Global warming scam starts to unravel

The basic religious impulse behind global warming is that technology and industrial civilization is a creation of whites, males, and capitalists, and primarily a creation of white male capitalists, therefore must be evil.

The political impulse behind global warming, its strategic value for the blue empire was that the replacement people were largely concentrated in blue coastal federal electorates, thus wasting their votes, so the blue empire wanted to move people who work and don’t commit crimes out of federal electorates in flyover country, where their votes were likely to tip the balance, into coastal areas where they would be massively outvoted. Similarly, the policy of bombing marginal federal electorates in flyover country with black male Muslim military age rapeugees living on crime and welfare. So they wanted to destroy productive activities, such as logging and coal mining, in flyover country. To avoid wasted Democratic votes, they want to move people who work and do not commit crimes out of flyover country, and people who do not work and who do commit crimes into flyover country. Similarly, they want people who vote Democratic armed (hence operation Fast and Furious) so that they can kill people who vote Republican (hence gun control).

The blue empire proceeded to apply its soft power to drag the rest of the world along for the ride. Thus the Paris climate treaty had almost all the pain to be inflicted on flyover country Americans, with just barely enough pain for the rest of the world to make it an “international” treaty (which is to say a treaty where the “international community”, aka the US State Department, agrees with itself), and thus avoid the inconvenience of Americans who lose their jobs because of it being able to vote against it.

To the religious impetus of hostility to industrial civilization, which is to say white male capitalist civilization, was added the impetus of hostility to those horrid rednecks in flyover country.

The only real action item on the Paris accord was smashing Americans in flyover country, making them suffer, and providing political cover for smashing Americans in flyover country. If Americans in flyover county are not being smashed, not one gives a tinker’s dam about the rest of it. It is already sliding out of sight and out of mind.

Trump has not been able to do much about the flood of illegal immigration, but the stops against coal mining and fracking rested on executive orders, and he simply issued new executive orders, whereupon those jobs that “were gone and not coming back” promptly came back.

Coal mines and such are generally in flyover country, Democratic voters on the coast, so, moving legacy American out of flyover country makes more efficient use of imported voters.

But Trump shuts down this tactic, and the entire rest of the world loses interest in Global Warming.

The rest of the world was being put through the motions to provide political cover for the blows against near. Paris was just political cover for shutting down jobs in flyover country, in order to move republican voters into areas full of wasted federal Democratic party votes.

With Trump shutting down that tactic, suddenly the soft power of “the international community” loses interest in Global warming.

One might suppose that this is the result of everyone reacting to the same data at the same time, but not so. When the climategate files came out, it was obvious that global warming was a religion, not science, and that global warming scientists had precisely zero interest in whether global warming was true of this world, that it was a religious truth, not genuinely expected to be empirically verifiable, not really expected to be supported by, or supportable by, the facts of this world.

The empirical evidence for global warming remains about the same as it has ever been. If any warming is happening, the effects are imperceptibly slight, and likely to remain imperceptible for a long time.

But suddenly, around the world, people are forgetting about efforts to fight the terrible scourge of global warming.

For some time warmists have been making a big deal out of disappearing ice at the north pole (Glibly ignoring the fact that the South Pole is far larger than it was when the first expeditions visited the place.)

Every year since 2007 highly honored high status official scientist Peter Wadhams tells us:

Arctic will be ice free in summer next year

After a decade of false predictions, more honored than ever. Being wrong works great for official science, while being right is apt to be fatal for one’s career.

Over the past couple of hundred years the North West passage has sometimes been closed all year, sometimes open briefly during summer. Always too much ice to sail the arctic reliably even in summer, always too little ice to reliably and safely reach the North Pole by sled even in winter. There is always ice, even in the North West Passage in summer, there is always open water, even at the North Pole in winter, and that is the way it is always been. Hard to see any climate change, because the day to day weather changes, and the year to year weather changes, are vastly bigger than the supposed climate change.

This year, even icebreakers could not make the Northwest passage in high summer.

Yes, the Arctic has less ice than it used to. And the Antarctic more, but I am not seeing a trend, just pink noise, temporally correlated random variation, a fractal roughly half way between red noise (a random walk) and white noise. If there is a trend, hard to discern against a background of large random changes. Finding patterns in climate change is not a whole lot easier than finding patterns in stock market price change. Retrodiction is apt to be a whole lot easier than prediction.

I will now predict the Arctic climate and weather:

The North West Passage has been open before and closed before: It will be open again, and closed again.

There have been large areas of open sea at the North Pole before, and it has been entirely covered by thick ice before: It will be covered by ice again, and open sea again.

There has always been enough ice that it is a big problem for ships even in high summer: There will continue to be enough ice that it is a big problem for ships even in high summer.

There has always been enough open sea at the North Pole that it is a big problem for sleds even in mid winter: There will continue to be enough open sea that it is a big problem for sleds even in mid winter.

It is rarely possible to reach the North Pole by ship, because ice is usually in the way. It is usually difficult and often dangerous to reach the North Pole by sled, because water is usually in way. Sledding and sailing has become easier, because aided by satellite observations, and because one can be rescued by helicopter. Helicopter rescues will continue to happen from time to time, both because of too little open water for ships, and too much open water for sleds.

