We is not I

Have you ever noticed that it’s always men who refer to their wives as “their better half”? Have you ever heard a woman introduce her husband that way? I don’t know why, but that phrase has always given me the willies and makes me wonder if those men are speaking tongue in cheek or are simply oleaginous gammas. Either way, it doesn’t seem like a promising sign to me.

Peak beauty

And the female descent into invisibility. An aging British woman laments the inevitable:

As every woman of a certain age comes to learn, there is a point when you become invisible. People stop paying you attention. No doubt evolutionary biologists have explanations for this. But we know, unless we choose to ignore it, that there is all too much truth in the words of the old song: keep young and beautiful if you want to be loved and — which is part of the same thing — if you want to hold on to whatever power you had in your prime.

This female invisibility is nothing more than the natural and obvious consequence of completely failing to develop an attractive personality or interests outside of yourself. It’s also something for which no man is likely to feel the even the slightest bit of sympathy, since only the Alphas don’t know what it’s like to have been invisible to the opposite sex and they’re not inclined to be overly concerned about how an old woman not worth bagging happens to feel. As we can also see from what Roissy describes as The Wall, female invisibility actually proceeds in stages; what Ms Marrin is describing is merely the final stage in a long process which begins when the average woman hits her peak beauty somewhere between 25-27. How quickly the decline takes place depends upon the individual woman’s genetics, commitment to fitness, and diet, but it’s a natural and unavoidable process.

Of course, all this does is place the older woman on an equal footing with virtually all men, wherein she must earn social visibility through merit. However, it is difficult for those who have never had to develop their personalities or their minds, but have gotten by on their superficial attributes instead, to begin to do so after a lifetime of neglect. I once asked one of my philandering friends why he can’t seem to be content for long with any of the very beautiful women with whom he is always involved. (He’s a smart and very successful guy, definite Alpha.) His answer was that once the novelty of the new wore off, he inevitably discovered they never had anything interesting to say, which caused them to first become boring, and then downright burdensome.

But beauty does not necessarily preclude being interesting. My recommendation to women who don’t want to gradually decline into invisibility is to develop a genuine interest in things outside one’s self and one’s social circle. The fading of the superficialities may be inevitable, but the concomitant social invisibility doesn’t have to be. Just as the male athlete has to accept that his time in the spotlight is one day going to come to an end and his fans will turn their attention to younger, more capable performers, the attractive woman has to accept that the enjoyable experience of basking in the immediate arousal of the men around her will also cease in time.

What a woman does about this, either in anticipation or in response, depends entirely upon what a woman wants out of life. There is no correct answer. I’m not saying that a woman shouldn’t enjoy her moment in the sun while it lasts anymore than an athlete shouldn’t exert himself to the utmost of his potential. But I am saying that the sun will go down on your beauty, usually sooner than later, and graceless denial of the inevitable is never attractive to anyone.

Coddling the Climategate criminals

The so-called “six-month” statute of limitations that is supposedly protecting the Climategate charlatans doesn’t exist:

There is something very odd indeed about the statement by the Information Commission on its investigation into “Climategate”, the leak of emails from East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. Gordon Smith, the deputy commissioner, confirms that the university’s refusal to answer legitimate inquiries made in 2007 and 2008 was an offence under S.77 of the Information Act. But he goes on to claim that the Commission is powerless to bring charges, thanks to a loophole in the law – “because the legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place”.

Careful examination of the Act, however, shows that it says nothing whatever about a time limit. The Commission appears to be trying to confuse this with a provision of the Magistrates Act, that charges for an offence cannot be brought more than six months after it has been drawn to the authorities’ attention – not after it was committed. In this case, the Commission only became aware of the offence two months ago when the emails were leaked – showing that the small group of British and American scientists at the top of the IPCC were discussing with each other and with the university ways to break the law, not least by destroying evidence, an offence in itself.

I’m with James Delingpole on this. Prosecute and imprison the lying, thieving little bastards. Force them to repay the millions in grant money they fraudulently obtained. Actually, they deserve far worse than penury and prison, for they were at the heart of a scheme to reduce all of Mankind to serfdom in the name of science.

But don’t worry. There’s so much more fraud and chicanery left to be uncovered that the scientists will have to be thrown to the wolves before long.

Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based. A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

As I have stated repeatedly, scientists are no more trustworthy than anyone else, their self-serving claim to objectivity by virtue of academic training is no more credible than that made by journalists. Scientists whose income is dependent upon achieving specific results are no more trustworthy than used-car salesmen. And peer review is a worthless method for policing science, as it is primarily useful for passing off non-science as science. Regardless, it is becoming ever more clear that the age of the scientist as sage and secular priest is over.