Hysteresis Jitters – Nervöse Hysteresis

Image credit

A post in German and English.

Hysteresis bedeutet, dass ein Effekt erst verzögert auf seine ihn auslösende Ursache reagiert. Mit ihren vorprogrammierten Handelsstrategie erzeugen und verstärken große Marktteilnehmer neue Trends, die irgendwann unwiderstehlich werden für andere kleinere Händler, deren Markteintritt den Trend übersteigert, sodass es schließlich zu einer harten Gegenbewegung kommt.

Hysteresis means that an effect lags the incidence of its cause. With their predetermined trading strategies large market players carve new trends out and strengthen them until smaller traders jump on the bandwagon exaggerating the trend and triggering a backlash. 

Laut waren die Stimmen, die die Algorithmen des automatischen Handels für den Markteinbruch im Dezember verantwortlich machten. Sie sind jetzt stumm. Doch obwohl sie darauf verzichten, den starken Kursanstieg dem automatischen Handel „anzulasten“, wissen viele Anleger und Händler sehr genau, dass die Markterholung keinen organischen Charakter hat. Sie ist darauf zurückzuführen ist, dass Händler mit vordefinierten Handelsstrategien automatisch kaufen, sobald bestimmte Schlüsselsignale zur technischen Verfassung des Marktes berührt werden.

... while everyone was blaming the algos for the December meltdown, even though nobody has "accused" the algos of creating the ongoing meltup, investors and traders know very well that the move higher is not organic, but is purely the result of systematic, algo and various other quant traders forcibly buying as a result of key technical market levels being hit.

Source.

West Ham 1 - 0 Arsenal

Image credit

A friendly conversation between rivals.

Der Sinn des Lebens

Image credit

Mit Sprache kann man erstaunliche Dinge tun – z. B. Handlungen vollziehen, die auf nichts anderem als einer Äußerung beruhen:

„Meine Worte hatten dich beleidigen sollen“ – hier wird durch eine Äußerung, eine Tat begangen, sichergestellt, dass ein verletzender Akt als solcher wahrgenommen wird. Die Sprachphilosophie spricht von einer sogenannten performativen Sprachhandlung oder einem illokutionären Akt.

Man kann auch durch die formale Struktur einer spachlichen Äußerung Menschen – wissentlich oder gezielt – in die Irre führen.

Wer eine Frage stellt, löst im Gegenüber unwillkürlich die Erwartung aus, eine Antwort sei erforderlich und möglich.

Ich habe lange gedacht, dies träfe zu, wenn die Frage gestellt wird:

Was ist der Sinn des Lebens?

Man werde durch die grammtikalische Struktur des Fragesatzes quasi in die Pflicht genommen, eine Antwort zu geben, wo es keine gibt.

Ich habe früher darauf geantwortet, dass es DAS LEBEN überhaupt nicht gibt, sondern nur einen Ablauf diskreter Lebensereignisse, die äußerst unterschiedlich sein können und nicht im Zusammenhang zu einander stehen, geschweige denn Teil einer lückenlosen Kette sein müssen. Die Frage suggeriert also ein Objekt, das überhaupt nicht existiert. 

Man kann versuchen, Aspekte des Lebens daraufhin zu bewerten, ob sie sinnvoll sind, einen Sinn ergeben, einen Sinn besitzen. Das Leben als Gesamtheit existiert aber nicht und kann daher nicht auf seinen Sinn hin befragt werden.

Selbst, wenn wir große Zusammenhänge unseres Lebens der Sinnfrage unterwerfen, und das vielleicht auch nach unserem Empfinden mit Erfolg, zeigt sich bei genauerem Hinsehen, dass auch diese „großen Würfe“, nur Ausschnitte sind in einem Ozean an Perspektiven und Gesichtspunkten, nach denen die unendlich vielfältigen Erfahrungen des Leben sich ordnen lassen. 