70 Responses to “Global warming scam starts to unravel”

  1. […] Global warming scam starts to unravel […]

  2. TBeholder says:

    The political impulse behind global warming, its strategic value for the blue empire was that the replacement people were largely concentrated in blue coastal federal electorates

    So that‘s why they do it in Europe and Australia! The mystery is solved! :]
    The political impulse behind global warming is using it to expand the tools of power (regulations and pseudo-experts), erode sovereignty (as Holdren “reluctantly conceded”) and either bend or suppress opposition. And, of course, it helps with stealing and embezzling.

  3. Someone says:

    You know it’s a scam when the only alleged solution to this horrible problem is that you have to be looted of more money via taxes while the elite get to live in their multitude of palace like estates.

    They definitely overplayed their hand with the fear mongering. I’ve lived along the Texas coast all my life and been out to the beach a number of times. Listening to the ‘inventor of the internet’ talk years ago and others, Padre Island should have already become a shallow sand bar.

    Nova has to push the GW crap, but they did have a couple hour special a few years ago now on what the satellites had found in regards to atmospheric, land use, and ocean currents. There is no way these models can account for the Saharan dust lifted into the atmosphere or the changing deep ocean currents off the poles.

    I do think there are some things environmentally we need to do better like less plastic in the environment for example, but GW is not one of them.

  4. Encelad says:

    The GW narrative still serves the Cathedral’s goals in Europe though. They have started to push the concept of “Climate refugee”, which is basically the universal right of every third worlder to settle into Europe because in Africa the sun is warm and it is causing severe crop droughts in countries which , coincidentally, adopted socialism. I don’t expect them to drop the GW soon.

    • The Cominator says:

      Yeah the left doesn’t drop religious beliefs if the religious beliefs are potentially useful in enslaving or destroying productive whites and putting themselves in positions of commisars.

      Global warming is too useful to would be commisars to abandon. It will be clung to with the same tenacity as the beliefs in racial and sexual equality.

  5. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Environmental policy is exactly like family policy.

    The Cathedral seeks to justify preserving nature by appealing to scientific theories: if you cut all the trees down and burn all the oil, just to maximise consumption in the present, such&such a scientific prediction will come true.

    The Cathedral faced two problems.

    Firstly, the theories were bunk, so they had to lie and cheat and stifle scientific inquiry in order to make it fly. “Climate deniers” like “holocaust deniers”.

    Secondly, the goals conflicted with other chaotic anarchic Cathedral goals. If you want the plebs to consume more, you want the third world to consume more and you want GDP to keep on growing, then you can’t simultaneously protect the environment and discourage short-termism.

    Thankfully the Cathedral’s days are numbered. People are waking up. We’re winning.

    But that leaves the environment question.

    When it comes to parenting, I’ve shown you the way: the science says any structure of family’s as good as any other because families don’t matter – peers do.

    [*Stop repetitiously spamming lies. We have seen all these lies before, they have been refuted, and you have repeatedly failed to respond to refutation. Repetition is not response. You are acting like a troofer, trying to overwhelm our bandwidth*]

    • Dave says:

      How does your system account for substitution? E.g. if we impose tariffs on apples, consumers might respond by eating bananas instead. England and Germany could be self-sufficient in food if they grew and ate only turnips and potatoes, but who wants that?

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        People make their own calculations in the moment. If potatoes and turnips were much more affordable than bananas, recipes would adapt to match the new situation.
        This happens naturally in the free market all the time, the obvious example being cashew nuts. As the price rose, recipes changed and the sky didn’t fall in.
        Fewer bougie dinner parties featured bowls of cashews because the status signal to be gained didn’t justify the higher price. No doubt for the bougiest of the bougies, the higher price *increased* the status signal. That’s their business and it’s all good.

        The only difference between tariffs and the unimpeded operation of the price system is that someone does it on purpose. That purpose is to prioritise the health and wealth of the domestic population, not the optimisation of global GDP.

        Free markets are very good at calculating, but they don’t care about borders. Leaders do care about borders, hence tariffs.

        If you want flyover country to have steel works, better put tariffs on Chinese imported steel. Libertarians will say “no” but people who give a damn about flyover country will say “hell yes and then some”.

        There’s no limit to what a good leader can achieve in terms of domestic prosperity. A libertarian will claim that 2% cheaper finished goods for a million consumers is worth the loss of a few industrial jobs in the rust belt. That’s their opinion but they talk as if it’s God’s will. On the contrary, God’s will is for the King of America to look after the people of America, not the people of the world.

        Now is this claim equivalent to saying every country needs a tariff of X% on every imported good that could be made domestically? No: rule by principles and abstractions is bad. This claim is simply that the King, or Donald Trump, has every right to plan the economy in as much detail as he wants, so long as the goal is always the good of society.

        As soon as corruption and favours enters the picture, we’re no longer talking about good leadership. How to solve that is the task of all good statecraft, but in 2018 the best way is to ask the people on a regular basis what they think. They won’t hesitate to tell Donald Trump. The question is will he act?

        If not, let’s find someone who will. We CAN do this. King Arthur is real. We don’t have to shrug our shoulders and believe Hillary Clinton’s the best the world has to offer, because she’s the worst, not the best.

