Runner on your last post I would have to agree, we need some action instead of palaver, but your other posts are just full of fantasy and misinformation and outright lies.
David

My first encounters with C.P. Snow were in the 1970s and came through finding his books on Op-shop shelves: Of his fiction, I read firstly Corridors of Power and The Affair and lastly, out of curiosity and respect for Snow as author, George Passant. As a writer, Snow took me into thoughtful areas, into a world where people were educated, were 'aware' and were interested in the issues of the new (post-war) era. I rate him high on my list of writers … very high.

Of the 'Two Cultures...', I understood (as a member of the 'humanist' camp) that Snow was (as a scientist) telling us that the two cultures, as distinct as they were, were not communicating. We were not speaking the same language. I might put in my own 'two bobs worth' here and recall the Manhattan Project. There was – still is – a divide between the science and our humanism. Incredibly, Oppenheimer (after the war) and Einstein (before it) had moved in different ways to limit/stop the development or use of that weapon. They were scientists who crossed the divide.
/...

.../
Yet Don Aitkin's posting of Richard Lindzen's address to the Global Warming Foundation is intriguing. For on reading the complete version of Lindzen's address, I was struck by the thought that whereas Snow had ostensibly argued for the two cultures to better understand each other, Lindzen while recognising the inherent good sense of 'ordinary' people, seems more intent on attacking 'educated' elites. He seems to accuse such elites of

“Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying.”

Further, Lindzen explains these behaviours (such as those of Maurice Strong) as being

“due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion-dollar energy sector”.

Olaf Palme and Bert Bolin are similarly explained as using 'climate change' simply as a means to promoting

“nuclear energy by demonizing coal”.

Cardinal Maradiaga, close advisor to Pope Francis, is quoted by Lindzen as identifying capitalism's profit-seekers as ruining the environment. So we see a 'trifecta' of sorts, one in which the thread common to Strong, Palme and Maradiaga is the taint of socialism. In Lindzen's address, are we not getting a whiff of Stars and Stripes Republican ideology-over-people? And are we not seeing yet another example of American rejection/distrust of world-wide institutions? … International law, the U.N. and the IPCC?

The following, from 'Magma' [ MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen urges Trump: “Cut the funding of climate science by 80% to 90% until the field cleans up’? ], was interesting:

“I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous to his views of climate data.”
/...

.../
Needless to say, I'm not considering taking up smoking again. The Marlboro Man is long-time dead. Furthermore, regardless of Lindzen's slur against an ...

“ incoherent 'precautionary principle'”

I will continue to listen to the scientists. Despite Lindzen's rejection of the 97% figure (of scientists who believe in ACC), I have not been able to find material on the web which is sufficient to overturn my understanding that close to all scientists believe that climate change is influenced by human agency.

C. P. Snow was a totally-unexpected find in that Melbourne op-shop of the 70s. Never a part of our 60s school curriculum, but for me, a young bloke in his 20s, I was 'rapt' to discover reading material (albeit fiction) which spoke of post-war England, of 1950s 'modernism', I suppose you might call it and which in a steady way took me into worlds of power and learning of the which I had no experience. I'd read one or two of Pamela Hansford Johnson's works (e.g. Night and Silence : Who is Here? and perhaps The Unspeakable Skipton.) Perhaps on the basis of these I misjudged her. Still, interesting to consider whether Snow saw parallels to the 'Two Cultures...' within his own married life with P. H-J. My favourite of Snow's was 'The Affair' and even now I wonder at it, and see it with fresh eyes: the once hardly imaginable (to me) questions of scientific fraud and of 'scholarly' motivations – or should I put it: 'scholars' motivations'?. I recommend that book, and will have to go and dig it out of my library, scattered as it is.

Garry in Liffey,

“Yes but” we now live in a post-computer world. If only we had a time machine.

The attachment of Snow towards G H Hardy, was Snows fascination with Hardy's ability and strong drive to be an “orbiter”. Detached.

Snows novels were his attempt to see life from the point of detachment. The “orbiter”.
Hardy's attachment to pure mathematics, was a natural inclination he struggled to justify.

I grabbed this excerpt from Wikipedia, but it is the paragraphs from Snow's essay which explains his thesis:

" A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?

I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had."

Gary has just given us a good example of what Snow is talking about by ignoring all of the science in Lindzen's speech (presumably because he doesn't understand it, but happy to be proved wrong) and smears his argument with irrelevancies, or side observations. To add insult to injury, he misreads what Snow was saying, so he's off the mark when it comes to the humanities as well.