Climate Predictions Predictably Failed

ESR on a recent climate change paper:

Here’s the money quote: “The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.”

That is an establishment climatologist’s cautious scientist-speak for “The IPCC’s anthropogenic-global-warming models are fatally broken. Kaput. Busted.”

Lorenz spawned Chaos Theory, which purported to tell us a lot about the world, yet it also told anyone who wanted to listen a lot about multi-variant computer models- indeed, it told us about multi-variant computerized climate models specifically. Nobody wanted to listen, and so the government has subsidized a massive amount of computer modelling. Additionally, we've got these hackneyed descriptions of the butterfly effect, which purports to tell us something about the world. Now, I suppose, on a simplistic level, a butterfly flapping its wings somewhere may have some effect on a storm somewhere else, but in the real world there are all sort of variables, systems, and reactions that simply aren't present in the computer model because the computer model necessarily has to be simpler than the real world. So the butterfly effect is deeply imbued into computer models, but may be all but non-existent, due to compensatory factors, in the real world.

But this doesn't matter much for subsidizers. Computer generated 'Science!' is big business, and it produces exactly the sort of sound and fury the politicians seem to enjoy. And when your researchers don't even want to show you their work...

NATO- BLATANTLY STUPID

NATO Calls Ukraine Developments "Dangerous And Irresponsible", Urges Russia Not To "Escalate Tension".

Here is Russian propaganda, which is definitely more accurate than NATO and State Department propaganda:

Anonymous Ukraine Klitschko e-mails and Nuland/Pyatt dialogue prove US-backed coup.

Why? Nuland- and I have heard the audio on this one, definitely picks Arseniy Yatseniuk over more popular Ukraine figures:

Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.

Now, our people hate anyone capable of thinking ahead. The Russians have been seriously patient with the crazy games we've been playing, but they've got people in Ukraine. The Crimean Republic is mostly Russian. These are a people who mobilized for the Slavs in WWI for crying out loud. We've played games in Georgia, Syria, most of Eastern Europe- and now Ukraine. See what I did there? The time period? Actually remembering history? Nobody wants us to do that. They want us on drugs, watching TV, incapable of thinking or remember a damn thing.

And they want to pretend Russia is escalating?

Bullshit.

We are run by children. Wait, let me scratch that. Children have more sense. A five year old eventually notices that big guy in the corner could hurt him. The five year old stops when the big guy stomps his foot, or slams his fist down on the table, but our morons keep poking. Ron Paul would stand up and talk about blow back with regard to the Muslim terrorists, and then these idiots would shout him down. There will be blow back coming from actual nations, especially if they keep this ridiculous meddling up. Russia is very obviously not happy, and they actually are trying to point that out nicely, via outlets like Russia Today. But our leaders keep pushing the envelope, both with Russia and China. We apparently just have to meddle in small countries that the Russians or Chinese have made serious investments in, while acting like pious little promoters of freedom. How about some freedom right here in America?

Russia isn't escalating. Russia is defending. Ukraine is right next to Russia. There are Russians and Russian assets in Ukraine. It is NATO that is escalating, and Western interests that are invading. And they've already put up with pretty much every color coded revolution meddling with their interests- their cultural sphere.

None of this should stand. Overthrow an elected official and then call it democracy? Endanger a nation's borders and then call defense offense, or at least escalation? Then there is the question of what Ukrainians actually want. I doubt this nonsense about them feeling European. They have a tendency to be nationalistic. I think what they probably want jobs and food that they can afford, but the global politics/protest movements don't feed anyone. This just promises to create more hardship for people, regardless of who wins.

Principle Might Get You a King, Foolishness Will Get You Nowhere

Michael Annissimov was one of the writers I picked up via the 'Dark Enlightenment' media stunt. I was reading a bunch of the bloggers identified as such, but neither Nick Land nor Annissimov proved to be particularly enlightening since I learned about them. Indeed, when he talked to Noah Smith, I felt a wish that I could get a hold of Annissimov and put him through a boot camp of sorts. They talked about 'all men are created equal' for example, which is easily dealt with, for it is a biological reality that we are all born helpless and dependent on our parents. It is therefore simple enough to dismiss it as addressing what is clearly part of our common human condition, and obviously not the sort of thing our founding fathers- who were rather aristocratic in nature (they did found a Republic with wealthy landowners as the voters, not the rabble)-meant to deny the obvious inequality we find in the world. Annissimov didn't coherently deal with even something this simple, and it seemed Smith just pushed the conversation along as he saw fit.

