Scientific Climate

wsj-temps-lg2 (Click on image to enlarge.)

(Via.)

One thing to emphasize — ‘science’ is the data, as well as the error. This is not a picture of black hole, uncorrectable reality denial, of the kind familiar from political economy. That said, the speculative hypothesis was turned into a story for public promotion, and then into something very close to an official dogma. Now that it isn’t holding together, this type of thing starts happening.

Has the scientific establishment ever been so off-beam, in the entire history of the West? Not only wrong, but aggressively doctrinaire, and politically assertive in the direction of error? For anybody who esteems the development of natural science as the single greatest historical achievement of the Occidental world, the AGW saga has been a hideous embarrassment. Our institutions are broken.

ADDED: It’s war.

ADDED: “This is the original sin of the global warming theory: that it was founded in a presumption of guilt against industrial civilization. All of the billions of dollars in government research funding and the entire cultural establishment that has been built up around global warming were founded on the presumption that we already knew the conclusion — we’re ‘ravaging the planet’ — and we’re only interested in evidence that supports that conclusion.”

February 21, 2014admin 73 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , ,

73 Responses to this entry

  • Ademonos Says:

    Why is it important to assert the failure of global warming? As reactionaries, why are we not supporting the measures (if not the myth)?
    As reactionaries, should we not be opposed to almost everything connected with industrial society, like pollution, the destruction of our heritage in the form of nature (ie deforestation et al) and harmful labour arrangements?
    Why are we defending the ultimate expressions of materialist victory? Is this not Stockholm syndrome, or am I missing something?

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    You’re missing a whole lot, but start here: http://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/conflict/

    [Reply]

    Ademonos Reply:

    I already read that a while ago. What am I missing? Rooting for capitalism/futurism/militaristic progress does not mean that we are not allowed to oppose harmful stuff (the article speculates as much, but the line seems to be undecided). We are not stuck with industrial society or nothing; that’s a convenient but absurd excuse.
    As for global warming myth specifically (disregarding its truthfulness or lack of suck); the Cathedral is in favour, why are we in opposition (seeing as it would be zero-loss to be in favour)? My questions were intended to highlight reactionary considerations in relation to this.

    [Reply]

    Ademonos Reply:

    *lack of such. Sorry.

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    Complaining about “militarism”, an odd terminology for a reactionary to take…

    Do I smell the whiff of entryism here?

    Ademonos Reply:

    I complained about no such thing. I don’t dislike militarism, I find it to be highly necessary.
    But, oh no! Someone disagrees with some of my positions, they must be attempting to subvert my exclusive internet movement!
    If your positions are non-fragile, you don’t mind debating them.

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    Well, ademonos wants the human species marooned on a single habitat for one thing. I object to those who would want to reduce the survivability of the noosphere.

    Hurlock Reply:

    When we have to lie to ourselves in order to preserve a supposedly preferable social order we are in effect no different than progressives. They do the exact same thing. If we too deny reality just to suit an arbitrary agenda doomed to fail,(because duh, it does not correspond to reality) then there ain’t a lot of merit to neoreaction. We are undermining ourselves if we are willing to accept magical thinking just because it fits and agenda we like.

    Besides, what is up with this demonization of industrial society? I seriously don’t understand why so many neoreactionaries seem to get a hard-on talking about the supposed evils of industrialization and “materialism” (this term is, by the way, thrown around so loosely it might warrant the same classification as words like “neoliberalism” and “fascism”) The industrial revolution was the single greatest period of development in human history. Whatever remnants of past greatness the western world still maintains are all the result from the industrial revolution.
    Notice how while you have fast industrial development and “materialist victory” standards are rising, overall wealth is rising, technology is actually moving forward very fast (in all sectors) and you even have a very good hierarchical social structure based on actual merit. Of course in this system you actually have to earn what you get. And a lot of people ain’t happy with that. You then get all kinds of suffrage movements, emancipation movements, feminist movements, socialist movements, all demanding a nanny state to take from the big bad rich people who they are being “exploited” by and give more to them. Of course the trade off for the government is that it grows. Massively. Which of course leads to more and more leftist government acting as the “Robin Hood” of the country taking from the people who are actually productive and giving to the envious parasitic underclass (while of course saving a pretty decent amount for themselves). And soon you get more and more “for the little guy” policies, huge taxes, universal suffrage, civil rights movement, animal rights movement, environmentalist movement, insert-leftist-bullshit-here movement, and so on. Culminating in people like Al Gore making billions by effectively running a giant scam on the whole world. Hey, but those evil capitalists got what they deserved didn’t they? No. These parasites are swines. Their hunger is insantiable. They can’t be satisfied. They only want to revel in gluttonous debauch, the economy be damned. And when this whole disgusting process is taken to its limit everything collapses on itself and you end up with, this has been pointed out before – zombie apocalypse.

