Someone just asked about whether climate change was man made or natural, and as requested I provided a short summary based on the latest data, which I think everyone should copy and paste for future times when the same question is asked:
----------------------------------------
There are two single figures here which were used. First the sharp rise in CO2, albeit not from known sources as since discovered by Japan's Ibuki satellite. The jury's still technically out on that one. Secondly, if you didn't check behind it, a slight rise in temperatures for the same 150 year period.
After that it is literally all down to interpretation. Using logical methods rather than scientific (although the two should be the same they are not always) what would we say about the changes, from the temperature to the ice and sea levels, had CO2 not risen:
Temperature rise: 0.8C in 150 years
Sea level rise: 10 inches a century
Global ice level: Stable, although totally unbalanced from north (warmer) to south (colder).
Compare those with historical charts going back thousands of years, and you will see minus the red herring of CO2 figures they look almost flat, and definitely relatively stable. These figures have swung wildly by a few degrees a decade and up to 100 feet of sea level a century after an ice age, while remove the error bars and today's changes almost vanish altogether.
Therefore, like always, people have looked at the birdie and not the sniper pointing his gun or the pot of gold in front of you. The attention has always focused on the definitely unusual but clearly harmless (a 50% rise in 150 years has produced the above figures, and physics says a 100% rise would produce a 1C rise with no positive feedback, their trump card). However, observation and deduction are keystones of physics. We observe an experiment, one here which is well within a primary school science level of understanding, and say "If CO2 adds a degree to the average temperature by doubling without positive feedback, and the experiment is half run and it has added about half a degree, what do you expect the second half to show?"
I'll conclude my presentation here so as not to muddy the water with what are no more than background figures behind the main picture I have given.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Beating the new world order
Knowledge of the way they do their tricks is the only real power the people have over magicians. These do not really print more money, they just devalue what they have and know most people think there's more. In fact commodities and resources are measured daily by organisations worldwide to set prices, and are incredibly price sensitive. If supply goes down the price goes up, and if cash goes down the price goes up as you need a certain number of calories a day for life, but the cost of them will change from week to week. Therefore the true value lies in the constants with actual physical functions and benefits.
In Britain they pretend renewable power works. They apply the same trick to firstly tax fossil fuel till it's a lot closer to wind and solar, then subsidise renewables with the money they've taken from fossil, and Chris Huhne lies to millions on TV and says they now cost almost the same. Now if you own Persil and buy Omo and Daz, and then own all three, then any price changes can be evened out and you still get it all, and the same amount. If Omo can wash 10 shirts and Daz can wash 100, if you just buy both companies and prefer to sell Omo as the profits are far higher, you just fix the market and hope people don't notice.
The trouble is people are like alcoholics. They rarely wake up till it's too late and they are in such deep trouble they may die. When the idiots paying the price of a car for a solar panel can't heat their houses a few years down the line they'll wake up one day and realise they've been had. I could see it before they even called the bank to make a loan, and before the salesmen even knocked on their door, but all they could see was the promise of 'free energy'. Now the word 'free' is an absolute term, like 'pregnant'. It is not subject to qualifications, something is free or not. Solar power is a very clear set of figures. You spend a lot up front, and due to government subsidies, if you go away during the spring or summer, they will pay 10 times over the market price for the power you generate and are not there to use.
Otherwise you both have already paid, and are then paying maintenance costs and actually discover that the percentage of your total household energy a panel produces (I must check the new figures now) is under 10%. The only free option is simply because someone else pays for you, if the company use your house as a site and collect all the power profits it generates. So technically it still isn't free as someone else has paid for you hoping they can make a profit.
I use solar power as one of the clearest examples where the knowledge is already out there but cannot explain this to a single person who is blinded by fear of the climate. Unfortunately we don't have the time to wait for these weak minds to climax, as the majority of the civilised world will be broke long before enough of them have their personal epiphanies. If there was such a thing it really would be time for divine intervention. I hadn't even reached world tax and government yet.
I write these as source materials for everyone. I have been slowly putting these together for years and now is the time we all need to be fully informed. Copy, paste and share!
In Britain they pretend renewable power works. They apply the same trick to firstly tax fossil fuel till it's a lot closer to wind and solar, then subsidise renewables with the money they've taken from fossil, and Chris Huhne lies to millions on TV and says they now cost almost the same. Now if you own Persil and buy Omo and Daz, and then own all three, then any price changes can be evened out and you still get it all, and the same amount. If Omo can wash 10 shirts and Daz can wash 100, if you just buy both companies and prefer to sell Omo as the profits are far higher, you just fix the market and hope people don't notice.
