Weather or Not

Severe Outflow by R. Edwards

On Trust

by Leave a Comment

Recent events and discussions with others indicate that I ought to explain something for the sake of helping others to understand. I’ll point to this piece when needed in the future, in order to be time-efficient and avoid redundancy.

Growing up in the inner city, I learned early and almost innately the meaning of “watch your back” — trust must be earned, not just given. Mostly I still think that way. Been there, done that, seen it all…I’ve witnessed too much betrayal, dishonesty and backstabbing, too many mind games and control tactics and manipulation attempts in multiple settings (including being targeted with all of the above in an important past relationship), and it reinforces the notion.

This is not a cynical or bitter existence either. My trust wall is so automatic anymore that I give it little conscious thought. In fact, I live a quite happy life in a great marriage with one of the very few people on Earth whom I ever have had reason to trust completely and unconditionally. She is so genuine and real that I trust her far more than I trust myself (again, simply because I have seen too much). That’s rare, and a blessing.

I also trust my Lord unconditionally and without reservation; after all, God is perfect, all-knowing, and all-caring. He has guided me through many tough situations after thoughtful and deliberate prayer (which does work…best if your expectations aren’t selfish or short-term in nature). What I do not trust is our broken and sinful world, and most people in it. I love my fellow people fundamentally as humans, and have helped and will help strangers in need as I see appropriate situationally. However, strangers’ and acquaintances’ intentions and motivations being largely unknown, and human nature being inherently sinful, trust is another story. Want me to trust you? Well, I used to live in Missouri, so “show me” that you are trustworthy. It can be done and takes three things: time, authenticity and integrity. [Notice I did not say “perfection”, for that is impossible in a human. However, my standards are very high.] Simple, but not easy!

The positive to this level of understanding of people is that I don’t get taken advantage of; I can effortlessly spot a scam or detect shysters, call them out without inhibition, and alert others who are more gullible to prevent their being taken for fools by such people and situations. It serves one quite well in many situations (personal investment, choosing charity, scam avoidance, BS detection, advising friends, etc.). This has prevented a lot of trouble, both for self and others. In those regards I am blessed.

The flip side: Outside of a very few trusted friends and colleagues, people generally are kept at arm’s length or longer, and in specific compartments or ladder levels of trust. This is just who I am. I fully admit this, and you just have to deal with it, if you want my friendship or favor. I am quite secure in my own skin, and don’t need any particular relationship to validate my well-being or self-respect. Therefore: if investing in earning my trust is too much trouble for you: not my problem…see ya! [One other thing you need to know is I am brutally honest, which you can see readily by reading previous BLOG entries going back a decade.]

See, I have to conscientiously, actively force myself to trust, to take risks in people, in any sort of relationship (personal or professional). Again, it’s not cynical or bitter at all…it just is. This is a different perspective of origin than most, but I’m completely at peace with it. If you are too, we’ll get along fine on whatever level of balance we shall reach.

This also ties in with my personal Facebook policy, which is part (but not all) of what motivates this entry. I post personal things there at times, though I am very measured and deliberate about what, and am careful not to reveal too much. My Facebook wall is not a democracy; what happens there is entirely on my terms, and at my discretion. Even still, I only accept “friend” requests from people I already know or who come highly recommended by mutual friends. If I ignore a request, it’s nothing personal against the requester. I just don’t know you well enough…simple as that.

“Alt” and “Rogue” Social Media Accounts are Not Credible

by Leave a Comment

The latest pop fad in the (pseudo?)scientific “resistance” movement is to set up “alt” or “rogue” Twitter accounts, then claim scientific credibility in the role of some anonymous knight in shining armor. Well, here was one example, and my open and public response on Twitter.

Muzzling of scientists is wrong, and I have expressed that concern many times on many fora. However, these fake Twitter accounts strike me as misguided (at a minimum) for many reasons, the biggest among them being trust. That is the over-arching issue and here are some specifics behind it:

  1. Hand in hand with trust goes authenticity. A fake EPA, NOAA, NPS or other pseudo-governmental account, by its very nature, is inauthentic!
  2. How do we KNOW that the people behind the accounts are who they say they are? They could be anybody, current or former employee, disgruntled grudge-holder, complete and total poser with no connection, maybe even a false-flag operative (more below). Anonymity undermines credibility.
  3. Many of these accounts are mixing in politics and social issues with science. That also undermines their credibility. Stick to the science if your account claims to be scientific. Otherwise you’re behaving no differently than some dweeb in a basement pretending to be someone else.
  4. Spelling, grammar, usage, and other English writing errors are powerful indicators of questionable credibility or complete inauthenticity.
  5. The snarky attitudes and tangential posts of some of these “alt” and “rogue” accounts only can undermine the causes of the legitimate accounts.
  6. Plenty of degreed, real-world scientists are standing behind their names and saying what they want to say. I always do. So can others. So can you. Therefore these accounts serve little practical purpose but to deliberately annoy and irritate, while satiating some desire to vent, and/or to masturbate one’s own ego to the thrill of sycophantic adulation from the like-minded.
  7. Who is held accountable for inaccurate statements made from these accounts, and how?
  8. What if some of these are false-flag accounts run by people building name lists of opposition? Whoa … … … bet you didn’t think of that possibility, did you? Hmmm…better think twice. In this crazy world, you can’t rule that out either.