Vielleicht bestand der Sinn meines Lebens darin, ein Land zu missionieren, und nachdem mir dies gelungen ist, kann ich bekräftigen, dass mein Leben einen Sinn gehabt und sich dieser erfüllt habe. 

Doch wie gesagt, damit hebe ich nur einen Ausschnitt meines Lebens hervor.

Niemand bestreitet, dass man sinnvolle Ziele verfolgen oder ein Leben führen kann, das einem großen Ziel dient, von dem man empfindet, dass es der eigenen Existenz einen Sinn gibt. Freilich kann man sich darin täuschen oder diesem Gefühl, ein Leben zu leben, das durch eine große Sinn-Klammer zusammengehalten wird, verlustig gehen. Auch kann vieles, das zu einem sinnvollen Leben gehören könnte oder sollte, unterdrückt und verpasst werden, wenn man zu sehr auf das eine große Sinnthema hinlebt.

Der gesamte Fluß des Lebens enthält eine unendliche Fülle an Sinnhaftem, vieles davon trivial aber lebenswichtig – ein geordneter Tagesablauf zum Beispiel: genügend Schlaf, gute Nahrung, ausreichend Bewegung, erfolgreiche Tätigkeiten im Beruflichen und in anderen Kontexten. 

Vermutlich ist es sogar ein ganz besonders glückliches Talent, nicht allzu anfällig zu sein für Sirenenrufen, die dem Leben Sinn zu geben versprechen.

Eine Mutter von fanatischer Religiösität, die auf den einen, den ganz großen Sinn des Lebens hinausgreift, kann vielleicht ihre Kinder deswegen vernachlässigen und verdankt es nur ihrer Verblendung, dass sie nicht merkt wie ihr Leben – nach den eigenen Maßstäben – scheitert.

Ich glaube, es ist besser, das Thema zu portionieren und darauf zu achten, dass man Sinnvolles im Leben tut, statt alles auf die eine große Karte zu setzen.

Ich glaube auch, dass die beste Antwort auf die Frage nach dem Sinn des Lebens lautet: Es macht Spaß zu leben – ich lebe gerne.

Denn weder die Welt, in der wir leben, noch wir als Gewächse der Evolution, sind dafür gemacht, auf eine große, quasi lebenanschauliche Überwahrheit hin zu leben – so sehr sich auch Machthaber und ihre Schafe ein grandioses Bühnenbild mit dem totalitären Pomp von Absoluta und Ewiggültigem wünschen.

Der Mensch ist seine eigene Allzweckwaffe. Er ist ausgerüstet mit Dispositionen, Instinkten, starken emotionalen Orientierungshilfen. Wie David Hume es einmal, vielleicht etwas überspitzt ausgedrückt hat: Der Kopf ist der Sklave des Gefühls. Das heißt nicht, dass der Mensch kopflos, unüberlegt und irrational ist. Das Diktum ist darauf gemünzt, dass das, was dem Sinn des Lebens vielleicht am nächsten kommt, die Befriedigung ist, die der Mensch empfindet, wenn er seinen grundlegenden Neigungen gemäß leben kann. Die Logik, zu der unser Hirn fähig ist, verleiht dem Leben nicht seine Vitalkraft, das Gefühl der Lust an ihm. Das kommt aus der Tiefe des Gefühlsmäßigen, der Intuitionen und Instinkte.

Das Leben hat einen Sinn, wenn es Spaß macht – oder ein Iota weniger hedonistisch: wenn man sich in ihm wohlfühlt.

Der Sinn des Lebens ist die Freude am Spiel, das uns begleitet, bis wir sterben.

Natürlich kann auch ein übergreifender und lange durchgehaltener Zweck Teil des Bündels an Dingen sein, die unsrerem Leben Sinn verleihen. Aber in der Regel wird das Maß der Sinnhaftigkeit eines Lebens nicht durch Verfolgung eines Ziels, eines Motivs eine befriedigende Qualität, ein ausgewogenes Niveau erreichen, sondern dadurch, dass man offen bleibt für die Vielfalt der Neigungen, mit denen der Mensch ausgestattet ist als ein Lebewesen, das wie andere Tiere auch, nicht durch Gedanken allein, sondern durch die Empfindungen motiviert wird, in denen der Verstand wurzelt.