    For everyone who preaches against capitalism so much, I would suggest they learn their history properly. A quick scan of the past 1500 years demonstrates quite clearly how for about a 1000 years, the western world (europe) develops at a similar rate as the eastern world (middle east, east asia). It even lags behind for quite some time. Science and technology were actually for some time in the middle ages more advanced in the east than in the west. And very often eastern empires were actually much more powerful than western empires. Think of the Mongol Empire – still to this day I think the biggest empire by territory ever made.
    So, we observe a very close movement in terms of overall development between east and west (once again with the west lagging behind at some points in time). But then something happens. At around the 16th century, after the discovery of America and at the time of the reformation and the beginning of the Enlightenment, the west starts developing at a much faster rate. The western world essentially experiences a huge boom in its developments which accelerates even more with the start of the industrial revolution in the 18th century. This process keeps going and going up until the end of the 19th centruy when the western world is effectively the whole world. Europeans have succeded in colonizing the whole wide world, something that just four centuries ago seemed and impossible fairy tale. This was all made possible by the massive technological development and industrial revolution made possible by the enlightenment. Now, as everyone who has read their Moldbug knows, the Reformation and subsequent Enlightment would actually create a lot of big problems, but we should not disregard what they did achieve. And during the enlightenment we do observe european civilization experiencing a huge technological boom and territorial expansion, allowing it to become the single greatest civilization ever known to man. But then…something went wrong and everything went to shit. And we get where we are today. We all know the picture. It ain’t pretty.
    The point I am trying to make is that neoreaction should not be focused on reversing the industrial revolution. First it’s impossible, second, why the fuck would you want to do that? I though we are about preserving western civilization not regressing it back to german tribes raiding roman provinces. The height of western civilization was at the time of the massive industrialization you view as so evil. Well if industrialization is evil and technological development is evil, well where does that leave civilization? We should be asking ourserlves what the fuck went wrong at some point so that this whole glorious “western civilization is the greatest that ever existed” thing we had going was ruined. This of course involves exploring societal structures that predate the whole process, but mystical condemnation of “materialist” industrialization is anything but productive. And I got the impression we are about preserving civilization, not reversing it.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Please excuse the repetitiveness which at points sounds like redundant rambling, should have edited the post more carefully.

    [Reply]

    Ademonos Reply:

    First off, you are ignoring a couple of very explicit parts of my post. For one, I did not advocate relying on lies in order to push policy (I asked why we were not supporting the measures, not why we aren’t supporting the myth). We should be clear on why we are pushing policy and push it from there. On these matters, I find these policies to be rather unclear (hence my questions).
    Secondly, I was very clear with defining the questions from a reactionary perspective. Your answer is essentially from a progressive perspective. I think I can identify a dividing line within reaction; reactionaries, and faux-reactionaries who are actually just intelligent progressives who have realized that what we have is not really progress but something else (you, our host, and Moldbug belonging to the latter).
    A reactionary is reacting against something. You listed a lot of it in your post, but the issue here is that you are designating the ‘bad stuff’ as side-effects rather than looking at the direct causation that would be obvious without the progressive goggles. It is obvious that our current conundrums are direct results of the industrial restructuring of our civilization, and not the result of something which went wrong, that can be corrected once we know exactly what it was and how to avoid it.
    When it comes to the merits of industrial society I think we must strongly disagree; where you see it as the source of most of our civilization, I see most of our civilization as having survived *despite* industrialization. I view our civilization as a mode of existence, a set of higher values, a cultural (which is fully unrelated to technical development) heritage.
    I’m not saying that we should back, because I don’t think that would be possible – and industrialization was probably deterministic either way (but for as much as it’s worth, if it *were* possible to go back and stop industrialization from happening again, I would not hesitate in doing so at all). What I am saying is that we should critically examine every aspect of progress, not just the ones we dislike the most. At this stage it might be very possible to move onto post-industrialism, so we should weigh our fish before eating it.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    So you are supporting the same measures the progrressives are suporting, while I am opposing them, yet I get called the crypto-progressive here. Riiight. Doesn’t the fact that progressives are pushing the same idea you are attracted to make you reconsider your position a little?

    Of course a reactionary is a reactionary against something. If you didn’t notice I AM reacting against something. Quite explicitly so. And yes, even if it is reaction against the fact that progress is no longer the thing that it used to be and is simply a buzzword thrown around to mask the actual decline, is it any less of a reaction?

    Sure, call me a faux-reactionary. I guess I am, since I want to preserve the civilization that we still have and go back to a time when we actually were developing and not regressing back into primitivism… Such name calling is actually quite silly and inane. I could leverage a similar accusation against you. In my eyes progressives will ultimately lead to the collapse of all the civilizational progress (oh no I said the forbidden word) that we have been able to achieve. You actually want a similar thing, the only difference being that you are being explicit about it.

