Prediction, Retrodiction, Warmism and the Demon Haunted Dark

March 23rd, 2014

We are far more impressed by a scientific theory that predicts, than a supposedly scientific theory that retrodicts, even though from the Bayesian point of view they are the same.

Successful prediction tells us that this is an actual theory, rather than a slippery and ambiguous pile of vague fudge factors subject to post hoc reinterpretation.

As you probably know, Global Warming models are 100% successful at precisely “predicting” (retrodicting) the alleged past, even though past climate is not in fact known very accurately.  They are totally unsuccessful at predicting.

By and large, Warmism is not incorrect science, but anti science. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is an attempt by skeptics to make sense out of the Warmist position, to construct a plausible scientific theory that makes the predictions that Warmists predict, but Warmists are not much interested in making sense.

The theory attributed to the Warmists by the skeptics is that water vapor provides positive feedback, clouds also provide postive feedback, so any small nudge tends to have large effects on the climate.

Do Warmists believe the theory that skeptics attribute to them?

Perhaps.  To find out, you would have to sue the model builders under the freedom of information act, and the model builders would stone wall, the courts would favor them, and the model builders would complain they are being persecuted by big oil.

The term “multiplier” in the sense that skeptics use it never appears in Warmist works, only in critiques of Warmism. The term “climate sensitivity” does appear in Warmist works, but it does not seem to be used in the same meaning as in skeptic works. It is not a ratio that can be larger or smaller than unity, not a number, but more like sin and purity, not the kind of thing where one might say the “the climate sensitivity is 2.7” To a Warmist, to assert that the climate sensitivity is 2.7 would be as ridiculous as if a Roman Catholic priest were to say that that the sinfulness of adultery is 2.7 A Warmist paper will say that climate sensitivity is greater than we thought, but will not give a number for what we supposedly used to think it was, nor a number for what we now supposedly think it is – which does not stop them from deducing from this unspecified change in this unspecified number that the temperature in 2100 will be precisely six degrees hotter.

I have not read much of the Warmist literature.  Perhaps there is some that understands the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming attributed to the Warmists by the skeptics, but what I have read seems to me more like inspiration by the spirit of Gaia decorated almost at random by scientific sounding words.  It could be that the author understands and believes a scientific theory that makes the required doomful predictions, but there is no very clear indication that he does.

Steve McIntyre argued that it is likely that clouds create negative feedback. Do Warmists attempt to argue with him? Do Warmists say “no, clouds create positive feedback”? Do Warmists even know the difference between positive and negative feedback?  Nasa discussing clouds sound like they use the terms correctly, but then fail to apply them when discussing the stability of temperatures between the wet season and dry season in the tropics, even though this is an obvious case of negative feedback.

Rather, Warmism is a revival of the old demon worshiping cults. The priests announce the gods are angry, any unusual weather event being evidence of the wrath of the demon gods, and that to appease these hostile and wrathful beings sacrifices shall be made, which sacrifices the priests get to administer.

The trouble with gay marriage

March 21st, 2014

Scott Alexander has just posted that anyone who objects to homosexuality must be a repressed homosexual, which is typical of what passes for rationality among the “Less Wrong” crowd.

By the same reasoning, anyone who objects to coprophagy must be a repressed coprophage, because, of course, everyone at  “Less Wrong” knows perfectly well that there can be no rational, innate, or instinctive reasons to dislike eating $#!%.

When we were all forced to call homosexuals gay, “gay” instantly became a startlingly potent curse word, and so the second verse of “deck the halls with boughs of holly” instantly disappeared from the Christmas Carol rotation, as did the Flintstones theme song. Clearly, it was not the intention of the social engineers who forced us to use the word “gay” that the second verse of “Deck the Halls” would vanish, yet somehow it did.

Forcing people to call gays married will predictably have a similar effect on the word “marriage” – people will titter when they hear the word. “Marriage” too will become a curse word and an insult, just as “Gay” instantly did.

We have thousands of years of experience with euphemisms.  Applying a nice word to something disgusting does not make the disgusting thing nice, it makes the nice word disgusting.