The trouble is people are like alcoholics. They rarely wake up till it's too late and they are in such deep trouble they may die. When the idiots paying the price of a car for a solar panel can't heat their houses a few years down the line they'll wake up one day and realise they've been had. I could see it before they even called the bank to make a loan, and before the salesmen even knocked on their door, but all they could see was the promise of 'free energy'. Now the word 'free' is an absolute term, like 'pregnant'. It is not subject to qualifications, something is free or not. Solar power is a very clear set of figures. You spend a lot up front, and due to government subsidies, if you go away during the spring or summer, they will pay 10 times over the market price for the power you generate and are not there to use.
Otherwise you both have already paid, and are then paying maintenance costs and actually discover that the percentage of your total household energy a panel produces (I must check the new figures now) is under 10%. The only free option is simply because someone else pays for you, if the company use your house as a site and collect all the power profits it generates. So technically it still isn't free as someone else has paid for you hoping they can make a profit.
I use solar power as one of the clearest examples where the knowledge is already out there but cannot explain this to a single person who is blinded by fear of the climate. Unfortunately we don't have the time to wait for these weak minds to climax, as the majority of the civilised world will be broke long before enough of them have their personal epiphanies. If there was such a thing it really would be time for divine intervention. I hadn't even reached world tax and government yet.
I write these as source materials for everyone. I have been slowly putting these together for years and now is the time we all need to be fully informed. Copy, paste and share!
Thursday, December 22, 2011
What the satguru means and how to find it
How to find the satguru.
The satguru is your inner wisdom, the source of intuition and all knowledge. We are all in touch with it at times, but do not usually know it or trust it. The easiest way to find it directly is to read or listen to a number of spiritual teachers on the same subject. You will find the more you hear the more they disagree and teach different things about the path to enlightenment. Of course they can't all be right, and all are equally qualified, so rather than give up what do you do? Ask yourself which one feels and seems right. When you get the answer it was not by logic or evidence as all the knowledge was unknown to you. But you were still able to pick the best one.
Once found, keep using it for every situation you need it in. It will get better and more frequent information, and may tell you thinks you had no way of learning directly which turn out to be exactly correct. There is little point ever trying to convince others of what this has told you as it is the highest form of knowledge and only for your own benefit and to advise others without them needing to know how you found out about it.
If we could all learn to do this we'd never vote for the wrong people or trust ones who are dangerous, and gradually as a result they would lose their power. I have used it for most of my life. It doesn't require asking, it comes to me. Once you recognise the feeling, which is quite different from every others as a calm certainty, you know when it is working. I have picked up criminals, liars, scams, impending disasters etc more and more all my life, and at times is almost enough evidence physically around to at least demonstrate it to others as a possibility. But unlike the satguru they can never be certain unless they see it proved. But then it is always too late as they have trusted the wrong people and couldn't risk letting them go in case I was wrong. Therefore each person has to develop their own satguru as you can't expect to rely on someone else's.
The satguru is your inner wisdom, the source of intuition and all knowledge. We are all in touch with it at times, but do not usually know it or trust it. The easiest way to find it directly is to read or listen to a number of spiritual teachers on the same subject. You will find the more you hear the more they disagree and teach different things about the path to enlightenment. Of course they can't all be right, and all are equally qualified, so rather than give up what do you do? Ask yourself which one feels and seems right. When you get the answer it was not by logic or evidence as all the knowledge was unknown to you. But you were still able to pick the best one.
Once found, keep using it for every situation you need it in. It will get better and more frequent information, and may tell you thinks you had no way of learning directly which turn out to be exactly correct. There is little point ever trying to convince others of what this has told you as it is the highest form of knowledge and only for your own benefit and to advise others without them needing to know how you found out about it.