    Now obviously for you and me the word “civilization” means two different things and debating the topic seems pointless.(and would be largely unproductive) For me civilization is ultimately consummated in accelerating technological development as in the case in the industrial revolution. For you, it obviously means something else entirely. So I guess we could just brush this off as a simple matter of religious difference and call it a day. (as consensus seems largely impossible at this stage)

    Ademonos Reply:

    Look, when it comes to policy, the two sides of a spectrum are not diametrically opposed. Reasoning along the lines of ‘If you are X, then I must by -Y’ is quite frankly preposterous, and it could be dismissed as being simply amusing were it not so immensely harmful. One should understand both the background and the implications of policy before adhering to or opposing it.

    I am happy that we understand each other beyond that, though, even though religious agreement does seem to be out of the question. I think this line does need to be taken further, though. It’s important to know what we actually mean when we say ‘reactionary’, ‘progressive’ and ‘neoreactionary’. Is ‘neoreactionary’ just a term for a progressive who understands that what we have right now is not progress? How is moral and technological progress related? What is progress, and reaction, when we define them more contextually?

    These rifts were determined fairly early on, but I think the definitions and borders were off. It needs another sweep.

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Progressivism is a fantasy role-playing game (FRPG) played by people who are too crazy to realize that it’s a game. Reaction is the realization that the political elites in the developed world are insane.

    I started listening to a podcast on religion and witchcraft accusations in Africa. It suddenly dawned on me that I was exposed to essentially the same phenomenon on Tuesday at a compulsory “Innovation and Inclusion” training seminar. The presenter experienced some misfortune (mother’s suicide, sister’s disappearance), and he’s basically accusing me of witchcraft.

    http://www.researchonreligion.org/world-region/africa/robert-priest-on-witchcraft-accusations-in-africa

    Ademonos Reply:

    Well, that’s a neat example of progress in action, but I don’t think that’s the essence of it.

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    Putting esoteric moral/cultural “development” over actual physical developments like SpaceX…
    Odd position for someone to take in the Dark Enlightenment since DE puts actual observations over that of of vague mystery.

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    Stop industrial revolution? Can’t spread the species across the solar system without spacecraft. And you need technological advancement to improve access to orbit. Spreading life to more places enhances survival. It’s an odd position for an acolyte of DE (ademonos claims to be so) to oppose actual physical advancement in favor of mystical “advancement” (seems a bit puritanical…..)

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    Ademonos thinks it’s better for the human species to be stuck on one habitat than to spread life to other habitats.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    The 16th century is probably too late.

    http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2013/11/another-look-at-rise-of-west-but-with.html

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Yes.

    See also: Nick Szabo

    James Franklin, summarized by the final paragraph, about Petrarch.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Uncomfortably, the progressive package got started at about the same time.

    Professor Zaius Reply:

    Hurlock-

    http://www.basvanleeuwen.net/bestanden/Economic%20stability%20in%20Great%20Empires_11March2013.pdf

    The level of economic development of Western Europe diverged much earlier than 1500. Read Gregory Clark’s A Farewell to Alms for more data on this phenomenon. The cultural trends that drove economic development in the North Sea region were in place centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution, Protestantism, Capitalism, or the Enlightenment. My aim in pointing this out is that the roots of prosperity run deep in Western Civilization, and we can afford to be selective in what aspects of modernity to accept or reject.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Well, sure the Roman empire has higher welfare levels. But comparing them with Egypt is somewhat pointless (Egypt is technically run by greeks at the time and is in decline). Dunno much about the Han empire, I know it was big, but not much else. Anyways, the fact that the Roman empire had great standart of living compared to other empires at the time is no surprise. To this day, the Roman Empire is considered to be the greatest empire, ever. That would be a pretty innaccurate conclusion if we had already someone at the time who was ahead of them. Plus, I was talking specifically about the last 1500 years. i.e. the time after the western Roman empire fell, the middle ages. In the ancient world, especially before the romans the centre of the world is pretty much mesopotamia and the most western thing you have is ancient greece and the greeks, who, despite being immensely advanced, never really had an empire. But I digress.

    Point is, I was never talking about the ancient world, because that is a whole other topic altogether and would require different analysis. For example you don’t have christianity back then which only by itself changes the situation immensely. Saying that there were cultural trends that drove the Roman empire to become the greatest ever is not saying much, really. Question is, what were those trends? And what happened to them? They got kinda lost for almost a millenia after the Romans fell, so what’s up with that? (well not entirely lost but you won’t find anything similar to the old Roman Empire in the middle ages) Obviously the ancients were doing something right. This is somewhat confirmed by the fact that the great expansion and technological development of Europe starts with the Renaissance which was an attempted revival of ancient cultural values (even though it wasn’t really succesful in that regard it did accelerate technological development)
    I myself said the exact same thing – we should be selective about aspects of modernity. I wouldn’t be here if I liked everything about modernity. But we shouldn’t be trying to reverse the industrial revolution. That’s just retarded. Not only because it is impossible, but because it is retarded. Seriously. And I would think that of all places it would be here where I wouldn’t have to put up with the most autistic arguments against capitalism and industrialization. There are people like Spandrell for example who critique the capitalist position quite adequately.
    But when the logical conclusion of your argument is that technology is evil, I think you are following the wrong movement.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    You are buying into myth-making about the renaissance. Especially with respect to technology, the middle ages were not stagnant and the ‘Renaissance’ wasn’t an acceleration of pace.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    The Cathedral is the Big Lie. Global Warming is a case study.