    • jim says:

      > When it comes to parenting, I’ve shown you the way: the science says any structure of family’s as good as any other because families don’t matter – peers do.

      Liar. You have failed to present this supposed science.

      That is not in fact what the science shows. What the science shows is that within the normal range, families do not much effect IQ and personality.

      Families do, however, have substantial effect on life outcomes, such as socioeconomic status, marriage, and prison time. Adoptive children do not inherit the socioeconomic status of their parents, but they do “inherit” the socioeconomic status of their adoptive siblings, showing that well raised children are more successful than poorly raised children.

      Identical twins raised apart in similarly intact families do not in fact have similar life outcomes. Their outcomes tend to resemble those of their adoptive siblings.

      We don’t have any data on identical twins raised apart, one without a father and one with a father, but we do have data on fatherless children that shows that absence of biological father is disastrous.

      You are taking data that supports right wing conclusions – that education and such cannot explain differences in IQ, and torturing it to support left wing conclusions, that the destruction of the family is not harming children. This reveals your ideological environment. You are embedded in a milieu where these lies are standard, doubting them is punished, and you are exporting these lies to us using the troofer tactic of endlessly repeating already refuted lies, supporting them with new, and equally unsupported lies.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        This is so retarded. Twin studies showed that genetically identical twins, raised together in the type of home both you and I favour differed just as much as genetically identical twins, raised apart, but more importantly than that, genetically unrelated siblings, raised together, were no more similar at all in any way than any two people plucked at random from the general population.

        That doesn’t *explicitly* control for fathers, sure, but it doesn’t *explicitly* control for budgerigars either, or toblerones.
        So what!

        What it shows is that the parenting genetically unrelated siblings were exposed to had no effect, and that the parenting genetically related siblings were exposed to had no effect, so no matter the genetic relatedness of the subjects, the effect of parenting is zero.

        “That is not in fact what the science shows. What the science shows is that within the normal range, families do not much effect IQ and personality.”

        This is a difference that makes no difference.

        “Families do, however, have substantial effect on life outcomes, such as socioeconomic status, marriage, and prison time.”

        Negative: it’s not just IQ and personality, it’s criminal convictions, career outcomes, sexual and marital success, mental health, physical health, diet and exercise, you name it: everything, every single thing is mysteriously immune to parenting in all circumstances.

        Obviously the usual caveat: this does not include abuse – abuse by a parent has the same capacity for harm as abuse by a peer, teacher or priest.

        “Adoptive children do not inherit the socioeconomic status of their parents, but they do “inherit” the socioeconomic status of their adoptive siblings, showing that well raised children are more successful than poorly raised children.”

        Show me the data. I flatly deny that this is true.

        Families who adopt Malawian savages do not observe what you claim they observe. Rather, they observe what HBD would predict: the Malawian child grows up to be a Malawian adult. Indeed, the black children of middle class ‘talented tenthers’ notoriously grow up disturbingly frequently as typical negro adults in every way you care to mention.
        This is a well-observed and established phenomenon.

        “Identical twins raised apart in similarly intact families do not in fact have similar life outcomes. Their outcomes tend to resemble those of their adoptive siblings.”

        Source required. This is not in fact real, it’s just your bald assertion. People have been trying to produce these refutations for twenty years and nobody’s succeeded. The twin studies have been replicated over and over and the results are always the same: parenting has no effect.

        “We don’t have any data on identical twins raised apart, one without a father and one with a father, but we do have data on fatherless children that shows that absence of biological father is disastrous.”

        This is a widely held, but false, belief. You’re not controlling for genes. An aristocratic child whose father died before he was a year old turns out just fine, so long as the death of the father does not adversely affect his environment outside the home, such as choice of school.

        If you want to claim that fatherless children in inner cities are poorer than fathered children in the suburbs then this is true, but that’s a leftist argument. Whilst it’s true that being forced to send your child to school with scum from the estates is a very bad thing for your child, it’s also true if you substitute other labels along HBD lines. Either way, this is entirely expected by JRH’s experimental results.

        “You are taking data that supports right wing conclusions – that education and such cannot explain differences in IQ, and torturing it to support left wing conclusions, that the destruction of the family is not harming children.”

        No that’s not true at all. I’m claiming more or less the exact opposite: that genes are extremely important, but after genes comes education, not parenting.
        The conclusion is that our family policy CANNOT hinge on shitty science, any more than our environmental policy can hinge on shitty science.
        We need LEADERSHIP, not a leader who simply defers to Academia. Why are you opposed to that conclusion?
        You think Academia SHOULD dictate policy?!?!?!!!

        “This reveals your ideological environment. You are embedded in a milieu where these lies are standard, doubting them is punished, and you are exporting these lies to us using the troofer tactic of endlessly repeating already refuted lies, supporting them with new, and equally unsupported lies.”

        I’ve never worked in academia. I have worked for the government and part of one of my roles, about 16 years ago, involved priestly concerns having to do with race and disparate outcomes. (I was a Blairite neo-con at the time.)
        I no longer hold any of the beliefs I held at that time, not that it’s any of your damn business.
        None of that has anything to do with the fact that twin studies demonstrate zero effect for parenting, but more importantly:

        None of that has anything to do with the fact that right-wingers, including but not limited to reactionaries, should have no truck at all with ‘science-based policy-making’.

