Possibly zombie apocalypse disease or the bone fever from Helliconia or man-flu.
Not sure what is going on on that label
This is a follow up to Estimating Rabid Puppy Numbers and also to a comment Greg Hullender made at Chaos Horizon https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2016/08/20/2016-hugos-some-initial-stat-analysis/#comment-1725
That number 165 (or close to it) appears quite a bit over the years in connection with Vox Day. I wonder if it actually means anything.
There have been four votes at the Hugo Awards with Vox as the candidate or author:
2014 Best Novelette Opera Vita Aeterna 161 1st Preferences
2015 Best Editor Short Form Vox Day 586 1st Preferences
2015 Best Editor Long Form Vox Day 166 1st Preferences
2016 Best Editor Long Form Vox Day 165 1st Preferences
[Other cases: 2015 Nominations: Best Editor Long Form Vox Day 166, Best Editor Short Form Vox Day 162]
Only the 2015 Short Form is different, in the year of maximum Puppyage. The doubly odd thing, is that it is Long Form that is the odd case for 2015 because in that category, that year, Vox had publically stated his 1st preference was fro Toni Weisskopf. I speculated at the time, that a core set of puppies must have voted for him so that he didn’t get a humiliatingly low vote.
However, given the pattern, it does rather look like there are 160ish core Rabids.
Not the best week for our favourite evil-genius.
Sunday: The Hugo Awards didn’t collapse but instead voted for top-notch works. The multiple dark threats from 2015 amounted to little more than Space Raptor Butt Invasion aka the joke that backfired on the devilman Vox. Here he is in 2015.
Tonight will tell us one very important thing. It will give us the opportunity to see what their true numbers are and reveal the true extent of their fully mobilized strength. Last year, the maximum No Award vote was 1,100. This year it will be more, somewhere between 1,100 and 4,000.
Being SJWs, they doubled-down as per the Second Law, giving us the chance to break them once and for all. But even if we don’t, even if we only burn Munich instead of taking Berlin, even if they are successful in “sending a message”, what we hear will not be what they wish for us to hear. Because what we will hear is this: Next year, bring more puppies.
Ooops. I think I can spot where the brilliant plan fell down.
Tuesday: Vox is struggling to make sense of Space Raptor Butt Invasion. The Vox Xanatos gambit was this:
- SJWs will either say they hate it and not vote for it and the Hugos will be all embarrassed that it was on the ballot.
- Or the SJWs will say that they love it and hence have to vote for it and it will a Hugo and the Hugos will have “butt” in it ha, ha, ha I made them say “butt”
Unfortunately somehow in the complex psychological four-dimensional chess game that Vox was playing (which oddly looks like the reasoning of a 10-year-old playground bully with emotional difficulties), he missed this option:
- Hugo voters will find Chuck Tingle hilarious, his baiting of Vox Day even more hilarious, embrace him as an ally and give him big cheers – but not vote him a Hugo because Space Raptor Butt Invasion isn’t really Hugo worthy.
Vox ends up fuming https://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/why-worldcon-changed-rules.html :
Apparently those folks appreciate Mr. Tingle just about as much as they appreciate me. Did I not tell you that would happen despite the SJW’s feigned joy over how terribly funny and brilliant they found Mr. Tingle’s work?
Those darn SJWs! They must have been pretending just to wind Vox up! Gosh, I wish that was true because it would be even funnier than the reality.
Wednesday: The massive post-Hugo sulk continues as the best reaction Vox can come up with is to try to be rude to Nnedi Okorafor. Ah! That is the brilliant four-dimensional chess gambit Vox was going to play along!
Thursday: Donald Trump goes all wibbly-wobbly on immigration. While arithmetic is not the Alt-Right’s strong suit, even Donald appears to have spotted that he needs a broader base than immigration-paranoia. As pivots go it was weak and incoherent but enough to cause a Vox-sulk and use the ‘c’ word: https://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/did-trump-cuck-on-immigration.html It’s all OK though because just doesn’t care.
I don’t actually care what he did or didn’t do, but since some of you obviously want to get into this, be my guest. But do it here, not in the other threads.