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    Because who whom

    “Global warming”, carbon credit trading scheme, etc translates directly to more power for people who hate me

    [Reply]

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    Concern troll is concerned.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If neoreactionaries were simply reactionaries, why would they have complicated their self-description?

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    Sure, Kaczynski was right, as far as it goes. But globowarmthinkery isn’t going to de-industrialize and re-wild the world. The people who want that have no power and they never will. All globowarmthinkery is going to do is keep us stuck at this (unfortunate) stage of development for a longer period of time. Europe might recede from the world stage as it de-industrializes, but China will just defect from the de-industrialization program and show us what an industrial hell *really* looks like.

    The only way out of modernity is through it. And it’s up to us, who were born in this age, to push through it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 21st, 2014 at 9:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Mike Says:

    The global warming entryism has begun in the past week or so.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    @Mike Yeah, entryist attack .

    That or the AGW people who can’t admit it’s a scam, or both

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 21st, 2014 at 12:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • bob sykes Says:

    It is improper to average the model results (or calculate a variance among them) because the different predictions are not random, they are systematic. So the average and variance are statistically meaningless. This point has been elaborated on several climate blogs.

    There are 95 or so climate models in use, but only 3 or 4 actually track the measured (and adjusted) temperatures, so 91 or 92 models have been falsified. But the remaining 3 or 4 are still in the game pending more data.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Systematic discrepancy in a single direction is itself informative. The yawning chasm between the dominant narrative and raw data tells us something.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 21st, 2014 at 1:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    @ Ademonos

    While your objections are understandable, eg: “As reactionaries, should we not be opposed to almost everything connected with industrial society, like pollution, the destruction of our heritage in the form of nature (ie deforestation et al) and harmful labour arrangements?,” your proposed counter-factual or “path out” contains incoherent assumptions.

    You mentioned, “if it *were* possible to go back and stop industrialization from happening again, I would not hesitate in doing so at all.” Are you assuming that other civilizations would not see benefits in industrialization? Would those benefits include a greater ability to increase their range through conflict or other means? If not, are you in favor of employing an outside force that would limit all human discovery into the material world? What means would such a force employ? How would it delineate a legitimate discovery from those harmful to the “heritage.”

    You state, “the issue here is that you are designating the ‘bad stuff’ as side-effects rather than looking at the direct causation that would be obvious without the progressive goggles.” This seems to be a direct argument against something akin to capitalism or libertarianism, yet you also appear to hint at the non-aggression principle or similar.

    [Reply]

    Ademonos Reply:

    I did not propose a “path out” (I actually don’t really know of any good ones, that’s why I am asking questions instead of giving answers), and I said that I would not hesitate to reverse industrialization *if it were possible* – which it is obviously not. We can only work with what we’ve got. I do believe that large parts of industrialism are however avoidable; militarism, capitalism and industrialism are not hard-wired together.
    What I *am* opposed to is an all-or-nothing approach; capitalism as such is not inherently bad, but many aspects of industrialization are. We need to examine everything and honestly ask ourselves ‘What is this thing here good for? What benefits does it provide, and what are the side effects? Do they outweigh the benefits?’, rather than assuming that every element is necessary. This is just common sense, though, and I think most neoreactionaries are already doing this – but it doesn’t hurt to point out that sometimes the emperor is indeed naked.
    Obviously I am coming from a hyper-reactionary perspective here, so I am indeed opposed to uncontrolled capitalism and/or libertarianism (the motivation having already been discussed now, I think). As for the non-aggression principle, I don’t know which part of my post(s) you mean.
    Apologies if I am knotting things up here; I’ve somewhat lost track of the direction of this whole argument.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Thank you for clarifying.

    This statement ““the issue here is that you are designating the ‘bad stuff’ as side-effects rather than looking at the direct causation that would be obvious without the progressive goggles.” reads as though you mean that the “bad stuff” IS a necessary element.

    [Reply]

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    You would want to reverse industrialization. Marooning the species on one habitat is not a good survival strategy. You need technological advancement to get spaceships.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    No tech, no space. No space, no exit.

    nydwracu Reply:

    No tech, the entirety of human existence becomes a cosmic-scale act of masturbation, a pointless exercise with nothing to show for it beyond didgeridoos and penis gourds.

    No tech in your tribe, your tribe goes the way of the Tasmanians unless it’s stuck someplace that isn’t worth conquering.

    Posted on February 21st, 2014 at 2:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • SGW Says:

    I haven’t really looked into the issue of global warming, but I fail to see what benefits can be gained from aligning with the greens. Global warming is a global problem, policy is made on the national level. Implementing significant regulatory measures would simply result in industry moving to territories with a less obstructive regulatory environment. Instead of polluting and producing in a western territory it would be done in a foreign territory.