Wie dem auch sei, die Frage nach dem Sinn des Lebens ist aber von allgemeinerer Natur als die Inspektion des eigenen Lebensgefühls.

Es ist zweifelhaft, ob sich eine allgemeine, eine objektive, eine allgemein gültige Antwort geben lässt, oder ob es überhaupt erstrebenswert ist eine solche Universalklärung herbeizuführen. Sind daran nicht eher Machtsuchende interessiert, die die breite Bevölkerung auf ihre ideologischen Bedürfnisse einschwören möchten?

Traditionell ist die Frage nach dem Sinn des Lebens oft eine Fangfrage der Pfaffen gewesen, die den gesund Geerdeten – und umso effektiver den Labilen und Unsicheren – in das Durcheinander eines unerwarteten Rätsels stürzen, um ihn gefügig zu machen für ihre vorgestanzten Weisheiten.

Water Cycle — More Evidence: No Catastrophic Man-made Climate Change

Image credit

If people were truly interested in climate — rather than in being socially accepted by sharing a politically correct religious preconception—, these findings would be greeted with hope, widely disseminated and seriously discussed — when, in fact, they are handled as a grave nuisance, the outcome of a vicious conspiracy of evildoers.

Climate models postulate that increasing CO2 concentrations will intensify the Earth’s water cycle. This intensification is believed to eventually result in dangerous (3°C and up) global warming. Observational evidence has thus far falsified these IPCC-endorsed claims.

Read the entire article.

Conceptions of Reality — Einstein and Bohr (2)

Image credit

Continued from Conceptions of Reality — Einstein and Bohr (1).

A fascinating video. Viewing it leaves me with a sense just how old fashioned Einstein was — an iconoclast in his way, highly perturbed by iconoclasm in other fields, in fact, in fields that he had brought into being. The revolutionary did not like his children. 

God does not dice, said Einstein, meaning that phenomena that do not conform with his system of causality were senselessly random and therefore militated against God's orderly and harmonious Universe.

Bohr riposted: Einstein, stop telling God what he should be like.

Einstein believed in what is effectively a disjointed but supposedly neatly uniform Universe, sustained by local causality. 

By contrast, Bohr accepted that the universe is a whole in which everything could be instantly related to everything else — effects were not constrained, slowed or localised by restrictions such as the speed of light.

The controvery was kicked off by Bohr's claim that it was not possible to measure the properties of an atomic particle, notably its speed, without disturbing it. For the measiring devices, for instance clocks, are affected by gravity.

xxx

Two aspects stand out from the point of view of my own philosophical development: man is a creature of the meso-cosmos, which explains Einstein's startling parochialism. Man is adjusted to the medium-sized dimensions of reality, essentially the world experienced by us in everyday life. But reality takes place in many other dimensions, to some of which we shall presumably never find access — though it does leave traces observable to the human mind —, while others pose tremendous challenges to our imagination and rationalising faculties.

The second aspect is touched by Bell's remark, in which he acknowledges that the evidence supports Bohr rather than Einstein, i. e. things as conceived by Quantum Mechanics do appear to be real: things can happen all at the same time unconstrained by Einstein's conventional causality. 

However, in an important sense, this does not matter, that is: it is of no import to the creatures of the meso-cosmos, as we are (as yet) unable to take practical advantage of the goings-on outside of our causal cage — for instance teleportation.

We are like a tiger behind a thick glas wall in a Zoo wondering why that tiny little girl that keeps provoking him remains impervious to his attacks.

Continued here.

Wishing You ...

Image credit

...

Writes a commenter here: 

Nice try but it marginalizes people who are offended by “wishing” and “happy”.