Thursday again: Things look up a bit for Vox, as Hillary Clinton makes a big deal about the alt-right. Sure it’s bad for Trump but a side-effect is an increased profile for the alt-right: https://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/hillary-live-stream.html
Friday: Coverage of Hillary’s speech in the mainstream media – but what’s this? Quotes from VDARE, Cernovich, Milo and assorted racists but no Vox. Heck even I was disappointed for him – I wanted to point at a quote and say ‘I had a stupid twitter argument with that guy!’ but ’twas not to be.
Saturday: OK timezone wise I’m not sure it is Saturday yet wherever Vox is. Thing is August 27 is about 30 days since the end of the Democratic National Convention. Here is Vox in early August:
As for the polls, I remind you of my previous assessment: they don’t mean ANYTHING until 30 days after the end of the second convention.
If there is no discernible Trump trend by then, it MIGHT be time to start considering the possibility of a Hillary win. In the meantime, pay no attention to the media’s attempt to establish a false narrative.
And this is what the polls look like now:
This was posted as a comment but ended up in the pending queue and people may have missed it: Passing it on for info:
Readers are invited to join the National Fantasy Fan Federation http://n3f.org/join/ ($6 with an electronic membership), notify me that you have joined (firstname.lastname@example.org), and vote on our awards, the Neffies (given at least as early as 1949, then as the “Laureate Award”). Associate Memberships are free.
The current nominees are
Somewhither—John C. Wright
Shadows of Self—Brandon Sanderson
Best Paper Series Novel
Schooled in Magic—Chris Nuttall
Peter Buch (Elsewhen)
Sheila Gilbert (DAW)
Toni Weisskopf (Baen)
Best TV Show
Sense8 Season 1 Jonathan Strange miniseries
What We Do in Shadows
That is an eclectic mix 🙂
In yet another extraordinary display of sore-loserness, Brad Torgersen enter into the fray with a rant about how the leftwing media is ganging up on him https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/courageous-left-wing-media-beats-stuffing-out-of-straw-puppy/
Now, just to remind everybody:
- Brad (and Larry) were not really involved in Sad Puppies 4 – the relevant campaign for Hugo 2016
- Brad has always been very vocal about how different the Sads and Rabids are
- Sad Puppies 4 was actual a vast improvement and received substantially less criticism than Brad’s campaign because Kate Paulk actually did what she said she would do
- The impact on nominations from Sad Puppies 4 was not overt or disruptive – good for them
- The big issue in 2016 was the obvious griefing by the Rabid Puppies of Vox Day
- It was the Rabid Puppies who got trounced in the final voting
- Vox is being largely phlegmatic about it (as trolls tend to be when their trolling gets shut down eventually)
- Brad and Larry are having a massive hissy fit about fans not voting the way Brad and Larry think they should have
Brad says that Sad Puppies was all about diversity of opinion – yet here we are again. When new and varied works win, Brad has a meltdown because they don’t fit the nutty-nugget template that he demands we all follow.
Larry Correia has re-entered into the Hugo debate, apparently to lambast Hugo voters for not voting for the Rabid Puppies. As so often happens, Larry (and Brad) have forgotten briefly about the supposedly massive distinction between Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies and naturally has come down fair and square on the side of Vox Day’s fairly obvious griefing attempt.
Fast forward to now, and at least they are open it is all politics.
Politics? It is interesting that when Larry says “politics” it so often means either women or people of colour not being discriminated against. When this is pointed out, Larry then tends to go 180 degrees and loudly declares about how race or gender or ethnicity are irrelevant and that people are all meany heads for calling him a racist or that the Sad Puppy leadership is diverse. Which is odd, because by Larry’s standards all of that would amount to “politics” on his part.
Larry and the Sad Puppies declared many times that the problem with the Hugos was the same old people winning awards. Well, that isn’t want happened this year and so now Larry is complaining that it is “politics”.
Seriously what aspect of YOUR politics is it that is attacked when somebody like N.K.Jemisin wins a Hugo? Seriously – that is a genuine question, not a trick one. You say repeatedly how much of a non-racist you are and that’s great and I’d really, really, like to believe you. What would help, would be you trying to work out what you mean by “politics” – because it really doesn’t seem to be the economic policy beliefs of award winners or their views on foreign policy or even their stance on healthcare or even which political candidate they are going to vote for in the next election.
Just ask yourself this, what kind of scumbags would give No Award to Larry Elmore?