    If there is no meaningful means of punishing states that refrain from pursuing similar levels of environmental protection as we do in the west it will always be tempting for those territories to defect. I don’t really see a means to do so, so why should we not defect and enjoy our higher standard of living and degree of power?

    The only real benefits of impoverishing ourselves through these measures, besides the good feelies, is the fact that such measures may make it unattractive for less than desirable immigrants to move here, the dysgenic trend would probably be reversed if the policies were pursued far enough, there would no longer be a lot to redistribute and the welfare state would collapse, people would become more dependent on their family and community and so on.

    Regardless of prosperity enabling certain problematic demographic groups, I don’t really think their behavior quite justifies taking pole position in a race to the bottom of the civilizational ladder. At least not as long as there are still reasonable solutions to the problems caused by certain thedes.

    [Reply]

    Ademonos Reply:

    Ah, but here’s the beauty of it: good policies are set upstream, not downstream. Consumption is upstream to production, therefore we regulate consumption – not the industry. Consumption mainly occurs within our own territories. (But of course such policies would be evil and fascist, because they violate individual rights, am I right?).
    To be honest, what matters most to me is the state of affairs in our own countries. Reducing industry here would achieve a lot of positive results, like the ones you mentioned (I strongly disagree about this being a ‘race to the bottom of the civilization ladder’ – we’ve got different definitions of ‘civilization’ here) as well as just generally living in a nicer environment (industry is a nasty thing by most measures except for utility). In my opinion, Global Warming is one of the less relevant aspects (if our main goal were to stop GW specifically, though, big guns are always useful – you said that there would be no meaningful way of punishing non-adherents, but of course there is).
    Industrialism is not synonymous with prosperity. That’s an absurd notion, really.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    We’ve had lots of positive results reducing industry in the US, benefits have gone way up.

    Benefits claims that is, not to mention crime and undercutting the Father Figure’s ability to earn a living.

    Apparently the Hyper-Reactionary position is: Progressive. All the way to going to war to stop Industrialization.

    You didn’t lose track of the thread, just your own bullshit.

    Hey it even happens to Arab Sheiks and Defense Lawyers. Don’t feel bad.

    [Reply]

    Ademonos Reply:

    You’ve got your causality all tangled up. We haven’t actually reduced industry, because we’re in a global zero-sum system. We’ve moved it, while still maintaining our dependence on it. Which is, of course, bad.
    I did not advocate going to war in order to stop industrialization, that was your interpolation. I was contesting a contestable statement. I don’t think it is necessary to stop industrialism in other countries (even though it would be ‘nice’).

    Ex-pat in Oz Reply:

    THIS…

    and Ademonos, you sound like Dr. Zaius telling Taylor not to go into the Forbidden Zone…maybe leave it be

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    Ademonos has the progressive definition of “progress” and “civilization”, that’s why his definition is so different from ours. He rejects actual physical observations of civilization, instead he favors puritanical moral “observations” of civilization.

    Note his objections to materialism.

    [Reply]

    SGW Reply:

    I doubt that consumption is easier to regulate than production. If a nation purposely regulates industrial markets badly then people can’t afford to import and consume a lot of goodies, if a nation purposely regulates consumer markets badly, then you eventually get black markets and smuggling. Illegal production tends to be accompanied by obvious tells such as heavy electric use and the purchasing of large quantities of certain chemicals, illegal consumption is basically impossible to tell with exception of things like clothing, cars, make-up and housing.

    With race to the bottom I was primarily referring to the immigration issue. If you want to keep Arabs out, then you have to build a society that is less attractive than Arabic ones, if you want to keep Africans out, then I wish you a lot of a luck. Obviously there are many variables between societies through which they differentiate from each other, but certain variables (wealth, security, cleanliness) overshadow others in importance, hence why there are a lot of people who move to Europe and the US and very few that move in the opposite direction.

    The ‘positive’ results only appear once you reach (near) Malthusian levels. In the USSR even after the revolutionary stage dysgenics was still present (except in the DDR), family and society may have been slightly stronger than in the west, if Hoppe is to be believed, but it hardly seems to have been at 18th century level or even the 19th century level. Pollution and heavy industry were obviously enough still prevalent. The price for some relatively minor social gains were greater levels of corruption, at best 2/3 of the wealth of a capitalist country, and significantly less soft and hard power.

    You’d have to be less wealthy than the people in the USSR to get to the stage where a person can’t provide for his own subsistence without relying heavily on his community, or at all for that matter. I’m not sure whether you are satisfied with the level of wealth and economic development of lets say the DDR or whether a lower level of prosperity is preferred by you to reach certain social ends, but there should be an alarm going off right around now in your mind if you consider yourself a reactionary and advocate for policies that would result in similar results as those that happen with socialist policies.

