s exhausting to be lied to, the lies wash you down. And the promises rust.

And because of the mass media being what it is, as opposed to what media could be, we are where we are, where we are.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Uncategorized

May 23, 2012 – wicked problems and super-wicked problems all around…

Eleven years ago, on this day, May 23, 2012, there was an interesting paper published about “wicked problems” and super wicked problems.

2012 Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change published on 23 May 2012 

Most policy-relevant work on climate change in the social sciences either analyzes costs and benefits of particular policy options against important but often narrow sets of objectives or attempts to explain past successes or failures. We argue that an ‘‘applied forward reasoning’’ approach is better suited for social scientists seeking to address climate change, which we characterize as a ‘‘super wicked’’ problem comprising four key features: time is running out; those who cause the problem also seek to provide a solution; the central authority needed to address it is weak or non-existent; and, partly as a result, policy responses discount the future irrationally. These four features combine to create a policy-making ‘‘tragedy’’ where traditional analytical techniques are ill equipped to identify solutions, even when it is well recognized that actions must take place soon to avoid catastrophic future impacts.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0.pdf?pdf=button

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that we have known about so-called wicked problems for 50 years. And the idea of super wicked problems has been around for thirty.

Climate change is a super wicked problem par excellence, and this was especially obvious in the aftermath of the Copenhagen fiasco, which had occurred in December 2009. And it was not at this point at all clear that the UNFCCC caravan could have its wheels put back on in any meaningful sense.

What I think we can learn from this

It’s super-wicked problems all the way down… We kept punching the tar baby, and now it’s all over but the dying.

What happened next

We didn’t even acknowledge that these are super-wicked problems, let alone take actions to roll with the punches…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Uncategorized

Build Back Biodiversity:  International Biodiversity Day

A guest post by John Patmore

Today, 22 May 2023, is International Biodiversity Day or ‘International Day of Biological Diversity’ to use UN’s phrasing. This year’s theme is ‘From Agreement to Action: Build Back Biodiversity

If you look on Social Media search for: #BuildBackBiodiversity

And also: #AgreementToAction #KMGBF,

Along with: #HarmonyWithNature #30by30 #ForNature #ActionDecade #post2020

What Happened?

The original Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was prepared and signed following the 1992 ‘Rio Earth Summit’*. Thirty years later it is worth reminding ourselves why the term ‘Biodiversity’ arose, and what it was meant to capture.

Angry Monkey

“The earth is black in front of the cliff, and no orchids grow.

 Creepers crawl in the brown mud by the path.

 Where did the birds of yesterday fly?

 To what other mountain did the animals go?

 Leopards and pythons dislike this ruined spot;

 Cranes and snakes avoid the desolation.

 My criminal thoughts of those days past

 Brought on the disaster of today.”

‘Monkey’  Wu Ch’ên-Ên  Penguin Classics 

Humanity likes to see itself as all-knowing. Technology will provide solutions. ‘We’ are clever enough to control our destiny through applied engineering backed up with enough money.

Over recent decades we have seen there are many examples of our desires for more, faster and easier results failing. Recent floods across England, Pakistan and Bangladesh to name a few have left people homeless. The hottest summer ever recorded last year in England along with forests burning in Europe and USA over this century indicate massive environmental change we need to prepare for if we can’t ‘solve’ Climate Change.

Biodiversity was never seen as an end in itself. With publication of the ‘UK Biodiversity Action Plan’ (HMSO 1994) I asked the naive question “What is the point of it?”; my question was deliberate as ‘Conservation’ had been going on in Britain for over a Century. 

Biodiversity and the ‘Action Plans’ which emerged fulfilled several functions; a key one being to monitor change in the natural world. Sustainable Development as the foundation of the ‘Rio Earth Summit’* had three interconnected lynch pins. ‘Environment’ being the one that biodiversity plans aimed to monitor. Put simply: ‘You only go extinct once’ and we are seeing that increasingly across the World. In Britain the Scottish Wildcat has vanished, common dormouse is no longer common, water voles are extinct across many former counties.  The various ‘Biodiversity Action Plans’ (BAP) specified a range of habitat actions and species targets to enhance UK biodiversity.  added 

While we started to catalogue changes in biodiversity in the 1990s and list the objectives needed to enhance it there was a lack of meaningful action or senior level commitment. Even the Government’s National  UKBAP website, the index to biodiversity objectives, now advertises a private company!