Wait – you are the guy who keeps saying awards don’t matter? So now ordinary voters are “scumbags” if they don’t give somebody an award? And you wonder how “Sad Puppy” became such a toxic brand. It might have worked for Donald Trump during the GOP Primary but insulting ordinary voters is a pretty crap way of winning support and a very quick way of becoming marginalised in terms of influence beyond your fanbase (yeah, yeah, I know you earn lots and your books are super popular etc – seriously I’m happy for you).
You can’t even make your mind up whether a Hugo Award is an irrelevance or a mark of toxicity or something so vital that a fan must be a “scumbag” if they don’t vote for somebody.
And you are back to the notion of a Hugo being some kind of lifetime achievement award. It isn’t. You might want it to be but that involves persuading people rather than shouting at them. It is noticeable that when people wouldn’t be bullied into doing what you wanted you withdrew rather than thinking about where you went wrong and trying to engage in a positive way. Shame that.
Moira Greyland exposed to the culture of rape and pedophilia in old fandom, and not the made up “rape culture” the modern feminists accuse anybody who disagrees with them of.
And noticeably the coverage of this was not something Sad Puppies felt was worth nominating last year. For example http://deirdre.net/marion-zimmer-bradley-its-worse-than-i-knew/
Does that mean you and Brad wanted it “swept under the rug”? Because not only did you not nominate any of the coverage you didn’t discuss in your blogs either. Whereas the “modern feminists” you attack did discuss it. Ah but they are awful people because while they took the issue seriously they didn’t the vote the way Vox Day told them to in an award that you think is irrelevant because…because why? Because now Larry Correia thinks the way of helping the victims of sexual abuse is to never talk about the issue but nominate things for a Hugo Award?
Nope. While “modern feminists” were pointing out this appalling part of fandom history, Sad Puppies was busy celebrating and promoting a rape apologist. Oh wait, but that’s “politics” again, isn’t it, if anybody dares mention the way Sad Puppies sought out and promoted Vox Day.
But here is why I didn’t vote for Moira Greyland’s essay https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/hugo-choices-2-best-related-work-the-story-of-moira-greyland/
Other people had other reasons.
Toni Weisskopf? No Award. But we already knew that was coming.
Yes, we did. Take for example Sad Puppy 4 supremo Kate Paulk’s take on Best Editor Long Form: https://madgeniusclub.com/2016/07/07/hugo-category-highlights-the-finalists-best-editor-short-form-and-long-form/
Yup, even the TOP Sad Puppy couldn’t find much of a reason to vote for Toni Weisskopf. Heck, judging from the Hugo packet Toni Weisskopf couldn’t think of any reasons why we should vote for Toni Weisskopf. And yet people are just the WORST if they don’t vote for her because…I guess we’ll never know other than because Larry said so.
And noticeable how you can’t bring yourself to congratulate Sheila E Gilbert for actually winning – you know the person who actually said what she edited last year. Amazing that.
And Jerry Pournelle… Living legend. You pieces of shit are honestly going to tell us that Jerry Pournelle is not award worthy?
Yes, because the work he was nominated for, There Will be War X, was a bit shit. Also, it was forced onto the ballot by the publisher’s shenanigans – something Sad Puppies and yourself are supposed to be opposing.
Jerry Pournelle can be a living legend and if there is ever a Living Legend Hugo Award I might even give him some consideration (tough field, though). However, he was nominated for best editor on the basis of an anthology that was pretty bad compared to his earlier work.
And to Neil Gaiman, boldly standing up to those pesky Puppies during his speech…
When you got your buddy Jonathan Ross to volunteer to MC the awards, it wasn’t those jerky Sad Puppies that formed an angry twitter mob because he *might* tell a fat joke.
That is true and note he still thinks “puppies” are bigger jerks.
You might want to stop and reflect on that for a moment. People who have actually experienced some of the supposedly awful oppression of the supposedly awful SJWs (mainly people being cross on the internet) see your “Puppy” brand as more obnoxious than that.
Now, why do you think that is Larry?
HINT: you have singularly failed to expand your base and done nothing but help Vox Day and the alt-right solidify theirs.
I still recall how discombobulated you were when Donald Trump effectively won the GOP nominations. You just couldn’t make sense of it – despite all your effort to legitimise and promote alt-right figures, alt-right narratives and alt-right talking points.