Truth Made in Germany (2)

 

Image credit

Make sure to read the entire piece:

"We are concerned that the leadership of Der Spiegel encourages this form of reporting and that the reporters appear to deliver what the leadership wants," wrote Grenell, who accused the paper of anti-American bias, and said the German paper "routinely included information and stories which could have been proven untrue if they had checked the facts with the Embassy first."

Read also Truth Made in Germany (1).

Truth Made in Germany (1)

Image credit

„Wir haben keine Erfahrung mehr im Umgang mit wirklichen Ernstfällen. Das führt dazu, dass wir Katastrophen geradezu lustvoll herbeiphantasieren. Zum Beispiel die Klimakatastrophe, die ich für ein erstaunliches Phänomen massenhafter Verblendung halte”.

"We no longer have experience in dealing with real emergencies. This leads us to fantasize about catastrophes. For example, the climate catastrophe, which I consider an amazing phenomenon of mass delusion."

And the Lügenpresse is thriving on it. 

I do not expect Germans to complain much about being lied to by DER SPIEGEL. 

They are being lied to by the Media including the very popular state broadcasters every day on a massive scale. There are ample opportunities for the German public to discover that these media outlets are lying, serving as propaganda outlets of the government and the dominant political parties. 

Germans are less concerned with truth than with a good yarn based on a simple story that can be conveniently repeated to ensure one if culturally accepted by one's fellow citizens.

What should be the subject of critical discussion and vibrant dissent has been turned in Germany into unassailable dogma to be regurgitated in the manner of a social convention.

Germans repeat state ordained lies as a matter of social acceptability. 

More on how Germans willfully give up their inclination to think critically and  make themselves eager speaking trumpets of their masters in politics and the state:

Subservience Rushing Ahead of the Command - Vorauseilender Gehorsam

and

From the Pages of an Infallible Newspaper

How do you say "good morning" in German? "Guten Morgen". Correct. 

Is there another way of saying"good morning", or "hello", for that matter?

Yes: "Trump ist ein Arschloch." ("Trump is an asshole.")

A German who says that can expect to be considered a jolly good fellow by his peers, even by complete strangers. You say this to be liked. It is not the result of careful examination — one is being relieved from this job by the media.

I left this comment here:

You would think, the alarmist crowd would use their ample resources to avoid CO2-emitting mega events, utilising and even innovating online-capabilities instead. 

But the hordes of believers are overwhelming, their self-reenforicng "credo" ("I believe") is an unstoppable impetus in its own right. They are beyond the discipline of facts, having lost their capacity for rational self-control. 

I like the quote from the Bamberg sociology professor - however, I do not like the fact that no source is given. 

One of the many things I like about NoTricksZone is the accuracy with which sources are quoted. 

Thanks for the excellent translation.

The source.

Continued here.

Milton Friedman on Keynes, Intellectuals, and Private vs Public

Image credit

I have recently published the below video on Keynes' work and life. I had meant to make a number of remarks on the interview by Milton Friedman contained in it:

I.

His earlier remark (time marks 49:58 to 50:54) that Keynes was a child of the 1930s in that he occupied himself with the scourge of unemployment rather than inflation is a little odd, for unemployment was the great issue of the time, Keynes's analysis of the calamity is of the form of a general theory, i. e. just as relevant today as in his time, and, in fact, a much needed extension of classical and neoclassic economics both of which are lacking the notion of involuntary unemployment suggesting instead a self-regulating mechanism supposedly preventing involuntary unemployment that Keynes showed not to be working. 

Also, as Friedman expressly reminds us contradicting his insinuation that Keynes supposedly neglected inflation in favour of unemployment, Keynes was very much aware of the problems of inflation, while his General Theory does not represent an obstacle to avoiding or countering inflationary developments.

By contrast, Friedman's monetarism has ended up empirically refuted, as every central bank will acknowledge today. 

By contrast, Keynes' position that money is not neutral but the linchpin of "a monetary production economy" — an economy  whose real variables are decisively influenced by money — is recognised as pivotal by contemporary central banks.

