Climate Change Science: So Convincing It's Unreal

My views on climate change have been influenced by Christopher Monckton, who does not take the stance of refuting overall climate change or even of global warming, but of pointing out the flaws of the mainstream "consensus". He is not a climate change denier, as they like to say, but certainly a climate hype denier.

One of the positions put forth by Monckton is that not only are measurements of warming falling significantly short of predictions (and he takes some issues with the measurements themselves) but that there has been an 18-year pause in measured warming. Dubbed the Global Warming Hiatus, it has been attributed by many as the result of a particular faulty data set. The hiatus really came under scrutiny with a recent infographic of NOAA data that has been going around on social media showing a very clear pervasive warming trend right up to the current year. This seemed to refute the hiatus. I found myself wondering if Monckton was succumbing to his own biases and cherry-picking his data. It would seem to lower his overall credibility on the issue.

Now a climate scientist is blowing the whistle that NOAA has been manipulating it's results. The organization was under great pressure to deliver results that underscored the case for dramatic global warming, and to do so before the Paris climate conventions of 2015. (You know the one where all the Hollywood liberals flew private jets across the ocean so they could lecture about carbon emissions.) Does this vindicate Monckton? Well it doesn't prove he doesn't cherry pick data. But when the evidence used to discredit someone is shown to be fraudulent, well there is certainly some level of vindication to the accused. Further you can't prove someone doesn't cherry pick their data, although you can provide strong evidence that they do.

At a larger scope, this serves to invalidate all results that have come for the NOAA for some time. We know that (1) pressure exists in their organization to prefer certain results, and (2) they have caved to that pressure at least once. When a judge is shown to be similarly biased all their relevant rulings are thrown out, and this should be no different. This is a massive blow to climate change advocates, and a major boon to the skeptics. The blow is much greater to their organization and the political causes than the data would have been a benefit. And a large benefit it was, as even I was questioning the skeptics and I'm very skeptical about the climate change situation.

This is not the first climate scandal of recent times. (Witness Climategates 1 & 2). The biggest complaint we on the right have is not with science, as alleged by the left, but with the scientists. We don't believe they are doing purely objective science. The left invariably responds by reminding us about the vast consensus of climate scientists that proves we are wrong. But does this not cut to the core of scientific inquiry? "Don't trust me, observe for yourself.  My results are reproducible," says every true scientist everywhere. "Consensus" is not a scientific argument. "You're anti-science" isn't even an argument at all. If scientific inquiry meant believing what the academy told us was true, then we'd still be stuck at a heliocentric view of the cosmos.

We allege that there is strong bias within the climate research community. Not just of the researchers themselves (there is strong selection pressure within academia for liberal viewpoints) but more importantly, of the funding of the research. Most research is funded by the federal government. We're told we're being naive and just grasping at straws to invalidate conclusions that contradict our political stances. And yet we now have 3 scandals in recent times that all point to manipulation of research towards the warming conclusion being advocated by the left. Once should have been evidence enough; three indicates an epidemic of political bias in the supposedly sober and impartial field of climate research. At this point it is not unreasonable to question all research whose conclusions support the so-called scientific consensus.

It's Not Even Science

Just a reminder that climate science is not really science. Science consists of four steps.

Model → Prediction → Test → Analysis

The model is our representation of reality. We make predictions within the model, we perform tests in the real world, and we use the results to analyze how well our model corresponds to reality.

In climate change there is no reality to test against. All we have are computer simulations and other models. The climate change predictions are not being made against the real world, but against other models, which are prone to the biases of the implementer. The most notorious example of this was the hockey stick controversy, where plugging in the real-world data yielded such a sharp rise in the rate of global warming that it was said to resemble a hockey stick. The controversy was that any data input to the model yielded a similar result. It would be like a Wall Street broker relying on modeling data that always predicted a bear market. Such a model would not last real-world scrutiny for very long. But climate research is heavily insulated from real-world scrutiny.

Some predictions actually are tested against the actual climate, but we need to be very careful here. Climate is a chaotic system. We can't predict how it will act at any given time, only give probabilities for it. This is no different than standard weather forecasts. If they call for rain tomorrow and it's sunny, it doesn't invalidate meteorology. If we look at large numbers of forecasts / outcomes we'll see they tend to get it right. With the climate we don't have the same advantage. We only have one global climate, and it varies on processes that can take millennia to cycle through.

If a field makes predictions that can't be tested against the real world, is it really a science? Perhaps we should call it climate studies instead. Then what of their practitioners? Are they really scientists? They may be smart and very technically capable people, but I don't see how we can give the label scientist to someone who does not fully engage in the scientific process.