If we could all learn to do this we'd never vote for the wrong people or trust ones who are dangerous, and gradually as a result they would lose their power. I have used it for most of my life. It doesn't require asking, it comes to me. Once you recognise the feeling, which is quite different from every others as a calm certainty, you know when it is working. I have picked up criminals, liars, scams, impending disasters etc more and more all my life, and at times is almost enough evidence physically around to at least demonstrate it to others as a possibility. But unlike the satguru they can never be certain unless they see it proved. But then it is always too late as they have trusted the wrong people and couldn't risk letting them go in case I was wrong. Therefore each person has to develop their own satguru as you can't expect to rely on someone else's.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The amateur professional
I've been able to become far more educated since getting the internet, and basically like having access to all the libraries in the world, and being able to learn far more in the subjects of interest indefinitely. And believe me, I can show quite definitively that no one needs to be qualified in most areas to follow any of them, they just wouldn't be employed in them. But 100 plus years ago it was different. Few professionals studied at college but did articles or apprenticeships. They watched the existing professionals and gradually allowed to try more and more themselves until the time was up and they qualified. Not an element of examination as far as I know. But they carried on, in fact professions like accountancy, dentistry and medicine were practiced by many people possibly into living memory if learnt early enough.
So the point is there is more than one way to learn a subject, and if anyone with a little help now and then wants to teach themselves then the actual reliance comes from the source material plus the possibility of a mentor to explain problems directly. You may not be able to become a professional directly but can guarantee you will be able to understand a good deal of what they say. That is like an amateur version, not qualified or able to practice, but fully able to follow the work and carry out some of the basics, a bit like Patrick Moore, considered one of the greatest astronomers of the time, and totally unqualified. He even became the president of the British Astronomical Association, hardly a soft profession either.
Climate is pretty much on a par. Like driving a car we don't need to know the details under the bonnet besides self preservation for breakdowns, but know what all the buttons do. You don't need to know the bios level to operate a computer when it goes wrong to do many fixes, it's just the programming levels few people can do without proper training. Climate does not need an ability to do the equations required, just to understand the results. They are free to produce the data and work out where the atmosphere collects certain gases, how much heat they react to (they don't hold it in, they heat up and absorb it temporarily) and why our planet is 33C above the temperature of space solely due to the sun's heat. Now even a primary school pupil can follow if you introduce a gas into the atmosphere at a few hundred parts per million then unless it has almost explosive properties (compare to methane which is one of the most absorbent gases to rising heat from the surface) as the existing qualities are known then adding a little more is a massive median point of what a reasonable person would expect to happen, 11 year olds included.
11 year olds can still keep up, as it's easy to see through tricks at that age as you don't tend to trust others as much as haven't developed such a mystical view of professionals and much happier to trust their own judgement. So if professor sir doctor Albert Gore (dammit, he's not a scientist!) tells you unlike the first 260ppm the second will raise the water from the ocean and form a warm blanket to melt the atmosphere and kill all the bears many children and adults will cautiously say (or should) well it hasn't happened before, why don't we wait and see. That is not just the reasonable conclusion, but the only scientific one.
I would invite 7 and 8 year olds to the party now. IF you increase the CO2 by 50% and temperature then rises by under a degree, then what is the conclusion? I'll hand that over to the audience.
So the point is there is more than one way to learn a subject, and if anyone with a little help now and then wants to teach themselves then the actual reliance comes from the source material plus the possibility of a mentor to explain problems directly. You may not be able to become a professional directly but can guarantee you will be able to understand a good deal of what they say. That is like an amateur version, not qualified or able to practice, but fully able to follow the work and carry out some of the basics, a bit like Patrick Moore, considered one of the greatest astronomers of the time, and totally unqualified. He even became the president of the British Astronomical Association, hardly a soft profession either.
Climate is pretty much on a par. Like driving a car we don't need to know the details under the bonnet besides self preservation for breakdowns, but know what all the buttons do. You don't need to know the bios level to operate a computer when it goes wrong to do many fixes, it's just the programming levels few people can do without proper training. Climate does not need an ability to do the equations required, just to understand the results. They are free to produce the data and work out where the atmosphere collects certain gases, how much heat they react to (they don't hold it in, they heat up and absorb it temporarily) and why our planet is 33C above the temperature of space solely due to the sun's heat. Now even a primary school pupil can follow if you introduce a gas into the atmosphere at a few hundred parts per million then unless it has almost explosive properties (compare to methane which is one of the most absorbent gases to rising heat from the surface) as the existing qualities are known then adding a little more is a massive median point of what a reasonable person would expect to happen, 11 year olds included.
11 year olds can still keep up, as it's easy to see through tricks at that age as you don't tend to trust others as much as haven't developed such a mystical view of professionals and much happier to trust their own judgement. So if professor sir doctor Albert Gore (dammit, he's not a scientist!) tells you unlike the first 260ppm the second will raise the water from the ocean and form a warm blanket to melt the atmosphere and kill all the bears many children and adults will cautiously say (or should) well it hasn't happened before, why don't we wait and see. That is not just the reasonable conclusion, but the only scientific one.
