His ability in quibbling

To spend his life quibbling over trifles with other lawyers was not what he wanted. To have his place in life fixed by his ability in quibbling seemed to him hideous.

Sherwood Anderson - Marching Men (1917)


There are many people in the public sector with a significant quibbling role. Most of the rules and regulations creeping around our lives were honed and developed via quibbling. What steers people towards a career in quibbling though?

I’m a retired analytical chemist of the environmental variety and I occasionally wonder what steered me towards chemistry. The answer seems to be simple enough. From school onwards I found I liked chemistry and could do it fairly easily. The two are of course connected - liking it and being able to do it. Similar influences must apply to quibbling.

No doubt something similar also applies to many of us, perhaps most of us. We end up doing whatever we can and are able to endure for years or decades. Sticking with chemistry as an example, did I have a need to believe in the scientific method in order to do chemistry?

It helps, but no – it’s a matter of learning what works within the discipline. Chemistry teachers foster that via approval and disapproval. Some of it also comes from experience at the bench, such as not trying to pipette concentrated sulphuric acid by mouth.

Here’s a similar question – do politicians believe political doctrines? No – politicians find they have the ability to do politics and enjoy doing it. The doctrines are tools, not beliefs. They may have roots in certain political traditions, but that is the exploratory phase – finding their political tastes, aptitudes and backers. Also finding where the political approval and disapproval come from.

We do what we do to earn a crust if we can endure doing it for years and have enough ability to do it to a certain standard. This would be a standard which merits more approval than disapproval from the workplace and our social surroundings. It even applies to quibbling – do it well and it can be a career asset. Standard stimulus, response, reinforcement – we do not need to go further to understand such things.

We do not believe in what we do, the notion of belief is redundant. We do it because works in the sense that it attracts approval, including our own approval. Minimal approval perhaps, barely more than disapproval perhaps, but at least a residue of approval. A large part of approval is employment and pay so it’s very simple –

Can do it. Like it. Paid to do it. Do it.

Orthodox climate scientists do not believe in what they do, they do it because they can, because they are paid and because peer approval far outweighs sceptical disapproval. In this case, peer approval is supplemented by media, political and social approval. Engineered approval designed to outweigh sceptical disapproval.

Engineered approval is common, as elites, politicians, celebrities, media, advertisers and PR outfits demonstrate on a daily basis. Engineered approval tells us that orthodox climate science is a political activity. No scientific method, no experimental confirmation, no successful predictions, no belief. None of it is necessary. They must find quibbling useful too.