If anyone calls you a science denier for being a climate changed skeptic, the best response is to the effect of: I'm a science advocate which is why I questions outcomes from the field of Climate Studies when they've been repeatedly shown to be politically biased to the point of outright fraud.

When They Go Low, We Go Low

Taking the high road may often by the best strategy, but refusing anything but the high road is a fool's errand and will lead to assured defeat. Let's take a look at why we should always be willing to "sink to their level".

You must defend the fronts on which you are attacked.

Not fighting is just a highly efficient method of losing. It is tempting to say, "We won't be drawn in to such a petty fight." Abstaining by virtue of a moral high-road is practically indistinguishable from surrender. Allowing the adversary to push on a front without response is the same as retreat. Retreat can be a powerful strategic tool, but it can't be the only strategic tool. 

Liberals understand this. They always fight, even when it doesn't make sense to. Conservatives don't, because they are afraid of the liberal media. If doing the right thing was easy everyone would do it, but since it is such a rare trait, doing the right thing must in fact be dangerous and difficult. 

In no domain is this more apparent than in education and the media. Conservatives have given all control of the the most important propaganda assets to their opponents. The only conservatives that seem to have dug in are the religious right, who demand that Creationism and other religious topics be taught in the schools. The more reasonable conservatives don't have the same conviction. And they've allowed the education sector to be totally dominated by the left, to the point where some pursuits, such as social sciences, have no conservative faction at all. See where being reasonable gets us? 

The left pushes back on instinct. In fact, as I described in an earlier post, it is their defining quality. If the right stands against Roe V. Wade out of legal reasoning they push back with women's rights. Doesn't make sense does it? Nope, not at all. They're not even having the same discussion we are. Being reasonable is less important than having a casus belli. The left has had great success even though objectively their arguments suck.

The left fights back even when they contradict themselves. After years of calling the lack of federally mandated maternal leave another example of oppression against women, they actually attacked Trump when he made the proposal in his campaign. Insane? Yes. Effective? Considering their grip on the vital institutions like education and the media, yes, they are doing something right. Perhaps they are modern day Berserkers, but so what?

The right must adopt this mentality. They must instinctively defend any front unless there is some good reason not to. Who cares if they call us hypocrites? They call us hypocrites anyway. Who cares if they employ their SJW weaponery against us, calling us racist, sexist, etc? They do those things anyway. They will attack you whether or not you choose to defend yourself. The issue here is not one if intellectual or moral superiority, but a simple lack of courage and conviction. 

You must employ the tactics that are used against you.

If your opponent deploys a previously shunned tactic that gives them an advantage, you must respond in kind. At the least, you must consider that the tactic is a viable weapon in your arsenal. If you're in a fist fight, you will like keep some level of civility to it. But if they go below the belt, you absolutely must return the tactic. If they are allowed to kick you where it counts but you don't allow yourself to use the same tactic, you will be at a marked disadvantage. And if your opponent knows they can fight dirty and you won't respond in kind, then you only encourage them to disregard all decorum.

Right now the left is winning the dirty deeds fights. The DNC has funded and organized highly illegal activities intended to damage the other side. And they've faced no legal repercussions for doing so. It would be foolish at this point for the right not to respond in kind. Why should they not have paid protesters show up to liberal events? Why should they not work to shut down rallies of their opponents? Because we're better than that?

This shouldn't imply that we blindly react. Of course restraint is its own virtue. Donald Trump could have responded to Hillary's insults of his base by insulting her base, but he "looked past the sale" and chose not to do so. Maybe he should have, but he came out on top of things. Today they are doing everything they can to provoke us into violence, but using violence against us. We are wisest to resist, because we know how they are using the media to in their favor. (Note if they didn't control the media then this would not be to their advantage. That's what we get for giving up that battlespace to begin with.) At this time it behooves us not to respond in kind, but we have specific reasons to disobey the general rule: always respond in kind.

Wars are never battles of ideas.

Ideas may fuel wars. Belligerents use ideas to underpin moral justifications. But ideas are just one front of the war. You can quite easily win the battle of ideas and lose the war. I see a lot of people complaining about meme warfare. It's low-brow and childish. Yes and it's highly effective. Trump may be the first man deliberately memed in to office. Memes are most effective when you have your logical arguments in place, which can guide the memer to make pithy laconic statements that efficiently convey powerful statements. But they don't have to be. The left's most viral meme right now is just ridicule of Kellyanne Conway. Memes don't have to convert; they can simply serve to boost morale for the embattled soldiers.