II.

As for Milton Friedman's remarks between time marks 57:04 to 58:33, I have two things to remark:

Milton Friedman is one of many intellectuals of enormous political influence who condemn the enormous political influence of intellectuals (of a persuasion opposed to his).

Friedman comes up with the conservative-libertarian topos of public (bad) versus private (good), government (bad) versus private activities (good), cooperative voluntary and voluntary cooperation of individuals (good) versus collective compulsion  (bad).

There is no such categorical good and bad, to begin with. Private activities can have very bad consequences, while clearly certain forms of collectively organised action is exceedingly positive for the individual and their interaction within a community. Yes, the opposite is also true in many cases but this does not justify slanting the entire complex issue in one direction.

It may appear a more subtle consideration but it is nonetheless a fundamental and important one that  on a number of levels there simply is no sharp juxtaposition between public and private but a wholesome blending.

The modern conception of the private individual and her rights and actions is a category enclosed within notions of the public. It is not the opposite or counterpart of concepts of the public, but a set of nodes (of concepts describing private features) that interact with other such nodes (describing public features).

The modern private person is a public phenomenon on account of the fact that rights that used to be the privilege of a small subsection of the population are nowadays extended to every citizen, notably the right to participate in politics and the state and in the competition for (qualified and contestable as opposed to total) social and political dominance.

The private person is the person who is invited and welcome to make her contribution to the public discourse and the decisions derived from it. This is true both for issues that may concern only a small number of parties (say, two contesting parties) or the entire population. In principle, every public issue is open to challenge or discursive participation by a human being in her private capacity. And every private issue can be made subject of public deliberation. In both cases, of course, there are important procedural rules and limits designed to avoid inappropriate preponderance of the public impact on private concerns (e. g. erosion of individual rights) or an inordinate private impact on public concerns (e. g. monopoly issues).

In addition, especially when people interact with one another — as they do when participating in market activities —, there is no such thing as a purely private activity. Social interaction (as practised in the form of economic activities) is shot through with rules and regulations both of a formal and an informal kind. People are subjecting themselves to public conventions, constantly working them out at the margin or more broadly and more fundamentally. 

It is not possible to establish a market as a purely private activity. I cannot announce "my market" in which all rules accord with my discretion. Markets are by their very nature of a public nature, a compromise between countless contributions, sometimes reflecting private aspects to a larger, sometimes to a lesser extent. Frequently, private requests will already have internalised social demands/compromises, demonstrating that the need to accommodate the requirements of fellow humans is second nature for the private individual.

Ideologically it is easier to deal with simple dichotomies, practically we need to be more differentiating than the propagandist and more willing to recognise a multitude of interests some of which are easy and others harder to reconcile.

Here Comes the Sun

Image credit

A good overview of (1) the facts that call into question CAGW and (2) the politico-religious pressures that keep the myths socially influential.

Willie just happened to choose solar science as a career and, like many solar scientists, after nearly three decades of scientific research in his case, came to believe that changes in the sun’s brightness, sunspots and energy output, changes in the orbital position of the Earth relative to the sun, and other powerful natural forces drive climate change. In brief, our sun controls our climate.

Even the IPCC initially indicated agreement with him, citing his work approvingly in its second (1996) and third (2001) Assessment Reports. That later changed, significantly. Sure, everyone agrees that the sun caused the waxing and waning of the ice ages, just as solar scientists say. However, the sun had to be played down if carbon dioxide (CO2) was to be played up – an abuse of science that makes Willie sick.

Unfortunately for the IPCC, solar scientists think solar changes also explain Earth’s most recent warming period which, they point out, began way back in the 1830s – long before we burned enough fossil fuels to make any difference. They also observed the shrinking of the Martian ice-caps in the 1990s, and their return in the last few years – in perfect time with the waning and waxing of Arctic ice caps here on Earth.