Recap on Warmism

March 14th, 2014

I have been ignoring the issue of Global Warming for a while, because it is pretty much settled.  Anyone who still believes in Warmism is stupid, crazy, or lying.  Usually stupid.

But, a short summary: Read the rest of this entry »

Players, PUAs, and Petruchio

March 13th, 2014

Some people in the Reaction complain that players are evil, and therefore should be cast out of the Reaction.  Perhaps, but you cannot cast them out of the Dark Enlightenment, for the Dark Enlightenment is simply truth, unwanted and unpleasant truth, and no one has better cause to know the unwanted truth than players.

As for evil, it is not the duty of men in general to protect women in general, but of husbands and fathers to protect wives and daughters.

It is natural and right for men to predate upon feral women.  The problem is that we should prevent women from becoming feral, not that we should protect feral women from their own lusts.

It is not the man’s job to control the woman, it is a husband’s job and a father’s job.

In so far as we need collective social action, we need collective social action to uphold the authority of husbands and fathers to discipline badly behaved women, not to restrain players from taking advantage of feral women.

Now I hear someone saying “Well, it is natural for men to predate upon feral women, but is it right?”

And, as evidence that it is indeed right, I review “The Taming of the Shrew”  Read the rest of this entry »

Exhaustion of the low hanging fruit, or moral decay?

March 10th, 2014

Photolithography is limited by the wavelength of light.  Below 160 nanometers, UV is not light, but ionizing radiation.  So at some point, have to switch from photolithography to contact lithography, such as imprint lithography, or direct contact printing.  But did they stop shrinking stuff before we reached that limit? That they are lying about it suggests moral decay, rather than exhaustion of the low hanging fruit.

Current photolithography is stuck using UV at 193 nanometers.  Could they have gone lower?

Nitrogen and fused quartz, which they are already using, is good down to 160 nanometers.  They are using water for their high refractive index fluid, and water becomes opaque below 193.  Perfluorocarbons, however are good all the way down to 160 nanometers.  So they did not push current technology to its final limit.  It was not exhaustion of the low hanging fruit that caused the current alarmingly indefinite pause in Moore’s law.

My prediction is that if humans resume technological advance, will resume in China, and will resume using contact lithography or direct contact printing, as there is little point in recreating from scratch a technology that has reached its ultimate limit.  And if humans don’t resume technological and scientific advance, it will be a long, slow, painful and messy descent into a dark age, until harsh conditions cause natural selection to resume.

Tonto and the lone ranger.

March 9th, 2014

Tonto and the lone ranger (formally the Lone ranger, with his comedy relief sidekick Tonto, whose name means “silly” in Spanish) have recently been rebooted, with the no longer silly Tonto as main character and the lone ranger as his sidekick.  Since the audience is largely white, and Tonto is authentically alien (covered in warpaint and wears a dead bird on his head at all times) this, of course, went over like a lead balloon.  Even genuine native Americans are unlikely to identify with this authentically alien representative of culture that was already dead and mythical a century ago.

Even in its original form, when Tonto (Silly) was merely a comedy relief sidekick, the Lone Ranger was already left wing propaganda, being absurdly non violent, and having lovable injuns. But, as the overton window moves ever leftwards, has to become even more left wing. Read the rest of this entry »


March 4th, 2014

My unmarried niece failed to show up at my son’s wedding. I complained to her mother, observing that she has no life, so no excuse for not turning up.

Her mother, who is my elder sister, was somewhat indignant about this and alleged that my niece had a boyfriend. I commented that since my niece was too old to be fertile, her boyfriend was not serious, unlikely to become a husband, and may well be a boyfriend only in my niece’s energetic imagination.

At this my sister went apocalyptic, claiming that women can go on having children forever, or for a very long time, and that women remain attractive to potential new husbands forever, although her own life should have disabused her of this theory. (She foolishly divorced her high socioeconomic status husband, and expected to remarry swiftly, and remarry someone of equal or higher socioeconomic status, despite two kids in tow and a past history of … behavior unsuitable for a wife.)