However, COP15 provides continuity with the original UN CBD. There is genuine love for nature and commitment to biodiversity at the more local community levels.  

Some may say “We cannot control nature”; this phrase is often used by climate-change sceptics too. Yet we have successfully increased global air and sea temperatures over the past fifty years at rates never measured previously! We have destroyed habitats around the globe, whether it is rainforests or coral reefs. We have built on, ploughed and polluted heathlands, meadows and freshwater rivers in this country. So yes, “We can control nature”.

Breaking your own toys

When a complex and functioning system stops working normally a frequent immature reaction is to over-react. An intellectually and emotionally simple primate will literally ‘break its own toys’ rather than appreciate and understand how they should work. It can also be termed ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder). Having ‘broken’ the planet Earth it is clear that repair will require a focused action, agreed at a global scale. Most truly natural habitats have been destroyed and there has been over a century of damage to the area and connections between ‘Semi Natural Habitats’.

We have seen recent examples of emotionally simple ‘ODD’ reactions. Car fuel queues and anger over heating following Russian gas supply anxieties. We sheepishly recall fisticuff over toilet rolls –  Loo Roll Riots, of all things! This illustrates how we live in an interconnected world; or ‘Ecosystem’, as ecologists normally refer to this planet of natural, semi-natural habitats and species. 

Perhaps think of the global ecosystem as though it was your own body. You can lose teeth. You can lose a finger, or a toe. As each component of the ecosystem is lost the quality of life diminishes. Failing organs and hormone imbalance have a much larger impact than their physical size indicates; best to not overlook and ignore the diversity of creatures in our collective ecosystems! 

We are given indicators of ecosystem change, if we choose to see them. The zoonoses transfer of viruses from birds, bats and eventually larger mammals to humans led to the global pandemics of Covid19 and H5N1 (‘Bird Flu’ in Asia starting 2003).

Where next – Mars?

Following many centuries of species extinctions (Dodos were hunted to death!) and natural habitat loss it is time to reflect. Destruction of the Brazilian rainforest has been well documented, and still continues as cattle are farmed for a few short years to supply the ‘beefburger’ fast food trade. Borneo is one of the richest ecosystems in the world (= most biodiverse) and we see accelerating decline of its forests to be replaced by urban areas or palm oil plantations. In 1973 (fifty years ago) the large island of Borneo was almost completely dominated by tropical and sub-tropical rainforest. Now within two generations only a much reduced strip of rainforest now remains in the centre of Indonesian Kalimantan. 

We destroy the very health of planet Earth. At an egocentric level this will result in damage to our own human health. At an ecocentric level the very planet which has sustained life for over three billion years is being destroyed. Humanity is smart enough now to see this destruction. Mars is a long distance into the future. It makes far more sense to look after the only planet we know can support life.

Where next then?

Within Brighton and Hove’s Wildlife Forum (BHWF) we look to work with partner bodies to promote biodiversity and geodiversity. Everyone has a connection with nature. If you are keen to help improve nature conservation there are some basic first steps which will make a big big difference.

1. Set up a connection with others. This is the crucial ‘Agreement’ step which provides the foundation for action.

2. Confirm the current places with biodiversity and geodiversity features in your area. Google Maps is a super resource for this as you can plot polygons and single points on an internet map that everyone can see and share in improving.

3. Arrange to visit the Local Wildlife Sites (LWS = biodiversity and geodiversity) you have selected. They do not have formal protection so you can simply start by photographing and describing them.

4. As other people with a shared interest become focused on each particular LWS you can build up a list of habitats and species which depend on that site. Ideally you can monitor the size and health of your LWS areas.

5. Keep an eye on council forward plans, and also planning applications. You can identify threats to the LWS network. Given support from conservation groups you can actively prevent the loss and destruction of local biodiversity. 