To win the battle of ideas but lose the fronts of emotion, self-interest, information, logistics, strategy & tactics, organization, communication, etc is to be utterly crushed in the war. When they go low, that is outside the realm of ideas or civil discourse, we must be able to defeat them in that domain as well. In fact the only thing ultimately to keep an opponent from "going low" is the fear they will suffer greatly for doing so. In face of defeat they will always resort to "low" tactics. This is perfectly natural and we should never be surprised at them.

Conclusion

Political wars will tend to spiral towards the bottom if no mutual or societal pressures exist to prevent it. We have a society built on rule of law meant to prevent this. But the inhibiting effect is only as strong as the enforcement. And if the rewards of violating convention exceed the punishment, then someone will violate. We can't control society, we can only operate within it. And if society is willing to permit uncouth behavior, we must use it so the other side cannot gain an unfair advantage over us, while at the same time working to build a society the effectively clamps down on the same behavior. It is not hypocritical to do so, and in fact is the only reasonable approach to these things.

Update

These ideas may be somewhat more mainstream than I though. They are largely influenced by Vox Day. He has a fairly large following, but that doesn't make him mainstream. I was surprised that when I caught the Mark Levin on my commute after writing this, the guest host Dan Bongino spent the beginning part of the show on this (2/6/17 podcast). He points out that the left reflexively fight on every issue, and the right doesn't. Very similar to what I wrote on the same day. Maybe he reads the blog? (traffic stats indicate not likely)

Another thing I didn't mention though is the the left is heavily Marxist these days, and in Marxism everything is politics. Art, literature, education, science, you name it: it is all just a front in oppression politics. So naturally they fight us everywhere, and we're slow to respond because they don't seem like political battles. They are.

Troubling Revelation from the Yemen Raid

It's been over a week now since the Yemen raid that was, while successful in its objective, so troubled that is being largely labeled as a botched raid. In my first post on the subject I fell just short of condemning the operation because it does not seem to be in line with Trump's stated foreign policy or even the policy that has been in place. At this point we're still in the honeymoon phase with Trump and I'm willing to throw him some benefit-of-the-doubt while he establishes patterns of behavior. However in the past week the most troubling aspect of the whole incident has come to light: the media has largely left it alone.

That's not to say he hasn't be criticized and ridiculed for it. He certainly has. But nothing of the co-ordinated media blitzes we're used to seeing used against him. This operation opened a huge to flank to attack Trump on both foreign policy and military judgment. It could easily be spun to fit the media's depiction of him as brash and careless. But it was hardly even the biggest story of the week. Much more effort was spent on the narrative that Trump's teams is "in chaos." An even bigger story was the nonsense of Trump having belligerent phone with multiple foreign heads of state. The most viral thing I've seen out of the left this week is their ridicule of Kellyanne Conway for stating that it was a massacre in Bowling Green that led the Obama administration to impose travel restriction to some countries, rather than an averted massacre. It was primarily an exercise in pedantry, certainly no where near the magnitude of the Yemen raid in importance.

Why is the media laying off Trump when they have an actual legitimate reason to blast him? Clearly they must support his actions there. Or more like, the people driving the propaganda agenda support it. It is very troubling that the first action of the candidate with the anti-establishment foreign policy seems to be an establishment-approved operation. Is he being turned so soon? Or is this the learning curve at play? Certainly the same institutional forces that almost completely bent Obama to their will have been heavily lobbying Trump. If that is the case, then the silver lining of the botched raid may be to drive Trump to reject this kind of advice in the future, in the way that John F. Kennedy was said to have lost faith in CIA counsel after the botched Bay of Pigs operation.

Make Predictions or STFU

One of the reasons I started this blog was to go on the record about things early on. I found myself in debates saying things like, "Yeah I knew this was going to happen...." People don't really believe those sorts of assertions because anyone can say they saw it coming. Hindsight is 20/20. If you believe you have a good model or understanding of the world, you should be able to make predictions about outcomes. This is particularly effective if the outcomes are not intuitive or go counter to the conventional beliefs, and it is the foundation of scientific inquiry. It goes something like:

Model → Prediction → Test → Analysis

I've also had some good success applying this technique on PredictIt.

Model → Invest (place bet) → Results → Reinvest Profits

If you can't make predictions on outcomes, you really can't say you understand anything at all. If you make predictions and they fail, you can analyze why, and update your model if needed. You should get to a point where you are reliably making predictions, and being proven wrong is atypical and viewed as an interesting opportunity to modify your model or explain how the events unfolded in a way outside the scope of your model.