Only the sun – not the CO2 from our fires – could cause that Earth-Mars synchronicity. And surely it is no mere coincidence that a grand maximum in solar brightness (Total Solar Irradiance or TSI) took place in the 1990s as both planets’ ice caps shrank, or that the sun cooled (TSI decreased) as both planets’ ice caps grew once again. All that brings us back to Dr. Soon’s disagreements with the IPCC.

The IPCC now insists that solar variability is so tiny that they can just ignore it, and proclaim CO2 emissions as the driving force behind climate change. But solar researchers long ago discovered unexpected variability in the sun’s brightness – variability that is confirmed in other stars of the sun’s type. Why does the IPCC ignore these facts?

[...]

Surely Willie and solar scientists are right about the primacy of the sun. Why? Because the observable real world is the final test of science. And the data – actual evidence – shows that global temperatures follow changes in solar brightness on all time-scales, from decades to millions of years. On the other hand, CO2 and temperature have generally gone their own separate ways on these time scales.

Global temperatures stopped going up in the first two decades of this century, even though CO2 has steadily risen. The IPCC blames this global warming “hiatus” on “natural climate variability,” meaning something random, something not included in their models, something the IPCC didn’t see coming.

This confirms the fact that their models do not add up to a real theory of climate. Otherwise the theory would be falsified by their incorrect predictions. They predicted a continuous increase in temperature, locked to a continuous increase in CO2. But instead, temperature has remained steady over the last two decades, while CO2 climbed even faster than before.

[...]

Unlike the IPCC, Willie and I cannot simply ignore the fact that there were multiple ice ages millions of years ago, when CO2 levels were four times higher than now. And even when CO2 and temperature do trend in tandem, as in the famous gigantic graph in Al Gore’s movie, the CO2 rises followed temperature increases by a few centuries. That means rising CO2 could not possibly have caused the temperature increases – an inconvenient truth that Gore doesn’t care about and studiously ignores.

On Being Human, Language and Civilisation

Image credit

In this thread, I have written a short piece about one of my favourite pieces of anthropology:

John F. Hultquist and RAH,  

I agree with you guys. To me, language is among the most fascinating leads left by mankind from which to judge where our efforts at being civilised have been taking us. 

I take my cue from Sir Karl Popper who identifies the functions specific to human language (as opposed to the functions of the language of [other] animals) as what makes humans humans. 

As opposed to animals, we are able to make elaborate descriptions (descriptive function of language). If you can describe things, you can describe descriptions and their difference, which brings you to the next specifically human function of language (lacking in animals):  

The argumentative function; we can argue about the quality and truthfulness of a description, and develop refined and powerful methods of ascertaining truth/plausibility. This gives rise to another function specific to human language: the critical function; we can use our language to understand and criticise one another's thoughts.  

At this point man has arrived at objectivity — he can turn his inner reasoning into an object for assessment by other humans (note objectivity of which man is capable is not to be confused with absolute and final truth but with findings/propositions/hypotheses subjected to the most rigorous testing).  

At this advanced point man has effectively developed a hyper-intelligence that connects the brains and thinking of billions of human beings. This makes us a lot more kowledgeable and reflected than any other species.

Art Deco - After the Trauma

Image credit

Architecture as an emotional reaction in a time of transition from past traumas to new dreams.

In 1918, the cities of northern France were left in ruins. French citizens wanted to forget the war, enjoy the pleasures of peacetime and get on with rebuilding - fast. To do so, they could count on the emerging style of the time, Art Deco, which plays with geometric shapes, symmetry and curves. From luxury cars to a church and even a swimming pool, FRANCE 24 takes you to discover stunning Art Deco architecture in the north of France.

The source.

The Most Basic Condition of Civilisation

Image credit

For what is the most basic condition of civilization, Hudson asks, other than societal organization that effects lasting “balance” by keeping “everybody above the break-even level”?

The source.

Social Symmetries

Image credit

As the modern state evolved it was discovered that it is the form of government  which subjects itself to restrictions of its power that turns out to be most effective in terms of advancing the interests of its constituent population.