    Whether the DDR was Prussia with socialist characteristics or socialism with Prussian characteristics is debatable, but I don’t really see why it would be preferred over ye olde Prussia. Anyway, wealth enables social folly, it doesn’t necessarily cause it. Doing away with wealth to achieve some social goal is rather silly. If you have to power to do away with wealth, then you also have the power to reach your social goal. Why not obtain your social goal in a wealthy society rather than a poor one?

    I don’t really understand exactly what your endgame is, you talk a little about cultural this and that, but it isn’t clear to me how opposing the industrial revolution helps you in that aspect. As skeptical as reading NR blogs has made me of the desirability of revolutions, generally speaking I’d still say that the economical revolutions, the neolithic, the industrial and the digital one, are more good than bad. Perhaps you could clarify why the economic revolutions are also undesirable?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Consumption is upstream to production, therefore we regulate consumption …” — I know a lot of reactionary types enjoy imagining what it would be like to be the government. Dreams of this kind should at least be prefaced by an acknowledgement that we’re not.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 21st, 2014 at 3:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    @ Peter would be fascinated to hear more about the I&I / witchcraft analogy – I have experienced similar feelings myself at such training sessions, which are the equiverlent of cognitive-rape to the cognisant attendee / non-believer.

    [Reply]

    I love the HR Dept. Reply:

    Thoughts on “Inclusion and Innovation” training:

    1. I need to add the word “privilege” to my list of Orwellian words (e.g. “democracy”, “fascism”, “racism”) that are politically useful only because they can be assigned multiple meanings and thus lend themselves to fallacies of ambiguity.

    2. The presenter talked about how we “insiders” are privileged, and need to be more solicitous toward “outsiders”. This did not sit well with me, being the sort of person who identifies with Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory because of my mad social skilz.

    3. You’re evil for thinking ill of people who display tattoos unnecessarily at job interviews. This inspires me to overcome my fear of rejection and finally get that tattoo I’ve been considering for a long time, in big bold letters on my forehead, echoing the immortal words of Daniel Goldin: “Pale, male, and stale.”

    4. I am disinclined to fill out the survey associated with this training. It feels too much like artillery spotting for the enemy.

    5. The only reason minorities are underrepresented in intellectually demanding jobs is because of bad hiring decisions on the part of “insiders”. I have never been in a position to hire or fire anyone, yet this is apparently my fault. Otherwise, what’s the point of my being obliged to take this “training”?

    6. The presenter tells of coming to the US as a child, traveling with soldiers returning returning from Viet Nam, and having things thrown at him by protestors. This is apparently my fault. Otherwise, why am I taking the training?

    7. The presenter tells of his mother’s suicide and his sister’s disappearance. Again, this is apparently my fault.

    8. Robert Priest explains on the podcast that in some cultures, when misfortune strikes, people respond like Job’s friends in the Bible. If you’re unlucky, you must have done something to deserve it, even if it was in a previous life. In other cultures, if you’re unlucky, one of your neighbors must be practicing witchcraft, and you should kill him. Evidence is not necessary. The opinion of a diviner is sufficient.

    That seems like a summary of the I&I training. Some people are unfortunate. Is it their own fault? No. Is it just dumb luck? No. It’s my fault. Apparently I’ve been practicing witchcraft all these years, out of sheer malevolence, without knowing it. Evidence and logic are irrelevant. (The mechanism by which this witchcraft operates is apparently not well understood, even by the most advanced diviners.)

    9. You’re quite right that the experience of these things is completely different depending on what thede you belong to. One friend who shall remain nameless was enthusiastic about all of us having to take this “training”. Why? I can imagine some high rollers might want to promote this “Evil Optimates and Vaisyas are practicing witchcraft against minorities and women” narrative as a form of battlespace preparation for the next election cycle. But this friend is not a political professional, and not all that well-connected. All I can see him getting out of it is emotional gratification, reassurance of the moral superiority of his thede over mine.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 21st, 2014 at 3:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    So is this is independent verification of the tropic troposphere data?

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 21st, 2014 at 7:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “global zero-sum system” of industrialization.

    We don’t particularly want a global system around here.

    We don’t particularly want De-industrializaton.

    We don’t want to end capitalism.

    I would much rather add to for instance the sum up from zero of industries in the Rust Belt. Because people are going to use goods and that means someone’s going to make them. China can have zero, we can have the sum. It’s not by the way a zero sum game at all, unless your concerned about AGW, the Phantom Menace.

    We’re rather concerned with real menaces. Whom I am addressing now.

    And he’s not Dr. Zaius, he’s the Orangutang accusing the chimp scientists of scientific heresy. The forbidden zone is…Truth.

    I didn’t use the term causality, I called Bullshit.

    Listen I can do this all day if you like. I just don’t think AGW will find a home here.

    [Reply]

    Ademonos Reply:

    Now you’re just being irrational and intentionally misinterpreting what I was saying on almost every point. Good evening.

    [Reply]

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    Given that your notions of civilization coincide with that of progressives and that you reject objective observations of actual physical data….

