Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Means and ends
I've tried not to pay overmuch attention to the various 'gates' in the world of climate lately.
In general I believe that all means are proper if the end is good. People who get into hot arguments about methods (journalistic phone-hacking, email leaking etc) tend to miss the more important questions. Most of the time, the method questions are intentional distractors to prevent the yokels from thinking about the important end-questions.
In journalism, war or science, the important end-questions are:
1. Are the facts true?
2. Is it necessary to do this?
3. Will it improve the lives of innocent humans?
If you can give positive answers to those questions, then do it. All methods are justifiable, depending on the situation and the desperation.
If not, then don't do it at all. No methods are justifiable. Just take a nap.
= = = = =
You may well ask, how do you know? Both sides may think they're justified. Okay. The pair of 'gates' in climate show what happens when both sides think their causes are true, necessary and good.
First the anonymous Mr FOIA leaked a large set of REAL emails from the Carbon Cult pseudoscientists. Twice. These emails were packed full of obvious indications of intentional fraud, sabotage and censorship, full of specific conspiracies with specific members of the media and governments. Everything the 'skeptics' had been saying turned out to be true, and far worse. The Cult complained, but world opinion changed. Some governments now feel empowered to drop their support for the Carbon Crime.
Now Peter Gleick has leaked a small set of REAL emails from Heartland Institute, plus one that he apparently made up. These show no conspiracy or fraud at all; they only show that Heartland gets support from some corporations who agree with its work, and support from some sneaky big corporations who like to keep both sides feuding. Just like every other think-tank.
Both sides used nasty methods for (in their view) good ends. Now the world sees the full extent of the problem, and sees where the real crimes are.
If the honest 'skeptic' side had unilaterally disarmed, as some of the nicey-nice types seem to think we should, the Cult would simply continue to own all the words and communication. There would be no progress at all.
= = = = =
As Polistra has been saying from the start, "We must be better than them" is suicidal. In any conflict, better is meaningless. If you lose, nobody will care that you were honorable and gentlemanly. Your cause, no matter how good or bad, will simply disappear. If you win or at least stay in the game, people will be able to judge the truth and goodness of your cause properly.
In general I believe that all means are proper if the end is good. People who get into hot arguments about methods (journalistic phone-hacking, email leaking etc) tend to miss the more important questions. Most of the time, the method questions are intentional distractors to prevent the yokels from thinking about the important end-questions.
In journalism, war or science, the important end-questions are:
1. Are the facts true?
2. Is it necessary to do this?
3. Will it improve the lives of innocent humans?
If you can give positive answers to those questions, then do it. All methods are justifiable, depending on the situation and the desperation.
If not, then don't do it at all. No methods are justifiable. Just take a nap.
= = = = =
You may well ask, how do you know? Both sides may think they're justified. Okay. The pair of 'gates' in climate show what happens when both sides think their causes are true, necessary and good.
First the anonymous Mr FOIA leaked a large set of REAL emails from the Carbon Cult pseudoscientists. Twice. These emails were packed full of obvious indications of intentional fraud, sabotage and censorship, full of specific conspiracies with specific members of the media and governments. Everything the 'skeptics' had been saying turned out to be true, and far worse. The Cult complained, but world opinion changed. Some governments now feel empowered to drop their support for the Carbon Crime.
Now Peter Gleick has leaked a small set of REAL emails from Heartland Institute, plus one that he apparently made up. These show no conspiracy or fraud at all; they only show that Heartland gets support from some corporations who agree with its work, and support from some sneaky big corporations who like to keep both sides feuding. Just like every other think-tank.
Both sides used nasty methods for (in their view) good ends. Now the world sees the full extent of the problem, and sees where the real crimes are.
If the honest 'skeptic' side had unilaterally disarmed, as some of the nicey-nice types seem to think we should, the Cult would simply continue to own all the words and communication. There would be no progress at all.
= = = = =
As Polistra has been saying from the start, "We must be better than them" is suicidal. In any conflict, better is meaningless. If you lose, nobody will care that you were honorable and gentlemanly. Your cause, no matter how good or bad, will simply disappear. If you win or at least stay in the game, people will be able to judge the truth and goodness of your cause properly.
Labels: Carbon Cult
¶ 3:38 PM