There is a social symmetry between the interests of the state and the interests of the population. To be most effective, the state must allow its clients to put restrictions on it. For the state to be powerful (in a way that is socially effective) it must accept the power of the people to restrict it.

A self-reinforcing social symmetry.

There seems to be a similar social symmetry involved in the way in which alpha animals are selected and supported by the population they belong to. They are required to make substantial contributions to the community, which goods they can only deliver if they conform to exacting social demands from those who they lead. While demonstrating superior (physical and charismatic, and even more importantly social) power they must balance their drive for dominance by restricting their behaviour so as to be able to provide their peer group with significant social benefits. They must be disciplined and strongly restrained (rather than self-aggrandising) to be able to make the requisite contributions. 

The truly powerful state is not the totalitarian state (which is always headed for burnout) but a state where power is plural, competitively controlled, and hence balanced. 

The successful alpha animal is not a bully but a social worker. 

Virtue Signalling — The New Religion

Image credit

Here are two articles, one in German, the other in English, describing a syndrome of our times: elites and the powers that be return magical thinking to a position of cultural preponderance in sophisticated modern societies; they have  enough resources at hand to invest in irrational beliefs that destroy the economic and moral basis of society.

California's Middle Class Is Disappearing As "Virtue Signaling" Elites Drive Wealth Gap Ever Wider

and

Stickoxid Grenzwerte – Ein Geschenk des Himmels?

The the new religious entrench themselves behind walls of rancour and malice that keep their magical thinking insulated against rational criticism.

There is no doubt that their magical aberrations will eventually end the way unsustainable fads always do. In the meantime, the suspension of rationality, civility, and pluralistic-democratic restraint in favour of a zealous conceit of absolute knowledge and a self-appointed sacral right to dominance over other attitudes does enormous damage to civilisation.

Implausible Conjecture Backed By False Evidence = People's Received Wisdom

Image credit

Apropos fooling the public,

Giving the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Annual Lecture on Monday, Professor Richard S Lindzen launched a scathing attack on the scientific illiteracy of politicians and activists who claim ‘the science is settled’ and demand ‘unprecedented changes in all aspects of society’. 

Professor Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argued that it was totally implausible for such a complex ‘multifactor system’ as the climate to be summarised by just one variable, global mean temperature change, and primarily controlled by just a 1-2 per cent variance in the energy budget due to CO2. 

Providing a much-needed antidote to the latest climate change clap-trap from the IPCC, Lindzen described how ‘an implausible conjecture backed by false evidence repeated incessantly has become “knowledge,” used to promote the overturn of industrial civilisation’. 

Directly criticising the extravagant models for which climate scientists have become famous, Lindzen likens them to ‘the formula for being an expert marksman: shoot first and declare whatever you hit to be the target.’ This, he says, cannot be evidence for anything. 

The BBC says that all scientists agree on the need to limit warming to 1.5 degrees; Lindzen’s highly informed testimony instantly refutes this absurd claim. You can read it here.

Cultural Vision

Image credit

Recurrent features of a culture, like rectangular windows, (can) condition our perception. This is a nice visualisation of politically correct illusions — like human induced catastrophic global warming.

(2) The Business of Handling Language — Author It

The painting is entitled Developing a Personal Language. Image credit

As a follow up to (1) The Business of Handling Language:

(1) The Business of Handling Language

Image credit

The business of translating is affected by the rapid progress being made in the development of automated translation technologies. Today, automatic translation is at the level of the language skills of a seven year old. In two years time automata will be linguistically as skillful as a fourteen year old. 

In the medium term, reasonable money is to be made only by those who combine their translating skills with specialised knowledge while preferably being in a position to efficiently support the building and dissemination of content. 

This is why it may be a good idea for a translator to extend her business portfolio to include research and writing. 

This could give her the capabilities needed to accompany the work flow by which the content a client wishes to disseminate is built from the stage when the messages are identified through to the delivery of end products (speeches, internal messages, articles, seminar and other study materials, web content, research papers, books, etc.).