It still amazes me how much people on the right work so, so hard to boost people who then laugh at them and call them “cuckservatives” and then hijack their movement. And here we are again – you are posting a long rant about how awful those Hugo voters are and how “political” they are for not embracing Vox Day.
by the way, Neil, there were two separate groups of Puppies with entirely different goals and methods
Says Larry, rushing to defend the Rabid Puppies after they get trounced in a popular vote. Amazing how often Larry or Brad would rhetorically jump in front of criticism of the Rabid Puppies considering how different the two campaigns are. And I’m not being sarcastic – Larry is right, the Sads and Rabids really are qualitatively different. The most obvious difference is that Vox is quite happy to laugh and mock the Sad Puppies while the Sad Puppies jump to Vox’s defence – just as Larry does in this piece.
[Update: Larry’s post-Hugo rant appears to be the ONLY time he has EVER mentioned Moira Greyland on his blog (based on a search of the term “Greyland”). He cares SO MUCH about the issues she raised that he only ever got round to mentioning her this week and as part of his standard rant that everybody else are wrongfans]
[Not actually an update – the bit after the link went missing and I didn’t notice]
I’ve discussed before Vox day’s ideological nationalism/racism is very much in line with the 19th century Know Nothings. Unfortunately, I don’t have many clear examples of him going after the Irish. While US anti-Irish racism is sometimes exaggerated as a kind of way of minimising the deeper and more violent anti-black racism, it shouldn’t be minimised either.
As it happens, the ruination of the United States is the result of the “contributions” of two groups of immigrants, Irish and Jewish.
Of course, Americans of Irish descent are not now the subject of particular racism, unlike the lingering anti-Semitism which Vox also stokes up. What is notable is how once racism is adopted ideologically, it tends to end up picking the same targets as it scrabbles around trying to make reality fit an absurd hypothesis.
I’m still trapped in this hell-hole of a right-wing think-tank’s attempt to wish climate change away. It almost makes me miss Vox Day.
Kesten C. Green & J. Scott Armstrong are both affiliated with the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute at the University of South Australia. Now that sounds quite impressive but it is an institute of Market Research. No, no, that’s OK – no snide comments – market research is a numerate discipline and is in an interesting place developing underlying theories and models. Still as a discipline it has neither the depth, success or theoretical clout of climatology and meteorology.
Now you may, if you’ve been paying attention, wonder why a discussion of the efficacy of forecasting techniques of climate science is stuck as the last chapter of the ‘economics and politics’ section rather than in the ‘science’ section. Given that this chapter is going to claim to demonstrate that forecasts of global warming are somehow invalid, then you might doubly wonder that. Indeed, given how confident Green and Armstrong are of their finding, I’d be a little disappointed that I wasn’t Chapter 1 and that Plimer, Michaels, Linden, Soon, Carter et al weren’t making a big hullabaloo about this chapter – particularly Soon who apparently has collaborated with Green and Armstrong. It is almost as if even fellow doubters are unconvinced.
Kesten C Green is, or presents himself as, an expert in forecasting as a general discipline. Looking through his publicly available work that isn’t global warming related, his work has grown out of forecasting techniques for businesses. In particular describing the principles that should be applied when faced with complex data (for examples sales data or perhaps political polling data) and attempting to make guesses about what will happen next.
Green describes his view of forecasting like this:
For nearly a century, researchers have been studying how best to make accurate and useful forecasts. Knowledge on forecasting has accumulated by testing multiple reasonable hypotheses about which method will provide the best forecasts in given conditions. This scientific approach contrasts with the folklore that experts in a domain will be able to make good forecasts about complex uncertain situations using their unaided judgement, or using unvalidated forecasting methods.
And that all makes sense. Empirical, data-driven approaches make sense. Intuitive approaches don’t, even when those intuitions are based on people with experience. Such approaches should involve substantive models when possible but collecting reliable data and basing claims (whether they are forecasts or projections or something else) on the combination of sound models, good data and knowledge of changing conditions is wise. It’s also something climatologist already know.
Green goes on to talk about various principles of forecasting and says:
The principles are readily available in the Principles of Forecasting handbook.
Which is, specifically Armstrong’s Principles of Forecasting handbook.
And this is where the chapter gets progressively more odd. Firstly the authors can’t find in the IPCC any reference to (Green & Armstrong’s) validation of forecasting processes (ignoring the actual processes followed within climatology as a discipline). They then sent emails to authors of sections in the IPCC asking them about validation. I’m guessing they go the equivalent of either blank looks or responses akin to ‘do your own homework’.