And finally,

6. It’s not all trouble and strife! Once you have a LWS network on the live map, which people close by can see and know about, it’s time to expand. Look for opportunities to connect up the separate LWS areas, with ‘Wildlife Corridors’. This can be as small and personal as planting native species in a part of your garden adjacent to a neighbour also doing this. Allowing ‘Hedgehog Corridors’ to be created (see ‘Hedgehog Street Campaign’) 

7. Habitat Connectivity is often the most positive improvement that can be made by local groups and people. Finding the LWS network, protecting the areas and then enhancing their natural qualities to connect with nearby areas are the practical steps From Agreement to Action: …. to Build Back Biodiversity

John Patmore is an ecologist based in Brighton, England (Eco21st.com) He established BHWF ( BHWF.org.uk) with Martin Robinson over a decade ago. The Forum looks to promote biodiversity and geodiversity actions and policy across Brighton and Hove. 

* The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 

Categories
Economics of mitigation Uncategorized United States of America

May 20, 1960 – Spengler suggests decline of the … whole shebang

On this day american economist Joseph J. Spengler’s  Science article –  

“Illustrative also would be the covering of much land by water should continuing population growth so step up man’s production of carbon dioxide that the oceans failed to absorb all of it, with the result that the carbon dioxide content, and hence the temperature, of the atmosphere rose sufficiently to melt the polar ice caps.”

See here

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1705886

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319 check  ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by the late 1950s carbon dioxide build-ups existence and possible long term consequences was not confined to a tiny tiny minority. Anyone who read a newspaper, could understand exponential growth and 19th century could see that there might be some writing on the wall…

What I think we can learn from this

We knew enough to think about worrying.

What happened next?

No economist bothered to think about the problem until Nordhaus in the 1970s.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Guest post Ignored Warnings Uncategorized

May 11, 1971 – U Thant gets The Message

A guest post by Roger Osborne

On this day, 11th May, in 1971 the UN Secretary General U Thant met a group of distinguished scientists who presented him with  “A message to our 3.5  billion neighbours on planet earth” – a strong environmental statement raising concerns about environmental deterioration, resource depletion, hunger, and war – which together presented an unprecedented common danger to all of humanity.

During 1970 a small conference had been organised in Menton on the French Riviera. Probably the first “Environmental Conference” in Europe it involved a meeting between the organizer Alfred Hassler of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, Buddhist peace activists Thich Nhat Hanh and Sister Chan Khong, and six other distinguished scientists.

Chan Khong, remembering the event in 2016, said “We met to address the damage that was being done to the Earth through human misuse of technology, the penetration into food-chains of poisonous substances and the mounting exploitation of natural resources.”

Together, through their discussions, they crafted the an open letter. Known as “The Menton Message” or “The Menton Statement” this was widely circulated amongst biologists and environmental scientists. It rapidly attracted over over 2000 signatures, including four Nobel prizewinners and numerous very distinguished and respected scientists of the day.

The following year, on May 11th 1971, in New York a copy of the statement was presented to UN Secretary General U Thant by six of the authors. It was then published as the lead item in the UNESCO Journal “Courier” in the July 1971 issue and reached a wider audience within the UN organisation and beyond.

U Thant responded to the delegation:

I believe that mankind is at last aware of the fact that there is a delicate equilibrium of physical and biological phenomena on and around the earth which cannot be thoughtlessly disturbed as we race along the road of technological development…

This global concern in the face of a grave common danger, which carries the seeds of extinction for the human species, may well prove to be the elusive force which can bind men together.

The battle for human survival can only be won by all nations joining together in a concerted drive to preserve life on this planet.”

Why it Matters

The Statement concludes with four urgent action points “not as panaceas, but as holding actions to keep our situation from deteriorating past the point of no return”

In summary they called for a moratorium on new technological developments, widespread application of existing pollution control technology, a decrease in consumption by privileged classes, and abolition and destruction of nuclear arsenals and chemical and biological weapons.

So right at the beginning of the modern environmental movement there was seen a strong linkage between ecological issues and peace and disarmament, together with a focus on social issues of equality and rights.