Perhaps the most critical issue here is that a company's content building work flow is shot through with power relations. These may either keep an external provider out of the flow altogether or make her contributions less effective, ineffective or even disruptive. Ownership of content building may prove to be just as jealously guarded a privilege as other forms of controlling power.

Typically, being accorded a high degree of trust by the client is the prerequisite for an external writer-cum-translator to effectively enter the content building work flow.

How does one earn this trust?

One strategy is to become part of a team that has already won a client's trust. (1) This could be a team that does not specialise in writing and translating but has a demand for these services — again, even in this context, content ownership will always be a highly sensitive issue, within the provider and vis-à-vis the client. (2) Or it may be a team that is offering these services and is looking for a new team member. Later one may use the experience of working in such a team to attract one's own clients.

Specialised competence (say in the ETF business), ability to research relevant related topics, generate content drafts or add to drafts proposed by the client — for instance a speech to be delivered by the ultimate content owner, the CEO.

Being involved in content building and delivery on all fronts lends consistency to the overall corporate message-scape, creating a distinct linguistic culture which may be translated into a consistent yet varied offering of content, targeting specific purposes and groups.

The job profile covers requirements that stand in tension to one another: you will want a creative individual(ist), a linguistic authority holding clear views about good and inadmissible writing, an iconoclast with ideas that strike others as novel or helpful in a way they would not have been able to come up with. At the same time, there is a need for humility, tolerance, empathy for the thoughts and the language style of other persons.

Continued here.

Complete Picture Politics

Image credit

I have posted this comment here:

Reich is making a very grave point — unconvincingly, though.

I do not trust the one-sided propagandists who talk about the problems of deregulation — which are in many ways severe —, but cut out the huge problems that are associated with regulation — assuming a posture often typical of the so-called left whereby all it takes for regulation to be ideal is that it is designed and implemented in accordance with their political goals.

This is what I call the left’s syndrome: once the left have taken power, they assume, the state’s policies can only be good.

The left’s myth of the state becoming unproblematic by virtue of its being controlled by the left is no better than the right’s myth of a self-regulating market order.

I trust only her who is capable of defending the good in regulation and deregulation and criticising the bad to be found in both.

Only yesterday I participated in a conference where a green politician assumed without compunction the left’s “Bonapartist” attitude described in the first paragraph above.

He proposed to get rid of democracy because he felt multi-party politics was not compliant with green policies. While at the same time demanding an industrial policy for Germany, he conceded that the Energiewende (turn to renewables) was failing/has failed — a policy that if it succeeded would have an effect on world temperature so small that it cannot be measured by modern instrumentation (not to mention that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is highly contested, increasingly so, while a mono-causal explanation of something as complex as climate is in itself already a strong indicator that something is amiss).

When I pointed out that the Energiewende is the most massive industrial policy that we have seen since II. WW, his answer was: yeah, but politics isn’t following our blueprint (which in itself is a steep claim), coming up with all kinds of ad hoc provisos that needed to be fulfilled, in his view, to resuscitate the White Elephant.

It never occurred to him that the comprehensive mix of bad regulation and bad deregulation in favour of Energiewende projects (largely driven by the green blueprint for industrial policy) was beginning to create a political backlash (just as politically correct suppression of unprejudiced science is beginning to get challenged) — even in green crazed Germany.

The inability to take a differentiating look at pros and cons leads to or is the result of one-sided dogmatism, the religious approach to politics.

Like a libertarian, this gentleman was eagerly demanding depoliticisation right, left, and centre (meaning: cut the people out, disempower democracy, cripple political competition, stunt democracy, let politically correct technocrats rule (a mythical self-regulating economy, in the case of libertarians)).

He had only an embarrassed smile for me when I pointed out that his cat was biting her own tail as nothing is more political than deciding what depoliticisation is to mean, how it is to be applied and who will be affected by it in what manner and which areas are to be exempted from it.