        That stuff’s commie bs.

        • pyrrhus says:

          Yes, Nature knocked out Nurture in the first round of every legitimate study ever done…But that doesn’t mean that teenagers as single parents on welfare isn’t societally toxic…

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:


            Finally someone gets it!

            We want the traditional Patriarchal family unit because it’s good FOR SOCIETY, not because it produces well-adjusted children.
            The Stefan Molyneux approach is utter utter garbage.
            If the Molyneux nurture assumption was true, we’d be wrong to send kids to boarding school or employ nannies.

            How we structure the family does NOT hinge on what’s good for children: it hinges on what’s good for SOCIETY, which is the right of the Absolute Monarch to determine.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              >But that doesn’t mean that teenagers as single parents…

              “Single parents” – leftist shibboleth alert!

              So of course CR comes in to agree.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                This ‘shibboleth’ garbage is getting really tiring.

                Either you understand what the other guy wrote or you don’t, and you’d have to be pretty bleeding retarded to not understand what’s meant by ‘single parents’.

                Grow up for God’s sake.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Infiltrator strongly opposes infiltration detection tools. Shocker.

                • jim says:

                  You are telling us what Humpty Dumpty told us:

                  “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

                  ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

                  ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

                  These are our words and phrases. We coined them, they mean what we say they mean. You are redefining them to mean Marxism. The problem is not that in your hands they mean many different things, but that in your hands, they all mean the same thing: Marxism or cultural Marxism.

                  No, not what they mean.

                  And if you keep redefining our words and phrases, I am going to censor your comments, because redefining words in strange ways obstructs communication and wastes bandwidth.

                  Use our words to talk about our ideas, we coined these words and phrases to make it possible to talk about these things, and use them to mean what we mean by them.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Are you completely barking mad?

                  OK, what DOES ‘single parent’ mean then, Mr Clever Clogs semantic wizard!

                  So childish, so sad.

                • Erik says:

                  “Single parent” is not a cohesive category. The phrase attempts to smuggle in a false assumption that a woman whose husband died is the same as a woman who never had a husband in the first place.

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so: “Single mother” is cultural Marxism, and “single parent” is cultural Marxism with an aids infested transsexual stripper projectile vomiting over the audience. It is an effort to win argument by destroying the language that makes it possible to think crimethoughts.

                  Our shibboleths try to cut reality at the joints. Leftist shibboleths try to shut down thought and reason.

                  CR dresses himself in our shibboleths to say “Hail fellow white male reactionary” but does not actually use them to communicate, instead communicating in left wing shibboleths.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        “Families do, however, have substantial effect on life outcomes, such as socioeconomic status, marriage, and prison time. Adoptive children do not inherit the socioeconomic status of their parents, but they do “inherit” the socioeconomic status of their adoptive siblings, showing that well raised children are more successful than poorly raised children.”

        That contradicts the data I have seen. What is this based on?

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I don’t think he’s basing that claim on any actual science. It’s just an unsupportable assertion.

          In the real world, if you adopt an African child, it’ll grow up, disturbingly often, to be an African adult. The most notorious example of this is when ‘talented tenthers’ who are themselves entirely prosocial, responsible and successful, have kids, at least one of the kids will grow up to be a piece of garbage. No amounting of parenting (or ‘fathering’ since the word ‘parents’ triggers some people here) will prevent it. Genes plus total-environment always trumps parenting (or ‘fathering’).

          The only point I’m making is that we don’t NEED to justify all our policies by appeals to science. It’s perfectly ok to have a policy that just *isn’t based* on science.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            CR: Any policy that is based on sound morality will also pass the evidentiary test. There is no such thing as “evidence-based policy” given independently of right; that is a Leftist ruse whose premise (the fact-value distinction) you accept in the very course of rejecting its conclusion. Value and fact coincide; that which is right is also prudent. When Leftists say policy should be based on “evidence” not moral values they mean policy shouldn’t be based on *your* values.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Right, that’s true, that’s a better way of looking at it. I was looking at it the wrong way.

              Yes indeed it’s not that we shouldn’t take science into account at all. It’s that we need to be asking science the right questions, and when it comes to the optimal structure of the family, the right question is “what produces a healthy society?” rather than “what produces productive outcomes in the offspring?”.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:


            • jim says:

              I asked you to make the argument that families do not matter, rather than endlessly repeating the assertion that science tells us that families do not matter. It does not tell us that. It provides evidence relevant to the question. Show me evidence

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                I’m not quite sure what line it is that you’re trying to draw.

                This is an attempt to answer what you’re asking, but it may fly off in the wrong direction, because I’m not at all clear on what it IS that you’re asking. Nevertheless here goes nuttin’

                Firstly I’m NOT arguing that families don’t matter lol
                I’m saying parents (or some people have said they’d rather use ‘fathers’ only, which is bizarre but I’m nodding in their direction to avert problems) don’t exert a major influence on the life outcomes of their children beyond genes and basic resource provision.

                That’s not the same thing. My wife matters too, but she won’t change my IQ (I hope) or make me more gregarious and less neurotic (sadly).

                Science tells us that families (or fathers) don’t shape the personalities, life outcomes or mental make-up of children.
                So what?