Courage necessarily involves taking risk. The following I mention, not to brag, but to establish personal credibility in this subject for those who don’t know me. For over 25 years, I have been speaking out on the Internet about many issues in my science (as well as otherwise), both here in this BLOG since 2005 and in stand-alone HTML web pages before that. I do so on my own time and equipment, not on the job, which keeps it all legal and untouchable under Amendment 1, United States Constitution.

My name is Roger Edwards in Norman, OK, and I take full credit and blame for everything I post, including this. Look for yourself, both in this BLOG’s archives and in those web pages. I have spoken out openly about it all — not hiding behind fake identities in a timorous fashion. I have criticized Republicans and Democrats alike, including our current President, who has been both at various times in his life. All those pages are still there, and so are those BLOG entries. I stand firmly and resolutely behind all of them as they were written based on the insights I had at the time, and get this: with my true identity attached. I have the guts to stand behind my ideals, back down from no one, and suffer no fools. Let that set an example.

If you are a government scientist, and you want to speak your opinions on anything in particular, the solution is clear: keep your opinions off official social-media accounts. That’s not what they’re for anyway. They’re for official business. Do not use official time and equipment to express your concerns — only to express the science itself that’s relevant to that account. If you are punished for doing it by the letter of the rule, fight that through all available legal means!

For opinionated activity: use your own personal accounts and equipment, and do so unfettered. Say what is on your mind. The First Amendment applies to all of us, and does not contain the words, “except” or “unless”. Could you be hated? Sure. Could trolls say mean things? You bet — grow a thick skin and deal with it. Could you be passed up for a grant or promotion? Yes, butt-hurt bureaucrats can and do act like that, and sometimes will retaliate in unprovable ways. I know, I’ve been there. We just have to be ready, even though it’s wrong and we don’t like it. That’s the price we pay for having convictions and the courage to express and act upon them.

If you are a media member, you owe it to journalistic integrity to verify your sources and the information they provide, independently. Journalism 101…never, ever, ever take someone simply at their word. That’s the fastest way to undermine your own credibility and that of your employer, as I also have discussed openly and publicly on this BLOG for the world to see. Vet your sources and their information, thoroughly — and yes, that takes time. So be it. Better to get it right than get it first!

If someone doesn’t have the guts to put their name on the line, to stand behind their claims, that’s just so much cowardice and hollow posturing with no credibility or authenticity to back it up. The greatest measure of the importance of your ideals is in your willingness to stand behind them with your real identity.

If I Were Liberal, I’d Vote For…

by Leave a Comment

If you are a liberal and thinking of voting for Hillary Clinton in your primary…for MotherEarthGaiaNatureGoddess’ sake, why? Are you out of your socialist/humanist/Utopian mind? Quaff that kombucha or sip that frappucino, dear grasshopper, and read on about the real deal: Bernie Sanders.

Forget Martin O’Malley; he’s going nowhere meaningful except as a possible VP candidate for the ultimate winner of the Hillary-Bernie contest. And yes, that’s the real contest, and contrast. Old Uncle Joe, the lovable/sexist bumbling buffoon and gaffe master that he is, already decided that the Democrat Party’s liquor cabinets are too blocked off for easy access, and wisely abstained from attempted pantry entry.

Why look further? Your best candidate ever is right there! That candidate is Bernie Sanders–consistent, idealistically pure as can be, a ’60s radical who never sold out to Washington pollsters or corporate money, who takes no donations from Fortune-500 high-rollers, who supports abortion and “gay rights” and always has, who took the same positions Hillary claims today but back when they were politically unpopular, who voted against the Iraq War when Hillary voted for it, who opposed DOMA when the Clintons (and they are a team, remember?) signed it into law. In other words, Bernie’s real.

