Questions and Motives – The Pendulum Swings
Posted by Jeff Id on February 11, 2012
We have often discussed the motives of government employed Climate Scientists™ and the biases which sort their views. The blog is called noconsensus after all. However, we have not spent time discussing motives of skeptics – which appropriately have little consensus. One of the main critiques I’ve received is that I have a conservative viewpoint of the world. I don’t hide it but have been advised at least 50 times behind the scenes that I should. Apparently, in our screwed up world, it is ok to be a wrong-thinking leftist because that is “intellectual” but not so for conservatives. The very existence of something as politically tone-deaf as Climate Progress is a perfect example.
My conservative viewpoint is based on a simple understanding that competition and reward creates hard work. Humans are not soft creatures to which everything necessary should be given without consequence. Nothing can be worse for us as a people than to receive everything necessary with ease and this is a huge danger of expanding technology. We are motivated biological creatures who by nature, fight for every advantage we get in life. We are forced by our existence to look for advantage. From better prices to easier jobs and more pay. Our quality of life has continued to expand with the easy money of union type work, that has led society to this poisonous concept of entitlement. Everyone must eat, be housed, be medicated, be controlled and cared for in all ways by the government. This system goes against human nature and leads to economic poverty in all cases in which it has been tried. There is a balance somewhere as to what government should provide but we are WAY over that line nearly everywhere in the world.
In the face of that cold reality of our nature, a scientist must fight to ignore the personally motivating instincts and focus on the aspect which makes humans special among animals. Our ability to reason. A scientist must overcome his/her personal needs in exchange for truth. Again, our nature demands that there will be no consensus of opinion or result on very uncertain things such as the future climate. And scientifically speaking we are faced with far greater uncertainty as to how (or if) we should react to that uncertain future. Besides other lines of evidence, Climategate has shown beyond a doubt that the climate consensus coordinates as a group to speak in unison for their cause. The conflict of interest between personal success vs truth has never been more evident than in Climate Science™. In an unstable feedback between government programs, personal success and the rejection of their less agreeable colleagues, they have become the puppets of the system they have helped to create.
Email #2009 Keith Briffa – on writing zero’th order draft of paleo IPCC AR4 chapter.
I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
The pendulum swings left.
Well, people being people, such a biased and forced structure often creates a polar opposite response. The tone of the papers, the conclusions from poor data, manipulation of data, hiding of bad data and finally the unconditional support from others in the field to their colleagues who perform obviously fraudulent acts.
I have to say, it turns my stomach to even write the f-bomb. We don’t do that here.
However, we live in a gray world. The opposite response to these acts can be 100% as bad as the original act itself. Recently, some of us have beaten multiple versions of backradiation to death at tAV with no admission from the ‘skeptics’ that their argument was worthless and backradiation from the atmosphere is a known proven fact. There is a time to admit your failure, change your mind and move forward. Either that or you push the pendulum of opinion back away from reality and toward something else. I prefer to live in a real world.
As bad as paleoclimatology is, with their variance smashing regressions, preferential data selection and blatantly false interpretation of their final results, some skeptics are their equals. So here’s the thing that some have read before from me, a point we all should live on. Regarding science, you must be willing to be wrong. If you haven’t ever admitted error in blogging, you either don’t do it much or you are not being an honest broker of reality. The data must drive you to the correct result, or your motivation will crush your credibility.
The pendulum swings right.
If you think my conservative politics influences my science, I disagree. I work very hard to avoid it. You can of course disagree right back. Politics will influence my diatribe but not my data, not my numbers. It would be so easy to play Mannian games with math here. Climate Scientists would not like our abilities either if we used them in equal lack of concern to some of their own. Several times I’ve been less than pleased with the results of hard work but posted it anyway. This isn’t a natural event for humans and it is only by effort that we can avoid the influence of pressures from our past positions. Long time readers appreciate that, and I also think long time readers share those characteristics. They call many here lukewarmers, but despite the reasonableness of the moniker, I don’t accept the title because it fixes a position.
In the recent thread, some skeptics were confronted with absolute proof that long wave infrared is absorbed by cooler bodies. Probably 12 working examples were given and none were successfully rebutted. Those ‘skeptics’ (very loosely defined) didn’t change their story any more than Michael Mann or his colleagues changed theirs when presented with obvious proof that his math was centrally flawed.
It seems that the CS side is the sicker of the two, simply because of their open effort for uniformity of message and political cause. However, this inability to recognize ones error, is not in any way confined to the self-corrupted scientists living in the competition-inverted universe of government paychecks.
My advice which you can take or leave:
Fight your point hard
Lose your point hard
When necessary change your mind
Failure to follow this advice in science, means that YOU are the one pushing the pendulum toward something other than reality. When your argument fails, people are smart enough quickly spot the motivation and react – sometimes too strongly. The massively widespread Climate Science™ skepticism expressed by scientists in all fields, has proven that.
Anyway, I’m not going to hide my politics to make people comfortable. I’m 43 soon and have been lucky enough to experience more than most. Three years in to blogging, over 3 million views, nearly 50,000 comments, an Antarctic rebuttal which WILL have an effect on AR5, Climategate, and ton’s of smart people to let me know when I’m wrong.
I’m changing nothing.
People don’t need coddling to get more out of life, they need the opposite. We need to discuss taxes on those 1% again here before the elections. We also need to look at more climate data. In both cases I will try my best to write reality rather than the music video version promoted by traditional media.