                You seem to believe that I’m saying that BECAUSE science shows THAT, we should do THIS – presumably some sort of sexual revolution free-for-all.

                I thought I’d been very clear but I’ll say it again: I favour what you favour – the traditional family with the father at the head, the wife staying at home to look after the infants and the house, the children off to work and/or apprenticeship pretty early on, and an atmosphere of Patriarchal obedience.
                This precludes subcultures, homosexuality, gender fluidity and all the other cancers of modernity.

                My initial claim was that we should just forget all about science when deciding social policy (and by ‘we’ I mean of course whatever dictator is running the country following a restoration of some kind). I’ve been persuaded by Doug Smythe that this is wrong. In fact we SHOULD of course take science on board, but we should make sure we’re asking Tiresias the right questions!

                The question we ask of science should not be “ok developmental psychologists, how should parents (fathers!) interact with their children in order to give them the best life outcomes”?

                It should be “ok historians, what types of familial arrangements have tended to produce healthy SOCIETIES in the past?”

                And if we must consult the dubious social sciences, we should ask of developmental psychologists the following:”ok developmental psychology, am I going to do what Phillip Larkin says I’m going to do if I send my kids to boarding school?”

                Thankfully the answer from developmental psychology is “no”.

                Our enemies may ask developmental psychology “ok developmental psychologists, if I adopt a baby from Eritrea, can I turn him into the next Bill Gates?”

                The answer is a resounding “no”.

    • peppermint says:

      You say you want nuclear families to have houses. Then you insult them.


      Because you don’t see yourself as a family man. You see yourself as a communist pinko faggot ghoul, with no source of sustenance other than theft.

      Unfortunately, you must fix your view of yourself before you can fix your life situation, because no one would trust a faggot with a job they could inspect and fire at will, much less an apartment that’s harder, or family ties that are more or less permanent.

      Holiness and 2$ is worth a coffee at Dunkin Donuts. Everywhere else, Christianity is recognized as anti-holiness

  6. Dave says:

    I suppose they’re still going to hold the COP24 conference in Katowice, Poland. About last year’s COP23 conference, Wikipedia reports:

    “Parties also finalized the Gender Action Plan and the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform, both of which are designed to increase the participation of traditionally marginalized groups in the UN Climate Negotiations.”

    How progressive of Mr. Trump not to send an official US delegation; more white men ought to step back so that women and under-represented minorities can play a leading role in fighting climate change! Do also read the Wiki page for “Outreachy”; it’s funny because no one uses GNOME anymore.

  7. Mike says:

    I think one of the more pressing issues coming up may be the need to effectively regulate pollution while somehow not getting legitimate pollution reduction mixed up with a climate change holiness spiral. Because that is what happens currently, people worried about pollution in their localities talk about it in the same vein that they talk about climate change. Instead, we need to realize that pollution is much more local, immediate, and real then climate change ever has been or will be. Perhaps we should look to China for an example?

    • The Cominator says:

      Most of the real pollution was cleared up in the 1970s Calexico excepted.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      This accidental side-effect of the climate change agenda – us ending up ignoring genuine pollution – is ‘accidental’ in the same way that armies of underclass dependants reliant on the state for everything is an accidental side-effect.
      Once you realise that capitalist corporations are part of The Cathedral, none of these mysteries are terribly surprising. Coincidentally every globohomo initiative benefits government, NGOs, activist professors and global corporations. Funny old world lol

  8. My very vague impression is that mean temperatures in Europe are not changing, but the variability of the weather yes, it feels more unstable, more crazy stuff like from one day to another 20-25 degrees colder or warmer. People are telling me they feel the seasons are less clear-cut now, May snows and February late-spring warm weather and stuff like that. But these are entirely subjective impressions.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      This is why the media needs to be crushed and replaced with something that knows its place.

      You may think these are entirely subjective impressions, but you’re being constantly bombarded with propaganda to the effect that everything’s extreme, and surprise surprise you have a hunch, for some unidentifiable reason, that hmm maybe everything’s, like, EXTREME or something.

      Pure coincidence of course.

      Here’s how it works: every single day is record-breaking by SOME metric, but the media understands that there’s no point telling anyone that the volume of prematurely yellowed leaves per capita in Iowa was the lowest since records began in 1997, so they wait, and every few weeks some more ‘interesting and relevant’ record is broken.

      That’s always been true but it only became newsworthy when it had *consequences* for the real world. Now it becomes newsworthy when they can persuade us that their insane religion’s real.

      The same thing’s true of True Believers in Jeremy Kyle parenting of course. Science-based (or natural law-based) policy-making hinges on successful propaganda, which is why Carlyle favoured an actual, rather than phantasm, captain at the rudder.

  9. Koanic says:


    | politics | CSR | gender | class |
    | socialist | ruderal | feminine | priest |
    | libertarian | stress-tolerator | balanced | yeoman |
    | reactionary | competitor | masculine | warrior |

    • eternal anglo says:

      I wonder how many generations it would take for a Jimist reactionary state to near-totally eliminate the leftist phenotype from the population by targeted eugenics. A special initiative of the Inquisition, perhaps.

