Climategate Vindication

[Michael Hardner]

As for my moral character, using my model I would say that my choice would be very moral -

Of course you would say that. I guess that explains why you expect so little of others. Of course, you can't really complain about anybody anymore can you ? After all, they have families to feed so you can't expect them to tell the truth can you ?

[Michael Hardner]

Micheal chooses to ignore the human capacity for self-deception. i.e. most people are not in situations where 'toeing the line' is a clear ethical violation that must be corrected. In most cases, it is possible to convince yourself that 'toeing the line' is the morally correct thing to do so there is no moral conflict to resolve. If facts later emerges that you should have know better you plead that your were just 'following orders'.

I'm not choosing to ignore it, but I am refusing to accept that hundreds and thousands of people are advancing a vast comspiracy because they have families to feed. Errors happen, yes, even lies and deception but not on this scale. I don't think you're even suggesting that.

[TimG]

I'm not choosing to ignore it, but I am refusing to accept that hundreds and thousands of people are advancing a vast conspiracy because they have families to feed. Errors happen, yes, even lies and deception but not on this scale. I don't think you're even suggesting that.

You constantly go back to the 'conspiracy' strawman. The fact is millions of people convince themselves that falsehoods are true every day. Look at Greece - everyone outside the county seems to understand that their social welfare state needs to be cut drastically because it is not affordable - but millions of Greeks have convinced themselves that they are victims of greedy bankers in Berlin. It is nonsense but the Greeks don't see it.

These kinds of mass delusions are the norm for human existence - not exceptions. When it comes to climate science all of the necessary pieces are in place to create a work environment where scientists exaggerate the certainty of evidence that supports the consensus while unreasonably dismissing contrary options.

Edited November 2, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

You constantly go back to the 'conspiracy' strawman. The fact is millions of people convince themselves that falsehoods are true every day. Look at Greece - everyone outside the county seems to understand that their social welfare state needs to be cut drastically because it is not affordable - but millions of Greeks have convinced themselves that they are victims of greedy bankers in Berlin. It is nonsense but the Greeks don't see it.

These kinds of mass delusions are the norm for human existence - not exceptions. When it comes to climate science all of the necessary pieces are in place to create a work environment where scientists exaggerate the certainty of evidence that supports the consensus while unreasonably dismissing contrary options.

I don't think that's a good analogy. I wouldn't equate mass ignorance on economics to willful deception by scientists... even self-deception.

[TimG]

I wouldn't equate mass ignorance on economics to willful deception by scientists... even self-deception.

I see no difference. People generally only look at evidence that confirms what they want to believe. Scientists are no different. This is as true for sceptics as it is true for "consensus" supporters. The difference is the "consensus" supporters control the purse strings for most scientific funding which means rank and file scientists will choose to believe the "consensus" because it is in their economic advantage to do so. If you want to determine who is right you will have do something other than count the number of scientists supporting each side. Edited November 3, 2011 by TimG

[Wild Bill]

Of course you would say that. I guess that explains why you expect so little of others. Of course, you can't really complain about anybody anymore can you ? After all, they have families to feed so you can't expect them to tell the truth can you ?

Michael, I suspect that you are not married, or in an equivalent relationship. That to me would explain your POV. If you ever are seeing someone and contemplating making it permanent I suggest you NEVER reveal to her the POV you've expressed in this thread! I'll bet you a bottle of the Glen Livet any thought she had of marrying you would be gone!

If I am mistaken and you ARE in such a relationship, it would be prudent to make sure she never reads what you've written here!

I don't mean to insult you - just giving you some unasked for advice that I SINCERELY believe is true!

But as always, it's YOUR life and you have the right to do whatever you want! I would help you try to fight anyone who would attempt to take that right away. After all, I'm the CLASSIC Liberal, remember?

[Michael Hardner]

My wife is aware of this, and she feels the same way.

Keep your advice.

[wyly]

If I were dependent on research grants for my income I would never be a whistle blower as long as I had a dependent family. Especially with something like climate change. If I were to lie or at least, sign my name to whatever politically correct petition was put in front of me in my work environment the chances of being caught at it are extremely small. First off, the entire mainstream would have to stop believing in the alarmist credo before they would ever investigate such things. Second, they would likely only challenge the most noted scientific champions. Third, one can always plead ignorance and having made an honest mistake!

time to cite these mythical scientists/researchers whose jobs are on the line or dependent on grants...I know researchers who have grants as small as 70k a year and another that has over 40mill, neither have his job on the line or need grants to survive, grants fund research costs not their salary...and this is the norm for university researchers where most of studies are done, even a number of the well known denier researchers are on university payrolls...then there are government researchers and I know a couple of those as well both on salary as well at 100k+,grants have no bearing on their jobs...

[wyly]

My wife is aware of this, and she feels the same way.

Keep your advice.

hey we have something in common as do our wives...integrity...

[cybercoma]

Greenhouse gasses higher than worst-case scenarios.

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2011/11/201111464716543397.html?utm_content=automateplus&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_medium=MasterAccount&utm_term=tweets

I'm sure it's no biggie though

Edited November 6, 2011 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

Greenhouse gasses higher than worst-case scenarios.

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2011/11/201111464716543397.html?utm_content=automateplus&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_medium=MasterAccount&utm_term=tweets

I'm sure it's no biggie though

Great..I will burn some more logs today to try for a new record.

[TimG]

hey we have something in common as do our wives...integrity...