Annissimov started quoting a lot of Julius Evola on his blog, so I checked out some of Evola's work. Evola turns out to have a somewhat decent handle on the state of the world in his time, but not on how to deal with it, for his first and rather fatal premise is 'to be yourself'. This is the beginning of his prescription for 'transcendance,' having decided, given the rather sad nature of Christians, that Christianity must have nothing to offer. Evola probably should have known better, given that those actually capable of transcendence were pretty much rooted out of Christendom during it's destruction. What Christ could have brought for Evola is a different starting point- perfection. If you begin with yourself you can be tricked, for there a quite a lot of things technically larger than yourself, to which you can 'transcend' only to find things that are not so good for you. The modern state is something 'bigger than yourself' and you can certainly tie yourself to it. There are also less than perfect beings who can waste your time or even damage you.

(I will very likely write something a bit more extensive about Evola and what he missed about Christianity.)

At some point it occured to me Annissimov reminded me of this transhumanist I eventually stopped reading. When I googled him, I found Accelerating Future, which appears to be the Annissimov's other blog that I gave up reading long ago. Why would a Christian read transhumanist stuff? Well, to the degree they are pursuing perfection, I generally like it. Unfortunately, they often support unconscionable shortcuts and set themselves up for the same scam the so-called transgendered already are subject to. I have no doubt surgeons will happily perform surgeries on transhumanists too, if they can figure out a way to provide a simalucrum of what transhumanists want.

But all that is prelude.

Annissimov is now attacking various components of this not really existent Dark Enlightment. He attacks the Manosphere, he attacks economics. He wants to debate the pro-immigration libertarians, who, at this point, could eat him for lunch. It is like he got mugged one night and then decided he needed someone to keep the street safe. For some reason he's landed on this principle of monarchy, but he seems to have only one.

But for the rest of us, we've been collecting principles. The principles found in Austrian Economics are principles that led me to realize a monarchist who understood such principles could rule well. Furthermore, I also understand the beneficial effects of a royal family acting, as it were, a biological target, assuming they could actually listen to Erasmus and not marry outside their own realm. This would create a people with a strong identity, and it would harness the currently unhinged feminine traits that happening to be contributing to the destruction of the modern world.

Now, it just so happens that a monarch who believes in Austrian Economics would not have much of an economic policy, especially not of the type and scope that Evola would protest against. There is very little benefit, in the Austrian view, to the growth promoting policies modern states have become addicted to, given that this results in misallocation of resources.

So too, does the Manosphere inform us of principles, but nobody is going around hugging the cads. If they write a good piece that touches on principle, they get kudos that, not for being cads. This is how I know about those unhinged feminine traits and how reintroducing a healthy form of hierarchy- for they currently sort of make it up as they go along, trending towards heavily muscled thugs with tattoos, since they seem to invent hierarchy out of thin air if there isn't one there- would help rebuild civilization.

The principles form the foundation for ANY change, not just the change Annissimov wants. Yet he seems to want to swing round his one idea like a club, and he knocks out all the other ones, whereupon I wonder why the hell I care. I was a libertarian, a private property anarchist first. I can see a logical progression, to a natural aristocracy, and to a monarch. I can see how careful arrangement of incentives leads to all that Annissimov wants and more, but I can't see how Annissimov himself leads to it. He might as well advocate for a super hero, for it is only through superpowers that his king could keep his office. Mortal rulers need to be accepted by the ruled.

Whatever. My time is probably better spent planting a garden. This is the other idea that keeps creeping up on me. Maybe we just have to walk away, find some easily defendable land, grow food, possibly build enough of a society where we can see something decent bloom. Whether that's a small hope or a big depression depends on the day.