      • Doug Smythe says:

        Any society has its share of meddlesome, domineering, disruptive, arrogant, and otherwise unpleasant people and a Restored social order won’t be an exception. What a Resorted social order will do is deny the people with personality disorders the opportunity to rise to social ascendancy by affecting superior holiness, and to allow the community to deal with behavioral expressions of personality disorders the old-fashioned way: judicious physical correction applied in the home or by the peer group, the stocks and the lash, trips to the dunking-stool that get a little longer with each additional offense, and, where all else fails or the offense warrants it, the gallows.

        • eternal anglo says:

          Eliminate leftists, not Havel’s greengrocer — castrate Trotsky and Wilberforce, not Swipple McBachelorsdegree. Of course, sending them off to be extremely holy on a bleak island somewhere far from the Archbishop’s palace is likely to achieve this effect anyway.

          There is a spectrum for criminality too. If you remove from the gene pool only the top 1% most criminal men (murderers and such) each generation, you will shift the entire population towards good character. Thus legendary Hajnal honesty. If the Inquisition, guided consciously by the light of St Darwin, vasectomizes as many pharisees as the English used to hang murderers and thieves, might be well on the way to a leftism-immune civilization in a few hundred years.

  10. Roberto says:

    Jim, I have an off topic question: what do you think about PTSD? Is it a real phenomenon that plenty of war veterans genuinely suffer from, or a fiction used by the priestly class to emasculate the warrior class?

  11. neal says:

    PTSD. I think the gods said it best.
    That conversation will leave marks. Even in Kansas.

    Humans used to sense somewhat that climate control and virtue prayer was a job for misfits. Of course, trying to convince the sky gods that machine intelligence is a way to connect is exactly why the more primitive versions know better. Or not.

    You kill your prophets to keep fire from the sky. I would have hung onto a few magnets here and there, for the course.

    Adopted, as it were.

  12. Zach says:

    I propose Jim+Doug do a podcast. Descending the Tower has too many people waiting their turns.

  13. eternal anglo says:

    The big thing they are citing nowadays is ocean acidification. Supposedly it will prevent plankton from forming calcified shells, among other effects on sea life, leading to marine ecosystem collapse, the sounding of the last trumpet, eternal damnation and so on. What is the truth of this?

    • jim says:

      Actual measurements of ocean acidification indicate the effect immeasurably small, and likely to remain immeasurably small even in the event of enormous rises of CO2. Further, a whole lot of plankton relies on silicaceous shells, or no shells at all, so in the event of actual ocean acidification, we would merely see the general replacement of plankton with primarily calciferous shells, by plankton with primarily silicacious shells, which would make little difference to other life forms. The ocean is very large, and to acidify it would need a stupendous amount of CO2, enormously more than would be produced by mankind.

      Human activity could acidify a shallow surface layer, but the surface mixes over the long time scale required to burn that much coal. Acidified oceans are the same nonsense as the oceans rising two hundred feet. The oceans are rising three millimeters a year, which rise may or may not be affected by human activity. They have risen far further and faster in the past, and fallen far further and faster in the past. The oceans are acidifying at about the same rate as they are rising, which is to say, not by an amount that any creature is likely to notice, and by an amount so small that it is difficult to measure, and difficult to say if the measured rises are real.

      • Koanic says:

        I’ve become convinced that there is a real mass die-off of Earth’s biome, oceanic and terrestrial, due to increasing pollution from 3rd world industrialization and 1st world agribusiness.

        Not good.

        • jim says:

          I have recently been to the great barrier reef, where I inspected the coral bleaching problem. Was completely obvious to me that coral grows up till it gets near the surface, then an unusual low water event happens, causing coral near the surface to bleach.

          Official science is lying to you about the coral bleaching problem, from which you should conclude it is lying to you about everything else.

          For example: Last year eighteen kazillion species supposedly went extinct. Supposedly we are in the midst of a gigantic die off.

          OK. Name one of these species.

          Sattelite photographs of the earth show the earth has become massively greener. Total leaf area has roughly doubled since we started putting up satellites. How is this consistent with a massive die off? An earth that was largely blue and brown is now an earth that is largely blue and green. The diminution in ice area is barely perceptible from space, the increase in green overwhelming, obvious, and dramatic.

          And official science acknowledges the green in a footnote to a table in the middle of the article.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            For example: Last year eighteen kazillion species supposedly went extinct. Supposedly we are in the midst of a gigantic die off.

            OK. Name one of these species.

            Even if you grant that x number of species are going extinct every year try asking how many new species are being created or what the past rate of extinction was if you use the definition of species that’s being used now.

            Neither of those questions have answers – the original claim is purely rhetorical.

            • jim says:

              I would expect that in a rapidly greening earth, zero extinctions, and a small number of new species every year. When the greening stops, then claims that species are becoming extinct may well come true, inevitably will come true sooner or later, but today, not happening.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                I’d expect high extinctions even on a greening Earth.

                Specization happens in new niches, some predator adapts, new species numbers go to zero for new species that try to take over that niche until you hit on a few species that are both well adapted to the new niche as well as adapted to survive predation in the new niche.

                Kind of like a “most new businesses fail in the first x years” type thing.

          • Koanic says:

            I never paid attention to coral bleaching.

            Because there is a distracting conflict between crazy Marxist anti-white greens and white people who want to live and work, we are apt to miss that global industrialization is massively reducing Earth’s biosphere density.