You are missing the point. Lots of people put a value on "integrity" so they deal with conflicts between their self-interest and the "right path" by convincing themselves the that their self interest is, in fact, the "right path". Whether the facts actually support such a position is irrelevant. All that matters is people can pat themselves on their back for maintaining their 'integrity' while protecting their self-interest. Edited November 6, 2011 by TimG

[Pliny]

time to cite these mythical scientists/researchers whose jobs are on the line or dependent on grants...I know researchers who have grants as small as 70k a year and another that has over 40mill, neither have his job on the line or need grants to survive, grants fund research costs not their salary...and this is the norm for university researchers where most of studies are done, even a number of the well known denier researchers are on university payrolls...then there are government researchers and I know a couple of those as well both on salary as well at 100k+,grants have no bearing on their jobs...

If they can't attract grant money for research they won't have their jobs for long.

[cybercoma]

You are missing the point. Lots of people put a value on "integrity" so they deal with conflicts between their self-interest and the "right path" by convincing themselves the that their self interest is, in fact, the "right path". Whether the facts actually support such a position is irrelevant. All that matters is people can pat themselves on their back for maintaining their 'integrity' while protecting their self-interest.

Does it make it easier to be a selfish prick if you think everyone else is too?

[wyly]

Does it make it easier to be a selfish prick if you think everyone else is too?

he can't comprehend that everyone isn't a selfish prick with zero integrity,money rules his world so it must be for everyone...i've turned away clients because they wanted me to do something illegal...last month i walked away from a 60k job because the client was a pain in ass...

[Pliny]

I don't think that's a good analogy. I wouldn't equate mass ignorance on economics to willful deception by scientists... even self-deception.

Take a look at societies elite throughout the ages, Michael. The supposedly smartest people were the ones that the masses listened to. They were the ones that could read. They were the ones that attended places of higher learning. There was, for instance, the King's court and the Priests, did they not all know that the Pope was fallible or did they convince themselves he was infallible? Or that the sky would fall if one stepped out of line?

The similarity to today is people can look around and convince themselves with the same ease that the sky is falling.

[TimG]

he can't comprehend that everyone isn't a selfish prick with zero integrity

What I am saying is people have an almost amazing capacity to convince themselves that the most rediculous BS is true. In fact, you likely agree but you take the position that if you believe in BS it is because you have "integrity" but when someone else believes in BS it is because they are deluded/selfish/crazy. IOW - you are living example of the self-delusion I am talking about.

As for your 'integrity' based refusing clients asking you to do something illegal. That is pure self-interest. If you got caught it would jeopardize your ability to make money. And turning away a client cause they were a pain in the ass is something you only could do because you we sure that doing so would not damage your ability to get other work from other people. If that client had the ability to trash your rep and undermine your career you would still be licking his boots or looking for a new career.

The bottom line is people rarely do anything to undermine their self-interest. They may do things that look like they are standing up for a principal but if you dig down you will see that standing up for the principal either benefits them or, at least, does not undermine their self interest while they get social "brownie points".

Edited November 6, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

If they can't attract grant money for research they won't have their jobs for long.

Ummm. Wyly just pointed out that isnt necessarily true. A lot of these scientists are tenured university professors, etc

[TimG]

Ummm. Wyly just pointed out that isnt necessarily true. A lot of these scientists are tenured university professors, etc

It is not the tenure but that path to tenure that is the problem:

But today, however, few young PhDs can get started on the career for which their graduate education purportedly trained them, namely, as faculty members in academic research institutions. Instead, scores of thousands of them spend the years after they earn their doctorates toiling in low-paying, dead-end postdoctoral “training” appointments (called postdocs) in the laboratories of professors, where they ostensibly hone skills they would need to start labs of their own when they become professors. In fact, however, only about 25 percent of those earning American science PhDs will ever land a faculty job that enables them to apply for the competitive grants that support academic research. And even fewer—15 percent by some estimates—will get a post at the kind of research university where the nation’s significant scientific work takes place.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-us-produce-too-m&page=2

The PhDs that get tenure are those with a record of attracting funding and attracting funding depends largely on catering to whatever scientific fad is engulfing the funding bodies.

Edited November 7, 2011 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

It is not the tenure but that path to tenure that is the problem:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-us-produce-too-m&page=2

The PhDs that get tenure are those with a record of attracting funding and attracting funding depends largely on catering to whatever scientific fad is engulfing the funding bodies.

Sad but true. Follow the money.

[wyly]

It is not the tenure but that path to tenure that is the problem:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-us-produce-too-m&page=2

The PhDs that get tenure are those with a record of attracting funding and attracting funding depends largely on catering to whatever scientific fad is engulfing the funding bodies.

keeping their jobs does not rely on aquiring funding...tenure frees profs from being pressured into biased studies...if that were not the case the energy industry could absolutely dwarf/overwhelm any funding from those nasty leftists groups and obliterate the entire CC debate...but that's not the case because the profs are safe from external pressures and let objective research take it's course...

[eyeball]

Sad but true. Follow the money.

Of course none of this is true of any interests that have an interest in squelching the vast consensus that exists around AGW.

How do you explain that?

[TimG]

Objective research does not exist. All research is biased by the funder and the ideology of the researcher even if that funder is the university.

If a tenured profs hire postdocs they will only hire those that support their ideology. This ensures the supply of replacements when tenured positions come up will be dominated by PhDs that share the ideology of the incumbants.

Edited November 8, 2011 by TimG

[MiddleClassCentrist]

This new industrialization is perfectly fine because only WESTERN industrialization is bad

Why do you think the standard light bulb only lasts 1000 hours after a century? It's not out of the goodness of the capitalists hearts. Why make it better when you can make more money when it breaks?

[cybercoma]

Objective research does not exist. All research is biased by the funder and the ideology of the researcher even if that funder is the university.

If a tenured profs hire postdocs they will only hire those that support their ideology. This ensures the supply of replacements when tenured positions come up will be dominated by PhDs that share the ideology of the incumbants.

Researchers are constantly trying to disprove and one-up one another. You're talking as if they're one homogeneous group and that is far from the case.