On Liking Moral Things

I am not sure that this puts one in the same boat as the Pharisee, but if you like traditionally moral things, well that is not quite the same as making moral choices. It is certainly helpful to feel a strong, powerful urge to decent, moral, domesticity- far more easy to simply adhere the the rule set. If the rule was Thou Shalt Not Eat Chocolate, and you had a strong preference for the much blessed Butter Pecan, well, you are simply not making the same sacrifice as the one who really likes chocolate.

There is, perhaps, another point to be made, in that it is getting a lot harder to actually get the moral things, and those that like the moral things are, in large part responsible, because those that like moral things don't go on much about expanding the moral franchise, so that more people can have moral things. For instance, they look at the merely shacked-up and say, 'tut-tut' and don't put much thought into how fraught with danger modern marriage law, feminism, and lack of decent jobs has made things. The moral infrastructure is in terrible disrepair; to some extent at least, it would do you well to think about moral things like products- if moral things are available, then more people will choose them, and even some of those that I mentioned above who don't like moral things might do so, for people are occasionally convinced by your moral arguments.

Occasionally, too, an immoral thing can go under the radar, rationalized because it props up, improves, cares for, or maintains all your lovely moral things.

Anyway, there are a great many moral things I like, and I've recently watched the first season of House of Cards, and the Underwoods don't appear to like moral things at all. If they were to try and be moral, well they'd almost immediately be more moral than me, since they would be choosing what to do out of principle, rather than simply liking moral things. I do have principles as well, but they are moral things too, and since I like them, in one sense my collection of them is no more morally impressive than the philatelist's collection of stamps.

A Possible Dissertation In Theology?: The Post Revolution Degradation, Or, From Grand Metaphysics to Low Tribalism

Hans Herman Hoppe once posited the theory that the great innovations leading up to the modern world happened because evolutionary and societal selection pressure were such people were being bred for high intellect. Then the revolutionary movements began (1848 being a big year for such things) and subsequently society apparently bound itself to select for other things. Intellect is no longer selected for in most human populations, though a middling wit is beneficial, because a conformist bureaucrat can get his hands into the cookie jar. But nobody ever tells their mommy they want to grow up and be a conformist bureaucrat.

Anyway, I just don't have time to do an extensive review of the literature, but I suspect the gestalt of Christian theology, literature, etc- fell.
I have mentioned before that I don't think there were many times where all Christians believed the same set of dogmas, rather most Christians held allegiance to a bishop and a local lord or king, and if there were much inquiry into doctrine, it usually happened among the more learned, possibly in a monastery somewhere. But the general belief of the people was to follow their bishop. It was quite possible that the local shepherd or pig farmer realized metaphysic was simply not his forte.

But the revolutions destroyed these relationships.

So, in a more general sense, even in other religions, I believe we see this move from tribal gods, myth, and superstition, toward a more profound understanding of God, the sort of stuff I struggle to put into modern American words occasionally. He is 'the perfection' that we struggle for and cannot acheive; thus we find Him eternal, for through our struggle we find ourselves separated from Him by infinity. For most religions, this is as far as it goes, and one can only ever be servant, but Christ is this perfection taking us to Himself, crossing the infinite, becoming incarnate. There is more, of course, but let me move on to what is happening now- a return to a tribal god.

There are a myriad of ways this is happening, because by 1848 we already had plenty of dissent and doctrinal disputes, but I suspect pre-revolutionary disputes were among authorities, and were ultimately questions of power. One could argue that the revolutions essentially shut to door to heaven- by removing the means via which the old world strove for perfection, the revolutionaries redirected our gaze to ourselves and that which is below ourselves.

Tribal psychology becomes important, and I have, on occasion, gotten the distinct impression there are sorts of people who read, not so that they can better learn the truth, but so that they have something to say to non-tribe people, for democracy gives us the illusion our voice matters and that we may actually convert people to our way of thinking.

The starting point is likely the over-emphasis of Christ as man, which allows Jesus to be firmly placed into a tribe, and a subsequent hack job to the whole doctrine of the Trinity done to reduce something universal to whatever makes the in-group comfortable. You can't really make the ineffable fit into a cabinet, but you can make an idol and call it father.

There is much more besides, and as I mentioned in the title, this is a possible dissertation, and something I would like to see researched so that I could know if it is true.

The Theater of the Christian Pundit

I think most Christians are happy to fail. They feel the need to say things- like whining like a baby about marriage laws in this country- but this is simply a political version of the word magic Christianity has become. We must, apparently, say the name of Jesus, and or say things we think he might like to hear, but to take something back to ourselves- like marriage, or any sacrament for that matter- is impossible.

It matters not at all that it would be fairly simple, given that we already have these organizations, as useless and bureaucrat ridden as they are, called churches, which, if they felt like it, could arbitrate. Of course, we have to be invested in not having Christian governance, because the last bit of Christian governance came from monarchs, and if we started thinking about Christian governance again, we'd have to think about not stealing from people.

No, we must have democracy, the insidious drive of politics into every sphere, and exposure to godless judges, lawyers, and child protection people.

Let me give you a clue. You are going to fail. You are going to fail badly. You are going to hum your stupid tune, and make up pretty pictures in your head, and irrationally ascribe serious import to random events. You are going to say 'in the name of Jesus' while having no sense of Him or what He might want you to do.

Already the churches accommodate divorce and various questionable arrangements, and if you look closely you can see the rest of the sacraments being devalued. Two people divorce in my diocese. The two both go take the Eucharist, and they quite possibly satisfy the 'rules'. In what sense is this a unified body of Christ? Clearly they have something against one another. They would have been stopped by the priest once. Not any more. We prefer to contemplate the mystery of how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, because that is so much easier than contemplating how we become the body of Christ.

How sad it would be to find out we were just playacting. It is probably just as well- most of these churches are full of people who would make bad judgements similar to the ones made in courts today.

This post was inspired by Lydia McGrew. I have been reading What's Wrong With the World for years, but after yet another display of the ability to learn nothing, I think I'll click unsubcribe now.

Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology

Brian Micklethwait has, on occasion, talked about how great Emmanuel Todd is, and on one of those occasions I went and requested a few books by Todd. Todd is a French social anthropologist, and he has divided up the world into seven familial structures- each of these structures have their own strengths and weaknesses. Consequently, according to Todd, people who grow up with particular family models are susceptible to particular ideologies.

So, for example, he suggest that the reason Communism arose in particular societies is because those societies were largely exogamous community families. There are strong bonds between the brothers, often multiple generations living in one household- and apparently enough friction between father and sons to encourage militant atheism, which Todd links to a psychological desire to kill the father.

Meanwhile, in America, we've got the absolute nuclear family. Communism isn't very influential. We are neither inegalitarian nor egalitarian.

The copyright on this English translation is 1985, and I must say I can't think of a counterfactual to his theories.

In fact, after he explained Muslim families, I understood why some of the extremist say you can't be for democracy and a Muslim. Because there really isn't a psychological place for a state in Islam. They are an endogamous community family- so they aren't going out into a larger community and looking for spouses. Instead, they tend to marry someone related to them. A democracy, or more crucially, a state, is superfluous to a strong, self-regulating, inter-generational family. So, the western ideologies don't do well in the Middle East, though our constant meddling through war, aid, etc... may eventually manage to atomize their family structure.

I do find it interesting on a personal level as well. Although I live in an absolute nuclear family world, my American grandfather died before I was born. The one grandfather I knew was from Cuba. He was most certainly not a communist- very Republican, but it can certainly be said he was a anchor for community.
So, when I see the great disconnect in the American sphere between rhetoric and reality- well, it is a lot like seeing a real communal family versus an ideologue spewing half baked notions which are all ultimately political, and very often exploitative.

So, I thought two things- one, I wonder if measuring some of the measures Todd points out in his book would allow America politicians to gauge what plays well in their locale. Family structure changes, if it does at all, slowly, but whether people are going to respond well to a more authoritarian tone or a more liberal one may be easy to infer.

Second, I am surprised to find an explanation of ideology, explaining a part of my personal confusion. I've got this Cuban family model in my head, but I live in this absolute nuclear place.