    VXXC has good reason to suspect you’re an entryist.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 21st, 2014 at 7:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Arc Says:

    Ademonos seems to think his arguments are of the Dark Enlightenment. Does he have us confused with the European New Right? Or maybe with Pentti Linkola?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That seems probable.

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    Bah, obviously I haven’t succeeded in injecting Marinetti yet… or is there someone even more unpalatable to the Linkola types who I should be pushing instead?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Do you have a theory for why Marinetti-style futurism isn’t enjoying a revival? It would seem like a good fit for the ENR-edge — where there’s an abundance of statism, but apparently little interest in harnessing it to some kind of hyper-Hamiltonian development escalation through the catalytic state. (Gibson’s The Gernsback Continuum could be considered a primer.)

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    Primitivism won, at least over there.

    I’m not sure why, but Steve Sailer is right about the German influence on the hippies, and my guess is that it comes from there. So it goes a while back… and is cladistically not that far from the Nazis, which might be fun to drop on some progs.

    Some of it seems to be backlash against the cities, technological/’inauthentic’ = alienating, which akinokure‘s crime-cycle theory provides a good memetic antidote for.

    Posted on February 22nd, 2014 at 5:51 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    I made a point that we will know entryists because they lie. I might as well have said that we will know entryists because they are 2 standard deviations more stupid than us.

    Next time somebody says that Real Reactionaries should be about God King and Country I’m gonna grab the biggest dictionary I have and shove it up his ass. Progressives are about worshipping races incapable of progress. Word meanings evolve. Arguing about etymology is boring. Doing it 20 times in one thread is borderline retarded.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Much irritation lies ahead.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 22nd, 2014 at 7:39 am Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 22nd, 2014 at 3:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • nyan_sandwich Says:

    I have to say, the arguments for “global warming is a thing and caused by humans” look pretty solid to me. Is there a good primer somewhere on how exactly they are wrong?

    I see a lot of argument by assertion on both sides, so its hard to tell what’s what.

    Arguments for AGW that need to be confirmed or refuted:

    * Global temperature has gone up 0.8 C since 1900, and the graph on La Wk is correct

    * The temperature rise is unprecedented.

    * The numbers for the greenhouse gas mechanism work out such that this is plausible given the rise in greenhouse gas production

    * There are no other plausible models of warming that predict what we have seen

    * Past models predicted reasonably well the actually observed subsequent rise. Giving them some slack because the actual rise seems overlaid with a decade-timescale random walk

    * The best models now predict further rise

    * Any deviations from endorsed models are on the order of deviations we’ve seen so far, eg the flatness between WW2 and 1976.

    Rebuttals that need to be confirmed or refuted:

    * The distribution of model predictions looks suspiciously like a whole bunch of randomly diverging models with the ones that go down or stay stable selected out.

    * Actual measured climate data shows a rise less than 0.8 C or systematically below the models.

    * Said sources are not cherry picked for the lowballing data sets (eg. the tropics)

    * The AGW establishment has profound precedural deviations from sound scientific practices

    Can anyone shed light on this? I would especially like to see Karl F Boetel, with his infinite data-wisdom, tackle this one and show the irrationality of both sides, if such exists.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    I’m sorry to sound like a broken record, but I see AGW as yet another fallacy of ambiguity. There are weak versions (CO2 absorbs infrared light–it has to be having *some* effect) and strong versions (we’re all gonna die if the Senate doesn’t ratify Kyoto!). If you express doubts about Kyoto, you’re anti-Science!

    [Reply]

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    That may very well be the case. I’m starting to realize that most idiocy is along the lines of such. I’ll write on it eventually.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    As a general explanation of why AGW is bullshit, check out the 3rd part of Moldbug’s Gentle Introduction. He tackles it there at lenght.
    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_22.html

    [Reply]

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    Moldbug’s take is good, but not entirely convincing. Those calculations he cites (0.3 % solar flux increase, black body model giving 1 C) are interesting.

    I’m skeptical of AGW alarmism, but it’s not nearly as clear-cut as HNU.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “… it’s not nearly as clear-cut as HNU” — agreed, but its associated policy proposals have been far more melodramatic. Even the most insane ‘anti-racism’ initiatives have restrained from screaming “We do this now, or the world burns!”

    Alrenous Reply:

    Seconding both Hurlock and Taylor.

    But for a summary:

    * Global temperature has gone up 0.8 C since 1900, and the graph on La Wik is correct

    Probably true. True enough even if the numbers are typoed.

    * The temperature rise is unprecedented.

    This is untrue. See Medieval Climate Optimum for just one example.

    * The numbers for the greenhouse gas mechanism work out such that this is plausible given the rise in greenhouse gas production

    Nobody knows the answer to this. We would need climate scientists, of which there are none.

    However, it has recently become less plausible because CO2 is rising faster than expected while temperatures are rising, as per OP, much slower than expected.

    * There are no other plausible models of warming that predict what we have seen

    Again, nobody really knows. Even the so-called plausible models don’t predict what we have seen, so implausible models can hardly be expected to.