Green and Armstrong then ‘audited’ the IPCC’s “forecasting procedures” using “Forecasting Audit Software available on ForPrin.com”. Specifically that is the Green & Armstrong Forecasting Audit Software that is available on Green & Armstrong’s ForPrin.com website.
It’s around this point that the weird tone and approach of the chapter suddenly makes sense. This is an advertorial. It is literally marketing. The customer base for “ForPrin.com” is a business audience, and some proportion of the readership of this right-leaning book of disturbed wonkery are a good fit for Green & Armstrong’s market. And good for them! I’ve no objection to self-promotion! It’s a clever use of what is otherwise a giant waste of effort.
“We analysed the IPCC’s forecasting procedures to assess whether they followed the Golden Rule of Forecasting. The Golden Rule of Forecasting requires that forecasters be conservative.”
That’s Kesten C Green’s Golden Rule of Forecasting of course.
“We found that the IPCC procedures violated all nineteen of the Golden Rule guidelines that are relevant to long-term climate forecasting.”
So they set off to do a better job. If you are thinking ‘this is going to be a trainwreck’ then you’ve been reading this blog to long. Go and do something useful with your life 😉
Thye produce this graph:
What is this? You may ask. It is the train wreck you anticipated earlier.
What they’ve done is take the HADCRUT3 global mean anomaly data set from 1850 to 1975 and then tested three “forecasts” that somebody in 1850 could make about future temperature changes.
- Persistence: basically change nothing. 1850 average temperature stays the same.
- Cooling: a steady 0.01 degree C cooling per year.
- Warming: a steady 0.03 degree C warming per year.
These are on the basis of predictions somebody may have made in 1975. Now they then find the absolute difference between each scenario and then plot it.
This is an odd way of finding trends in data and there are better ways of treating time series data, and they are assuming a linear relationship etc. More weird is why 0.03 degrees C per year warming (a projection based on increasing global warming) starting in 1850 when they know in advance that the warming is less than that for the period in question.
They also stop in 1975 before a major increase in warming – for vague reasons.
This what the HADCRUT3 global mean data looks like http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1975/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:2016
Green & Armstrong’s graph covers the red bit and ignores the steeper green bit and tests a projection of warming for increased levels of CO2 that come after the green bit. Quite what golden rule of forecasting this is meant to be is anybody’s guess but it looks a lo like “just make up shit”.
I thought, what the heck, I’ll try and draw their graph and see what they are trying to do. I think this is it:
Yellow is their 0.03 warming, orange is there 0.01 warming and blue is persistence. As they are insistent that good forecasting involves testing multiple scenarios I added in the grey line: 0.01 warming – much closer to what we know occurred. And blow me down! The obvious warming scenario they left off (in violation of their own principles of forecasting) does quite well. Actually I could tinker around and get a warming scenario that does even better.
Conclusion: somebody who predicted mild warming in 1850 would have made a BETTER forecast than Green & Armstrong’s no change rule.
They also say that good forecasts use recent data. So let’s throw in 1975 onwards:
The grey line is actually 0.013 degrees warming because I was tinkering. Notably, persistence now is diverging more and the 0.013 degrees warming is looking better. This isn’t a surprise because we know what actually happened in the 20th century.
But let’s skip forward. After all, nobody in 1850 was making these predictions. What about 1950? That is a more interesting time because global warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases was being taken more seriously as a hypothesis. There wasn’t a consensus of opinion on it at that point though.
This is less data of course but it is also more recent data.
This time, the grey warming scenario is 0.015 degrees -and doesn’t it do well! Persistence is only a tad better than 0.03 warming as a forecast and cooling is the worst.
The Persistence scenario by Armstrong & Green’s tests would have been a not good prediction in 1950 – particularly compared to warming.
We found that there are no scientific forecasts that support the hypothesis that manmade global warming will occur.
Which is odd, because using their methods I found plenty.
Instead, the best forecasts of temperatures on Earth for the twenty-first century and beyond are derived from the hypothesis of persistence.
Which isn’t even true if you intentionally cut out the period of greatest warming from the twentieth century.
And that’s chapter 12 and the end of the politics section!
Another beer from Kaiju – with a robot monk! I had a robot monk in my Nanowrimo story!