It would seem that the male belief that fertility and attractiveness decline rapidly once a woman reaches a certain age is phallocentric and oppressive.

Equality means that female ovaries have the same functional lifetime as male testicles, which is logical, and, like equality itself, insane.

So here follows a public service announcement for women:  Read the rest of this entry »

The Death of Libertarianism

February 28th, 2014

What is libertarianism?

Stephen Landsburg complains that Arizona law protecting religious people from being forced to enthusiastically support and endorse gay marriage is unlibertarian.

Bryan Caplan, a libertarian and theoretically an anarcho capitalist, wants the Mexican underclass moved here to live on welfare, crime, the production of anchor babies, and voting Democrat.

Esr recently used exterminationist rhetoric against “racists”. I doubt he knows what “racist” means, but those that put that exterminationist rhetoric into action will know that “racist” is simply a hostile word for white.

As the Overton Window moves ever leftwards, there is no more room for anti statism, and so libertarians, seeking to remain inside the Overton Window, have abandoned their anti statism, becoming just another variant of progressive, thus totalitarian statist. Read the rest of this entry »

The USG immigration problem

February 17th, 2014

The problem is that people we are allowing in have too much power over us. Also, most of them are stupid people, and when their children go to school, the Cathedral teaches them to hate us and attack us.

When nonwhites have the majority, whites will be a market dominant minority, like Jews or overseas Chinese. In nonwhite countries, market dominant minorities seldom exist, because they get exterminated or expelled. In the middle east, sometimes enslaved.

Smart fraction theory implies that intelligence primarily produces externalities, benefits for other people.

Thus, people of below average intelligence produce large negative externalities.

The policy of the King of Dubai, assuming that policy to reflect the best interests of an undeniably able monarch, indicates that even when stupid people are not allowed welfare, not allowed to vote, are subject to an ironfisted law enforcement system that completely eliminates the kind of crimes that stupid people might commit, are subject to the iron fisted control of employers, who may at any moment expel their employees back to their home countries to face the horrors of those governments that they democratically elected, even with all that, stupid people still have substantial negative externalities. Read the rest of this entry »

Working class consciousness

February 16th, 2014

Working Class consciousness (in other words envy and covetousness) runs into economics: “The Chamley-Judd Redistribution Impossibility Theorem” which tells us that redistribution from capitalists to workers is impossible, and trying to do so merely buggers the economy making everyone worse off.

This conflict between reality and ideology brings you nazism and communism.

The Chamley-Judd Redistribution Impossibility theorem is economists admitting Ayn Rand was right while trying to sound as if they are not admitting it. The economy needs savings, investment, and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs will arrange to get a good chunk of the wealth produced, and if you try to stop them, you will discourage, or altogether stop, savings, investment and entrepreneurship.

You try to distribute from the capitalists to the workers, and somehow it does not happen. Obviously an evil conspiracy. So you round up the usual suspects. Somehow, this fails to work. Obviously the conspiracy must be bigger than you thought. So you round up everyone vaguely connected to the usual suspects. And you wind up killing them.

Yes, there are perfectly real conspiracies, as the previous post reveals, and some of them, such as the one revealed in the previous post, contain a curiously large proportion of Jews, but this is not what causes economic differences between capitalists and workers. The usual object of conspiracy is political power. This causes economic inequality between people in political power and people out of political power, but other forms of inequality are more resistant to politics, and attempts to politicize other forms of inequality will have disastrous effects.

The inequality between Jewish tax farmers and the peasants had political origins and was reasonably answered by political measures against tax farming. The inequality between Jewish Estate managers and the people who worked on those estates, the inequality between Jewish money lenders and European borrowers, and the inequality between Jewish vodka merchants and Russian drunks did not have political origins, hence trying to remedy it results in you killing the Jews, not to mention capitalists, kulaks, foreign educated intellectuals, and whatnot. And after they are killed, your peasants are still screwed. Indeed they are even more screwed.

Hence successful official belief systems prohibit this fallacy. Believing it gets punished by social disapproval and exclusion from the levers of political power.