What Happened Next

The message, strongly endorsed by the scientific elite, played a key role in preparing the ground for the UN Summit on the Human Environment which took place in Stockholm the following year in June 1972.

The Stockholm summit lead to the creation of “Environment” ministries in many governments and the establishment of the UN Environmental Program. These lead to 50 years of talking about “the environment” and little real action to address the fundamental issues the scientists were raising.

The scientific community published ever more mountains of papers attracting ever more research funding to describe in increasing detail the complexity of the interlocking environmental problems.

The plain people of the world seeing all this activity assumed that “they” would solve the problems and merrily kept calm and carried on consuming.

Successive generations of environmental activists kept on marching and protesting at this and that and thus many became burnt-out and retired to cultivate their gardens.

Whilst “the environment” became the prime focus of “environmentalism”, the related issues identified in the Menton Message of the problems inherent in technological solutions, the need for peaceful coexistence rather than conflict, and the need for more equal distribution of of societal goods were somewhat sidelined.

Last year (2022) the UN held a Stockholm+50 Intergovernmental Conference hosted jointly by the Swedish and Kenyan Governments. The original Menton Message was updated and reissued as “A Letter to Fellow Citizens of Planet Earth”.

Which gets us to where we are today.

Rinse and Repeat.

(On a personal note U Thant was the only global leader who my teenage self through the 60s regarded as worth anything. Being a dedicated peace activist in a position of power, he was far from the normal self-serving politicians.  It is interesting to consider whether the authors of Blueprint for Survival were aware of the Menton Message – it certainly seems likely.

Categories
Uncategorized

May 11, 2001 –  Bush Signs Oil Lobbying Organization’s Executive Order

Twenty two years ago, on this day, May 11, 2001, George “Supreme Court got me this gig” Bush did his masters’ bidding.

President Bush signs Executive Order 13211. It is a verbatim copy of a “suggested” order sent in March by American Petroleum Institute official James Ford (see March 20, 2001). The executive order, enigmatically titled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” exempts certain industry actions from federal review. [White House, 5/22/2001; Dubose and Bernstein, 2006, pp. 17] AND in a letter of 11 May 2001 The White House asked the US NAS for assistance in identifying the areas in the science on climate change where there are greatest certainties and uncertainties. The NAS was also asked for its views on whether there are any substantive differences between the IPCC reports and the IPCC summaries. An answer to the request was expected in early June, i.e., within less than a month. The NAS quickly appointed a special committee under the chairmanship of Dr Ralph Cicerone, chancellor of the University of California, Irving, CA, and a well-known researcher in atmospheric chemistry (and president of the NAS since 2005). Its report was ready in June…

(Bolin, 2007) Page 179

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George Bush who had become president thanks to the decision of Supreme Court judges appointed by his dad was not losing any time in a bolstering the oil and gas industries and began trying to delay any action on climate change by asking for yet another appraisal because while an appraisal is being done you can defer any questions about what you are going to do. Once the appraisal has been done you can say that you’re studying and considering it and that buys you more time.  And maybe something else will come along and distract everyone and in any case you are demoralising and exhausting your opponents.

What I think we can learn from this

This is a standard technique that incumbents use to delay things to talk out the clock to make it at the same time seem as if they care about the issue because why else would they be calling for scientists to investigate, so it’s a win-win. It’s a deeply deeply cynical manoeuvre; it should be noted that the US government had been asking for these appraisals since 1979 and they always come back the same way. So this was not a disinterested search for knowledge – this was a delaying tactic by a deeply irresponsible man-child.

What happened next

The NAS delivered its appraisal and to precisely nobody’s surprise it said that climate change was real and things urgently needed to be done about it. Bush of course did nothing except make the problem worse.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Uncategorized

May 6, 2004 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard meets business, to kill renewables

Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 6, 2004, Australian Prime Minister John Howard convened a meeting of the Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group in order to …  get them to help him kill off renewables. This is really quite extraordinary. 

The Federal Government and fossil-fuel industry executives discussed ways to stifle growing investment in renewable energy projects at a secret meeting earlier this year.

Prime Minister John Howard called the meeting on May 6, five weeks before releasing the energy white paper on June 14.