    * Past models predicted reasonably well the actually observed subsequent rise. Giving them some slack because the actual rise seems overlaid with a decade-timescale random walk

    Overfitting. Indeed the sharp divergence with reality is exactly what overfit models do.

    But randomly overfit models should diverge in both directions; therefore we can safely conclude that published models are cherry-picked.

    To check this, note that observations are not even in the error bounds of the models. You’re allowed to posit any crazy model you want, as long as reality ends up in your error bounds. Not doing it is basically scientific torture-murder. It’s way, way beyond the pale. It means they’re lying about their error bounds.

    Optimistically, 4 of 91 models, 4.4%, have not been falsified. That means, quite literally, climate modelling per se has been falsified at p < 0.05.

    * The best models now predict further rise

    Can’t be ‘best’ when they’ve been flatly contradicted by measurement, as above.

    See also cherry-picking.

    * Any deviations from endorsed models are on the order of deviations we’ve seen so far, eg the flatness between WW2 and 1976.

    So 0.8 C in 100 years. (From you.)
    Measured warming in last 30 years: 0.2 C (From OP)
    Expected warming: 0.8 C. (Ibid)

    May I ask who expects me to believe that errors on the order of 75% of the measurement are normal? Where are the true error bars – out to 200%?

    * The distribution of model predictions looks suspiciously like a whole bunch of randomly diverging models with the ones that go down or stay stable selected out.

    Have a look yourself. This is not an endorsement of either conclusion, just noting that you don’t have to trust, you can verify.

    * Actual measured climate data shows a rise less than 0.8 C or systematically below the models.

    That the globe has warmed a bit isn’t disputable. The dispute is whether we can expect it to keep going and whether 0.8 C is a lot.

    * Said sources are not cherry picked for the lowballing data sets (eg. the tropics)

    The WUWT link just above is about the tropics, the OP is all troposphere data. They don’t look noticeably different to me.

    * The AGW establishment has profound precedural deviations from sound scientific practices

    See Climate Audit. Almost any random spot check will do but I can try to dredge up particularly egregious examples if you want.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 22nd, 2014 at 5:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “RT: Did the EU and the US not see the rise of nationalism and extremism in these riots? In effect what we’re seeing is a revolution and that’s what the nationalists want. Is that what the EU and US wanted?

    MS: They ought not to want it, you’re absolutely right. For the EU especially there is an enormous paradox here. The forces that are seeking to break up Ukraine are the same forces that are seeking to destabilize Western European nations. There are major secessionist movements within Western European nations. We see Scotland, very peacefully, about to become independent with its referendum vote scheduled for later this year. Spain has acted very successfully to prevent the disintegration of its country, especially the Barcelona/Catalonia region. The Northern league is a very powerful force, and a relatively moderate responsible force but if rioting was taking place in the street of Spain, France, Italy, Britain, with the express purpose of toppling the government and splitting the state, Europe would not be fanning the forces of destruction along. They would be reining them in. Why then are they fanning the flames over there [in Ukraine]?”

    LOL Ukraine. http://rt.com/op-edge/us-blaming-ukraine-violence-catastrophic-012/

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 23rd, 2014 at 11:45 am Reply | Quote
  • Dan Says:

    To my mind a far better case to be made for the death of science is that leftists have been able to march all over the place denying and stomping all over the scientific realities of sex and gender, which are sitting right there in the chromosomes for all to figuratively see, while the scientific community is utterly silent. In the realms of sex and gender, the left is perpetually making stuff up while scientists say nothing. Virtually none of the left’s positions in the areas of sex and gender are true.

    Monsters literally go around castrating confused children freely in the name of this pseudoscientific nonsense (destroying reproductive function and replacing it with nothing), and legislators act ridiculous, because scientists are too cowed (or themselves anti-science) to remind them what sex and gender actually is.

    With global warming, there is room for reasonable people to disagree. With sex and gender, mamalian chromosomes are what they are and realities are simple for those who care to accept them. And yet the anti-science position has apparently won out in the public discourse. Nature rudely ignores the victory of sex and gender antiscience in the public discourse — a serious microagression on Nature’s part for which she will hopefully be brought to account.

    Scientists don’t get off the hook by suggesting sex and gender are some trivial aside either; they are at the core of evolutionary and biological science and they are at the center of human evolutionary and biological directive number one.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 24th, 2014 at 7:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Paul Says:

    What if you’re wrong? The science says that we’re going to miss the targets necessary to avoid dangerous levels of warming, emissions continue to increase, and Australia, already the biggest coal exporter in the world, plans to almost double coal production. Yet fossil fuels could not continue to compete with renewable energy sources in the absence of the government support attracted by lobbyists for the mining and other energy industries which profit handsomely from the status quo.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 1st, 2014 at 11:06 am Reply | Quote
  • Paul Says:

    If the science were deemed to be sound, how would neoreactionaries respond to climate change, or what response would neoreactionaries advocate?

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Moving inland.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 3rd, 2014 at 10:40 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment