Tag Archives: Pseudoscience

Global coolin… no; ozone laye… no; global warmin… no; climate change!

If we made fractionating columns based on science with the quality of the environmentalists’ religion-of-the year “research,” we’d still be using whale oil for light and travel in coal-fired trains and ships:

Hansen underestimated the amount of CO2 that would be released into the atmosphere by 66%, but overestimated the warming that would result by 150%.  His “Scenario C” shown here (the one which almost maps to the actual recorded temperatures) assumed that there would be no increase in CO2 at all after 2000 —Borepatch: Politicized science.

Despite being proved wrong every single time, environmentalists encroach further and further into our freedoms with less and less oversight by the establishment media or real scientists. The power of science is that it can be used to predict and control Nature for human purposes. Because of that power, science gets special respect in Western Civilization, as the basis for our technological superiority.

When pseudoscience gets the same respect as real science, soon science loses to politics. And that’s what environmentalism has done: turn the institutions formerly of science against real science and use them to support political goals that undermine our civilization. It also uses political power to silence its critics, contrary to real science, which evolves by always questioning the status quo. Hence the saying the tragedy of science is the murder of beautiful theories by ugly facts.

Soon Steve Milloy will be sentenced to house arrest, but only after he recants his climate change denial — under threat of interrogation with harsh methods followed by burning at the stake.

Women make better decisions than men? WTF?

A Reader saw this on some discussion boards, but he thought it was an April Fools joke. Apparently not: Captain Capitalism posted it yesterday.

We’ve known for some time that companies that have more women on their boards have better results,” explains Bart. “Our findings show that having women on the board is no longer just the right thing but also the smart thing to do. Companies with few female directors may actually be shortchanging their investors. —Women make better decisions than men – DeGroote School of Business.

A Reader has always known that people in B-school are three types of retarded: seriously retarded students, terminally retarded teachers, and hopelessly retarded management. But apparently their “journals” are also retarded.

(B-Schools are like cargo cults: they copy the visible elements of scientific and technical fields— like statistics, mathematical models, technical-looking diagrams, and [what they call] experiments — but there is nothing solid at the bottom of it. Easy to prove: what would have happened if that same study had shown men to be superior to women in all managerial tasks? First, it would never be published; second, the authors would be fired and forever unemployable; third, more money would be given to women’s groups to apologize for the study. So the conclusion could only be one, even before the “research” started.)

Of course more successful companies have more women on the board. They also spend more on interior decorating, have more perks, more private jets, and managerial “retreats” at five-star resorts. The causality is they get successful first, then they start spending money on fashionable items. Women on boards are very fashionable, and good PR.

This bullshit continues:

Bart and McQueen found that male directors, who made up 75% of the survey sample, prefer to make decisions using rules, regulations and traditional ways of doing business or getting along. Female directors, in contrast, are less constrained by these parameters and are more prepared to rock the boat than their male counterparts.

These are the directors, who basically aren’t making decisions, they are laying down guidelines for the management. (You’d think these learned business professors would know the difference, but these idiots have never held a real job in their lives.) Men stick to rules and regulations, so they set guidelines that managers can rely on; women make arbitrary judgments, so the managers cannot trust the guidelines and must try to guess what women directors will like and hope they don’t rock the boat in the middle of some critical project.

Contact information is for a Julia Thomson, “manager of marketing.” No surprise there, women in business flock to marketing (lying and bullshit) and HR (HaRassing men), because finance needs math that they by and large can’t do (finance is evil and parasitical, but it’s all numbers) and operations is for serious people who usually have real experience in production under their belts, aka men.

This is what passes for Science these days

Climate change, the proof that what is called peer review is really pre-publication veto of non-compliant research:

This paper took some proxies that showed rapidly increasing warming a thousand years ago – during the Medieval Warm Period – and redacted them so that they show rapid warming now.  They arbitrarily added 1000 years to each data point, showing ZOMG industrial Thermageddon caused by burning carbon in today’s factories when in reality the carbon would have been burned by monks in the day of William the Conqueror — via Borepatch: The “Hockey Stick” climate graph has been proved!.

Real peer review happens when papers are published first and everyone in the field can review them, with the cost of a wrong review being borne by the reviewer not the author. This is what used to happen in the early days of science.

As for “climate change,” it’s basically a way of giving power hungry regulators, governments, and busybodies an excuse to meddle into all production processes and uses of energy; in other words, to control the supply side of the economy (and some of the demand).

Interestingly, the other great government program of our time, “free health care,” is the way these same power-hungry entities regulate what individuals can do, that is the demand side of the economy. After all, if the collective is paying for your health care, your personal decisions are everyone’s business.

What a happy coincidence that control is being asserted over both sides of the economy at the same time. But trust these people, they would never abuse their power.