There you have Hillary+Bill, who haul in mountains of corporate cash (and corporations are all evil, all the time…remember?), who again supported that hideous DOMA and Iraq War, whilst Bernie voted against them…she who only lately has come around to your views on several issues out of political expedience and pollster-popularity pandering. Hillary’s authenticity, ethics, honesty, temper, and decision-making are all highly questionable–and that’s the opinion of almost as many Sanders supporters as Republicans. “What difference does it make!?!?!?!?!?!?” I’ll tell you…

Bernie! He says what he means, means what he says. Hillary says what she thinks you want to hear; Bernie says what you want to hear, but truly means it himself! He doesn’t pretend to be anything he’s not, and has been remarkably consistent with most positions for decades. The one substantial shift (varying degrees of gun control) is something about which Hillary has wandered the spectrum also; so that’s a wash.

Okay, Sanders is an old white guy. Can you ever, possibly overcome your offense at that, and forgive him for such a genetic curse? Can you look past your negative racial and gender stereotyping of that demographic, Ms./Mr./M-whatever Leftwinger? Set aside his age and gender and your own argumentum ad novitatum bias, and view his ideals in the name of open-mindedness. Can you?

You damn well should, because his ideals are your ideals, to the core, and were back when Hillary was a pandering “moderate” still trying to wash the figurative (and maybe literal) semen stain from the bluesy-dressed reputation of her philandering spouse. Wait, she still is a pandering “moderate”! Be honest, she is, and you know it. Vote for her and you also get…Bill back in the White House (whoa…radical, duuuuuude). Meanwhile Bernie offers you a veritable cornucopia of marvelous free stuff like higher education and medical care and ganja brownies for your lumbago, damn the national debt (it’s just an irrelevant abstraction anyway, right?). He wants to tax those ghoulish, horrible, inhuman and inhumane 1%ers so hard they can be heard screaming in agony from repossessed yachts and mansions the world over.

But Sanders is “unelectable”, you say? Hogwash, or (for you holier-than-thou vegans, or two-faced Islamo-apologist “feminists”, or pencil-armed coffee-house metrosexuals who barely can bench-press a gender-studies textbook), lentil-wash! Sanders is as electable as the votes he receives, so why not vote for him and do your part to make him electable? I’m serious, Sanders really is your best candidate.

Now it’s no secret that I am a fiscal and social conservative, strong and true: unflinchingly, sternly and unapologetically so, in your face and in the face of all societal fads and whims, so much that I would advocate my positions were I the last person to do so with a hundred of Obama’s war drones aiming guns at me. If your senses of humor and tolerance are gone and something I write offends you…great! Suck it up and deal with it. I’m principled, idealist, iconoclastic–and I wear those labels (along with any of the usual array of “tolerant” insults hurled by the left at ill-educated backward rednecks like me) as a badge of honor.

Speaking of Obama’s war drones, guess who else besides me and Rand Paul opposed them (and Bush’s far fewer war drones before that)? Guess who besides me and Rand Paul opposed NSA spying and snooping that Hillary and Obama have supported? Guess who besides me and Rand Paul opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal before Hillary? Yep, you got it, Ms.-ter: Bernie! He was anti-war, pro-privacy, back when your parents were pissing in their own diapers. Sanders stands staunchly in opposition to the military/industrial/fossil-fuel/financial-sector complex that has heavily bankrolled the Clintons since today’s millennials were pissing in their diapers. The environment? Bernie is so green that he could be mistaken for a shrunken, elderly mutation of the Incredible Hulk. Check his voting record.

See, I actually was a liberal once, for a short while, as a young physical adult, conformably nonconformist and properly offended at everything representing “the Man”. Then I finally grew up. I read deeply and critically and discovered what a moral, ethical and economic dead end leftism is, and quickly matured past that shameful and shallow phase of pseudo-thought. No regrets, however: as a result, I know how a liberal thinks and easily can play the part, pretending to be one in any game of devil’s advocate (a very appropriate term for such a role, of course). [Whoa, I think I can hear more offended gasping…cha-ching! If I had a nickel for every time…]

Moreover, I still am a hard-core idealist. I know one when I see one–even when I can’t stand what he stands for. Bernie Sanders is that–or at least, the closest you’ll find in any national politician–and has been for far, far, far longer than flip-flopping, corporate-teat-sucking, dishonest, poll-pandering Hillary. He is the liberal light personified, your best representation, and it’s not even a contest. Bernie, far more than the Clintons, is aligned with your views, with a proven willingness to express them when not expedient. He is the real deal, honest and authentic in representing The Cause, in stark contrast to She Who Fakes Southern Accents When in Arkansas.

Again I ask: If you are a liberal and thinking of voting for Hillary Clinton in your primary…for MotherEarthGaiaNatureGoddess’ sake, why?

If I were a liberal, I would vote for Sanders. No hesitation, no doubt, no question. He embodies the left-wing ideal the very best, by far. If I were a liberal…

Thank God (not MotherEarthGaiaNatureGoddess) that I am not.