            Which is a real problem with solutions such as, possibly:
            1. Control 3rd world pollution
            2. Internalize costs of spraying glyphosphates or whatever is killing all the bugs
            3. Mandate sabbath year rests for agricultural land and fisheries
            4. Privatize national parks
            5. Nationalism

            > Sattelite photographs of the earth show the earth has become massively greener. Total leaf area has roughly doubled since we started putting up satellites.

            Ok. I wasn’t worried about the leafy terrestrial plant life, but the rest of it. For example, I read that aerial bug density and ocean wildlife density have both precipitously declined. It’s thin anecdata, but the pattern fits.

            The forests growing back makes sense. We aren’t chopping them down for fuel and farmland anymore, in most places.

            I’m not terribly concerned about extinctions, since I believe in easy speciation via hybridization, when ecological niches are available.

            • jim says:

              > global industrialization is massively reducing Earth’s biosphere density.

              I spend a fair bit of time in the wilderness and in the country, and the Earth’s biosphere density looks to me to be roughly what it was forty years ago.

              How do you know that the earth’s biosphere density is reducing?

              • Koanic says:

                Maybe it isn’t. Maybe you aren’t looking for it because you’re prejudiced against seeing it. Maybe you are looking in areas that aren’t noticeably affected.

                I haven’t observed any of this firsthand. Just some links and comments I read.

                My concern is that neither side is taking this sort of threat seriously, thereby allowing the tragedy of the commons to play out. At some level of crap pumped into the biosphere, there will be a problem.

                It’s probably hard to permanently put a dent in Earth, but the other side of the coin is what we’re doing to people – IQ and testosterone reduction, immune disease, etc.

              • Koanic says:


                Here’s a link about the insects. I found the reports about the ocean more disturbing overall, although the insect dearth is more directly relevant to side effects for humans.

                • jim says:

                  This is agitprop, not science but holiness.

                  How do they know that insects are declining? Because “science says”?

                • jim says:

                  Roberty Boyle on the Scientific Method:

                  Shortly after he published this, the scientific method received Royal Backing:

                  Whence it is come to passe, that divers Chymical Notions about Matters Philosophical are taken for granted and employ’d, and so adopted by very eminent Writers both Naturalists and Physitians. Now this I fear may prove somewhat prejudicial to the Advancement of solid Philosophy: For though I am a great Lover of Chymical Experiments, and though I have no mean esteem of divers Chymical Remedies, yet I distinguish these from their Notions about the causes of things, and their manner of Generation. And for ought I can hitherto discern, there are a thousand Phænomena in Nature, besides a Multitude of Accidents relating to the humane Body, which will scarcely be clearly & satisfactorily made out by them that confine themselves to deduce things from Salt, Sulphur and Mercury, and the other Notions peculiar to the Chymists, without taking much more Notice than they are wont to do, of the Motions and Figures, of the small Parts of Matter, and the other more Catholick and Fruitful affections of Bodies. Wherefore it will not perhaps be now unseasonable to let our Carneades warne Men, not to subscribe to the grand Doctrine of the Chymists touching their three Hypostatical Principles, till they have a little examin’d it, and consider’d, how they can clear it from his Objections, divers of which ’tis like they may never have thought on; since a Chymist scarce would, and none but a Chymist could propose them. I hope also it will not be unacceptable to several Ingenious Persons, who are unwilling to determine of any important Controversie, without a previous consideration of what may be said on both sides, and yet have greater desires to understand Chymical Matters, than Opportunities of learning them, to find here together, besides several Experiments of my own purposely made to Illustrate the Doctrine of the Elements, divers others scarce to be met with, otherwise then Scatter’d among many Chymical Books. And to Find these Associated Experiments so Deliver’d as that an Ordinary Reader, if he be but Acquainted with the usuall Chymical Termes, may easily enough Understand Them; and even a wary One may safely rely on Them. These Things I add, because a Person any Thing vers’d in the Writings of Chymists cannot but Discern by their obscure, Ambiguous, and almost Ænigmatical Way of expressing what they pretend to Teach, that they have no Mind, to be understood at all, but by the Sons of Art (as they call them) nor to be Understood even by these without Difficulty And Hazardous Tryalls. Insomuch that some of Them Scarce ever speak so candidly, as when they make use of that known Chymical Sentence; Ubi palam locuti fumus, ibi nihil diximus. And as the obscurity of what some Writers deliver makes it very difficult to be understood; so the Unfaithfulness of too many others makes it unfit to be reli’d on. For though unwillingly, Yet I must for the truths sake, and the Readers, warne him not to be forward to believe Chymical Experiments when they are set down only by way of Prescriptions, and not of Relations; that is, unless he that delivers them mentions his doing it upon his own particular knowledge, or upon the Relation of some credible person, avowing it upon his own experience. For I am troubled, I must complain, that even Eminent Writers, both Physitians and Philosophers, whom I can easily name, if it be requir’d, have of late suffer’d themselves to be so far impos’d upon, as to Publish and Build upon Chymical Experiments, which questionless they never try’d; for if they had, they would, as well as I, have found them not to be true. And indeed it were to be wish’d, that now that those begin to quote Chymical Experiments that are not themselves Acquainted with Chymical Operations, men would Leave off that Indefinite Way of Vouching the Chymists say this, or the Chymists affirme that, and would rather for each Experiment they alledge name the Author or Authors, upon whose credit they relate it; For, by this means they would secure themselves from the suspition of falshood (to which the other Practice Exposes them) and they would Leave the Reader to Judge of what is fit for him to Believe of what is Deliver’d, whilst they employ not their own great names to Countenance doubtfull Relations; and they will also do Justice to the Inventors or Publishers of true Experiments, as well as upon the Obtruders of false ones. Whereas by that general Way of quoting the Chymists, the candid Writer is Defrauded of the particular Praise, and the Impostor escapes the Personal Disgrace that is due to him.