The white paper favours massive investment in research to make fossil fuels cleaner, at the expense of schemes boosting growth in renewable energy.

Mr Howard called together the fossil-fuel-based Lower Emissions Technology Advisory Group to seek advice on ways to avoid extending the mandatory renewable energy targets scheme.

Anon, 2004. PM called talks to derail renewable energy The Age, October 3, 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a federal election coming. Opposition Leader Mark Latham was having some success, talking about renewables. The existing renewable scheme that had grudgingly started in 2002, was proving more successful than Howard wanted. Vestas had opened up a factory in Tasmania. And it was all looking as if Howard wasn’t going to be able to continue to easily rubbish renewables and therefore he tried to call in favours. We only know about this because it was leaked later that year.

What I think we can learn from this 

The slowness of the arrival of renewables is not simply a question about whether the technology is not ready or “Oh, the business models aren’t ready.” There is also often explicit effective resistance from business and from government. It’s rare for them to be caught as red-handed as this. It didn’t seem to have much short term damage for Howard who won the 2004 Election.

What happened next

The Vestas factory in Tasmania shut down. Australian progress on renewables was slowed. John Howard deserves to rot in a fiery hell for what he did to Australia but personally, I don’t believe in hell so I’d just be happy to see him rot in a prison cell in The Hague on trial for crimes against humanity.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Australia Business Responses Greenwash Uncategorized

April 9, 1990 – Australian business launches “we’re green!” campaign

 Thirty three years ago, on this day, April 9, 1990, Australian business tried to get ahead of the ‘green debate’

1990  “Launching its first policy on the environment in Sydney yesterday, the Business Council of Australia lamented the standard of the green debate.”

Lane, B. 1990. Business hitches a ride with green bandwagon.  Australian Financial Review, 10 April.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Business had been caught flat-footed and/or complacent about resurgent interest in green issues. They had also perhaps thought that the Liberal National Party would be back in power in 1990 and take care of them, so why make a big effort?   It didn’t turn out like that  – Labor scraped back in at the March 1990 Federal Election.

So, led by the at-that-time newish and dominant “Business Council of Australia”, industry said all the right platitudes about ecologically sustainable development etc.

What I think we can learn from this

Business is often slow off the mark when facing a new threat, because so many new threats evaporate on their own, (or rather, the problem is real but isn’t turned into an issue.)  Combatting advocates of an issue at an early stage may only help turn it into an issue. Better to watch greenies exhaust themselves even getting an issue onto the agenda, and then rely on structural “luck” to contain/constrain/corral it, no?

What happened next

The Hawke Government tried to keep everyone happy, through the promised “Ecologically Sustainable Development” process, with its working groups etc.  But in the end, push coming to shove, the ESD was watered down and watered down to the point of nothingness (see here and here and here).

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Uncategorized

 March 16, 1973 –  North Sea Oil for the people?! (Nope)

Fifty years ago, on this day, March 16, 1973, The  Conservation Society released  report about North Sea Oil and how the gains could and should be spread around

The Guardian 16 March 1973, page 8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

There was lots of North Sea oil coming at us. (See also Doctor Who and the Terror of the Zygons.) And the question of how these riches would be invested and distributed and spent was very real. 

Reading about that Conservation Society report with the benefit of 50 years of hindsight, and in the context of the Industrial Decarbonisation Research and Innovation Centre effort is freaking hilarious.

And of course, the workers doing the hard graft on off-shore wind are… getting screwed. See this recent report in The Ecologist.

What I think we can learn from this

That there were smart people talking about a “just transition”, and lobbying MPs etc, fifty years ago.

What happened next

North Sea oil revenues were used by Thatcher to cover up the economic catastrophe that she was causing, paying unemployment benefits and sick benefits, rather than creating a sovereign wealth fund, as the Norwegians have done; I’m not saying Norway is perfect by the way.  And some people got very very rich indeed.

Thank goodness we’re no longer trying to get the last dregs of hydrocarbons out, during a climate emergency, because that would reveal us to be pathetic hairless apes with opposable thumbs and a two millimetre sheet of neurons that didn’t make us quite as smart as we thought…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..