I no longer trust people who only complain about politics, which seems to be the majority of political discourse I encounter. Ask yourself: does this person really understand anything? Do they reliably make predictions about outcomes? If the answer is no, then tread carefully. These people quite likely have a political stance rooted in emotions and fallacies and cherry pick the data they surround themselves with to validate those stances. If they never make predictions or their predictions tend to fly in the face of reality (example) then you can't trust anything they say to be rooted in a rational approach to understanding the universe.

Examples

In this election cycle Scott Adam's became notorious for making predictions about Trump well before anyone else that largely came true. And he's still at it.

You may need to click for the larger view to read the text. Adam's had a model for how the media operates, made a prediction, and saw that come true. It wasn't all we heard about, but in the context of it being a false narrative that the media would strongly push for political purposes he was proven to be entirely correct.

Incidentally I made my own prediction, not here unfortunately, but on the reddit thread where this was posted one week ago today (Friday January 27).

I was sort of piggybacking on the commenter before me, but the prediction is there nevertheless. Let's see how that panned out in just a week's time.

It was widely reported that leaked transcripts from the Trump administration show that Trump humiliated Mexican President Nieto to the point of threatening military invasion.

Mexico has denied it.

It was also widely reported that Trump has a similarly belligerent phone call with Australian PM Turnbull in which Trump rudely hung up on him.

And Australia has also denied it. He was highly critical of an immigration deal made with Obama, but none of the angry slamming down the phone the media has run with.

There are some reasons this was an easy prediction to make.

1. I know the media is driven by political biases and not a reverence for objective truth.
2. The media already ran with the utterly ridiculous Russian dossier.
3. Trump was doing this throughout the entire election. Dropping things that would trigger media hysteria but on closer examination would prove to be fairly rational statements.
4. Trump's team is playing 4D Chess against the media.

Now we don't know the media is dangling ridiculous stories for the media to run with, but that seems to be the case. The claim is the Washington Post, already revealed as entirely partisan, has an insider in the White House leaking information. More like they think they have an insider. If that was the case then you'd think that source would be burned, but the media is so dumb they'll probably fall for it again. And expect they'll find other ways for nonsense to leak into the media. 

The strategy is clear: discredit the media by showing the ridiculous nonsense they will run with as if it was serious news. The media could of course counter by actually doing it's job and employing journalistic integrity. Prediction: mostly they won't. Those that try will become cathartic because political propaganda is all they really know how to do. I would expect at least a couple players to fill the journalism void; it just seems there must be sufficient market demand for that at this point.

Arguing with a liberal about Fascism

Here is an example of the types of arguments you can have with a liberal about fascism. This was on a Reddit thread asking if people were okay with the use of violence at the Milo rally to fight fascism. Starts with me.

"Is the use of violence to suppress free speech not fascism?"
"When not done by the government, no, it's not."
"So how are Milo's speeches fascism? He doesn't work of or on behalf of the government."
"They advocate fascism."
"I can't find any reference to Milo saying, 'I advocate for fascism'. Can you direct me to policies he advocates that can be construed as fascist?"
"No, I'm not going to go researching his views."

That pretty well sums them up. Their entire logical underpinning is a tautology. What makes them fascist? They advocate for fascism. Which of their proposals in particular is fascist? I'm not going to research a bunch of fascists.

Now this is just a nice example that really boils it down. Normally there's all kinds of goalpost shifting and strawman arguments so it was nice just to drill down to the core of things.

Notice that the side that accuses us of being against science, reason, and evidence will instinctively turn themselves off to those things when it challenges their biases. This is a normal human tendency, but some more than others. For some it causes us to drink Pepsi even though objectively Coke is better. For others it causes them to loot the most liberal city in the world because fascists are fascists because they promote fascism because they're fascists.

Religion of the Secular West

In the western world we believe in the separation of church and state. Spiritual belief systems and social policy maintain some degree of separation. It hasn't always been the case. Generally religion and the state have been tightly intertwined. I always look at these things from the lens of Darwinism. Why would such societies be the ones that tend to thrive?

Society requires a social order, otherwise there is chaos. Order is maintained in various ways, largely because there are various types of people. Aristotle told us that there were two types of people, who spoke two different languages. The highly intellectual tend to speak dialectic, or a language of reason, and the rest speak rhetoric, which is more emotionally charged. (the most successful people can navigate both). In an advanced society, the ruling tier can largely hold itself together through dialectic and self-interest. And it should be so. Don't we want the most logical people to rise to the top to guide society? Of course it isn't perfect. The wrong people often do percolate up, and different systems suffer this malady to various degrees.