                • jim says:

                  If they don’t tell you how they know, in the sense that you can find that such and such an individual did such and such, and then observed with his own eyes such and such a thing, and his conclusions followed reasonably from what he did with his own hands and saw with his own eyes

                  Then they are probably lying.

                • jim says:

                  If an official science report is not following the scientific method as explained by Robert Boyle in “The Sceptical Chymist”, and subsequently socially enforced by King Charles the Second and the Royal society;

                  Then lying.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Koanic’s link describes German entomologists putting up tent insect traps, and finding fewer insects in them over a summer in 2014 than in 1989. The entomologists are not named, but a name, Martin Sorg, is associated with the experiment.

                  How does this fail to be “[telling] you how they know, in the sense that you can find that such and such an individual did such and such, and then observed with his own eyes such and such a thing, and his conclusions followed reasonably from what he did with his own hands and saw with his own eyes”?

                  Maybe tent traps are not a reasonable way of measuring insect numbers. Or maybe insect numbers in that area of Germany have nothing to do with insect numbers elsewhere, or maybe the experiment is rendered invalid by the area the entomologists looked at becoming urbanized over the decades while they stupidly/deliberately didn’t move the traps, or something similar. Assuming the experiment is a lie, one would have to find the original report and read it to find what its error was.

                  Is it reasonable to assume that someone is lying even if they superficially tell you how they know, in terms of specific people doing specific things with their hands and eyes, if they do not provide sufficient methodological detail? Or is it only reasonable to assume this if the person supposedly telling you how he knows is known to be hostile, e.g. a Yale environmentalist?

                  None of these questions are rhetorical. They don’t teach you this stuff in school.

                • jim says:

                  I would like the link to be a link in a chain of links that straightforwardly and directly takes me to people who say “I put up the same trap in the same place, and lately I have been catching fewer insects.”, implying that he did it his own hands, and saw the insects with his own eyes.

                  That is what Robert Boyle asked for, which request subsequently became a demand was socially enforced by King Charles the Second, which demand was generally complied with until Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society following World War II.

                • jim says:

                  If you look at the old stuff from the Royal Society, an identifiable person used an identifiable method.

                  You could get away with simply saying “so and so said such and such”, but you were supposed to link to a paper by so and so, or by the person personally supervising so and so who was there when so and so did such and such.

                  Boyle complains that if you don’t do it that way, then the incentives to tell the truth are not present, since hard to identify who is responsible for untruth. And Boyle tells us that if the incentives for truth are not present, chances are you will not get truth.

                  And to what Boyle said, I would add that if the untruth is holier than the truth …

                • Koanic says:

                  I used to love bugs as a kid. As an adult, I have been momentarily depressed a number of times about the dearth of bugs in various areas. This doesn’t prove anything; I spend more time in urban areas as an adult. But it influences me to believe stories like this:


                  If a similar thing is happening to the oceans, that is bad. And given the way oceans are managed, I find it hard to believe otherwise. I live in the Hong Kong area, and the ocean does not look happy to me. Not quite as bad as a butterfly in Beijing, but pretty bad.

                • jim says:

                  For obvious reasons, the immediate vicinity of Hong Kong is unlikely to be representative. Try going forty kilometers away to Miaowancun, and tell me what you see.

                • Koanic says:

                  Naturally; I don’t take Beijing as representative either. Here’s the link that spurred my recent concern for the state of the ocean:


                • jim says:

                  One unknown person claims to have seen stuff, and claims that everyone he knows sees the same stuff – which story demonstrates his superior holiness.

                  I don’t see what he sees.

                • Koanic says:

                  Sure. I didn’t even read the linked article until just now, because I assumed it would be the usual environmentalist babble. I was only scanning through the comments to follow certain high IQ posters. That discussion is what set off alarm bells.

                  Here’s another comment collection for the same article:


                  My assumption regarding the linked article is that it is an honest but nonrepresentative, dramatized account. Or he could be lying. Either way, I’d like to see some data showing we aren’t polluting ocean wildlife to zero within the next 500 years.

                • peppermint says:

                  Q) Who keeps Chinese fishing boats from overfishing in Somalian territorial water?
                  A) the Chinese are Buddhist/Marxist, which are both better than Christian, and would never do such a thing, and the lightbulb heads are capable of taking care of their own environment.

              • peppermint says:

                China being the major polluter and overfisher is already driving our gommies from caring about the global environment. So now you’re worried about bugs in the backyard. I hate them and want more bats and toads, but they’re putting chemicals in the water to turn the frickin frogs gay.

Leave a Reply