But there is always a contingent of society that don't speak dialectic at all; for who reason, logic, and evidence don't mean much, except perhaps to use as weapons to defend emotionally driven positions. How are these people bound to the social order? There seem to be 4 general methods.

1. Distraction
2. Bribery
3. Inclusion
4. Direct Force

We can easily see methods 2 and 4 in our current society. Bribery is manifested through social welfare programs to (a) keep people generally content, and (b) to secure votes. Direct force is mostly seen in the police / prison apparatus. Distraction occurs to a fair degree in lots of things, namely television, sports, entertainment etc.

What about inclusion? Inclusion is anything that makes people feel like they are involved in the social order, even if they don't have much power. This is the realm of religion. TODO

Tenet 1: every society has a religion

I propose that every society has a religion. Even a godless/atheist societies have something akin to a religion. Something that binds the people and is sacred. Religion in this sense does not have to be the spiritual sense of the word we are used to. How do we determine what the religion of a state is? A society might claim a religion, but maybe they are misled. 

Tenet 2: An affront to the religion is blasphemy.

We can solve the question What is the religion? by asking What is blasphemous? That is, what is universally shunned? 

For instance, what is the religion of the United States? Most would say Christianity. But is that so? Do you ever hear Christianity being criticized or ridiculed? Does doing so come with a strong societal backlash? I hear it all the time, and I would posit that society tends to encourage it, although experiences may vary. Frankly in this day there are very few repercussions to being an atheist. (I should know.) Yeah to run for office you might have to pretend to be one, but you really just have to pretend. That's about it. I can't think of any other downside to being an atheist. I can think of numerous times Christians are marginalized. It's a constant on social media.

I'd say Christianity is not the religion of our society. Because you can denounce it and generally be supported. What can you not say in our society? This should be fairly obvious. What is the one thing that everyone agrees you can't say? If it isn't apparent just think a moment. What is it that you could say that would get the most condemnation from your friends, family, and community. I'll give some white space while you ponder.

The answer is that you can't say anything racist. Think of all the movies and music and pop culture and education and media narratives you encounter. Racism is the primary sin of our society. It's such a tabboo that most white people go strongly out of their way to show they aren't racist. Think about it. How many people do you run into that are openly atheist? A lot! Most of my friends are. Most of the people I knew in the military were. Now how many people do you know that are openly racist? Do you know any at all? Maybe a couple very loose acquaintances at most. I don't have any friends that I know of that are openly racist.

There are other taboos, although none so strong. Trying being anti-gay in this world. Sorry to those who are behind on the times, but it is easier these days to come out as actually gay than anti-gay, in most cases. I live in Southwest Missouri, not a progressive stronghold, and I am sure it would be more accepted if I said I was gay than if I said I was anti-gay. (I'm neither, btw, but that's another subject.) Being anti-feminist is widely condemned. Milo is most noted for being anti-feminist and his small lecture at UC-Berkley just provoked riots. When's the last time a pro-feminism lecture encountered even a minor violent response? Has it been decades?

The religion of our society is Progressivism. It is intersectional identity politics. It is victim culture. It is Oppressionism. Even conservatives bow before it's power. The primary argument you'll hear that conservatives are violating Progressivism has to do with abortion. But that's because Progressives view it as a front in the war on women, whereas as conservatives see it as rights of the fetus. Conservatives are painted as wanting to restrict women's freedom, but I never hear conservatives make that case. You have two sides drawn up fighting two separate battles.

Other than that conservatives fall in line. The fall over themselves to show how non-racist they are, how supporting of women they are, and, more recently how accepting of LGBT they are. Conservatives can't generally get away with bashing Christianity, but liberals can, and neither side can attack the Progressive virtues without stirring up an epic shitstorm. It's also worth noting that neither side can attack Muslims or Jews without heated condemnation. Doesn't it seem weird that in an allegedly Christian nation that the only religion you can attack is Christianity?

Bags, Boxes, and Bags

It always amazes me when the bagger at the grocery store puts a single item into a bag. Especially when that item is itself a bag. They'll put a single bag of chips into a bag. Sometimes they'll ask first. "Do want those in a bag?" And I'll say, "They're already in a bag." WalMart sells those reusable grocery bags. One day I'm going to buy one, just to see if they put it into a bag.

I also think about this too much when I buy trash bags. Trash bags come in a box. But when you buy them they put them into a bag. One day the box will end up in one of the bags. And not just any bag. It will go into the last bag. And the bag they put the box of bags in will most likely go into the first bag that you take out of the box that was in the bag.

Some day I'll come home with a box of trash bags in a grocery bag. And when she asks what I got I'll say, "Oh, just some stuff to throw away."