I would invite 7 and 8 year olds to the party now. IF you increase the CO2 by 50% and temperature then rises by under a degree, then what is the conclusion? I'll hand that over to the audience.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
The death of climatology
I can now explain why climate change can never become genuine. Measuring the present is science. Measuring the past is science. Measuring a linear track into the future is science. Measuring a complex set of linear interactions is science.
Trying to predict a future complex, non-linear system with countless influences, huge unknowns including massive gaps in temperature coverage, ice thickness, and most of all future feedback on top of the known CO2 effect is not scientific.
By pretending that they can guess the temperatures up to and beyond 100 years, plus the associated sea levels they have abandoned science for superstition. Our world, courtesy of the UN, is now being run by superstition. The sacrifices of current human beings for unborn ones in that imaginary future are the same as the Mayan sacrifices for a good year of crops ahead.
They may fool most people most of the time, but basing an ostensible scientific theory, claiming the status of gravity, heliocentrism and evolution the climatologists have dropped to the level of the Spanish Inquisition except the people see them as heroes saving them from the threat of frying under an identical sun to the one we have today and had yesterday. The time has come to take that trust and reliance away. There is no longer a discipline called climatology, they have deliberately chosen to leave the constraints of science and now no better than mock auctioneers.
The main criteria that need adding include: El Nino, La Nina, the oceanic oscillations over a decade to 30 years or so, plus their strength which of course is different every time and FOLLOWS NO KNOWN PATTERN. Solar rays and sunspot activity (different every cycle) and the distance from the sun which works on about a 100,000 year cycle plus the tilt which also varies over time. Then the geological continental drift and faultline activity which also affects the balance of the climate through shifting the previous figures around and affecting sea level when plates rise and fall. The land is also rising from the melting of the ice age glaciers and is subtracted from total sea level rise as a consequence. Undersea volcanic vents must be taken into account for the oceanic warming they add. You also need to factor in the existing trend, without which it would be impossible to know how much man may or may not have been able to alter it.
Then they have to know the saturation point of added CO2 (the as yet unknown concentration which fills its IR absorption spectrum), the reaction of water vapour to CO2 at all levels of the atmosphere (unexpectedly found to be replaced by it by the Aqua satellite, ie negative feedback effect) and potential cloud seeding effects, the possible reaction (or not) of the Gulf Stream, all delay mechanisms of ice melts to temperature rises, added CO2 dwell time (currently estimated between 3 and 500 years apparently...), oceanic and vegetative uptake (including the effects from added vegetation adding to the uptake), every single jet stream (ie the mechanisms which make it impossible to predict the season ahead by more than 50% certainty), and most of all the potential added water vapour predicted to be released by the oceans to the atmosphere as positive feedback. This is the climate sensitivity which in fact is the sole criterion the IPCC exist and fear additional CO2, but although the whole equation of multiplying CO2 can be done on a primary school level equation of 1C per 260ppm the rest is feedback which as yet has never been seen. By including positive feedback in the models all they have done is create the ending they required. And finally (but not least) they have to imagine the existing trend from the past and both extend that ahead and separate it, in the IPCC's case, from any alleged future man made element. Looking back in history the climate and temperature graphs are not exactly stable, in fact as I stated at the beginning, chaotic as that is their nature. Seeing how they alone project forward, add unknown effects from rising CO2, and then try and subtract one from the other to get an accurate separation between the two (based on at least the above criteria and many more) adds another even greater dimension to the task.
Expecting to take the variables, gaps in data and sheer unknowns (such as CO2/cloud sensitivity alone) and get anything meaningful is one beyond all reason and sense. The IPCC and associated scientists announce through the media and government spokespersons every day how policies must be made to stop these results happening solely based on this list of criteria it doesn't seem so sensible then.
Trying to predict a future complex, non-linear system with countless influences, huge unknowns including massive gaps in temperature coverage, ice thickness, and most of all future feedback on top of the known CO2 effect is not scientific.
By pretending that they can guess the temperatures up to and beyond 100 years, plus the associated sea levels they have abandoned science for superstition. Our world, courtesy of the UN, is now being run by superstition. The sacrifices of current human beings for unborn ones in that imaginary future are the same as the Mayan sacrifices for a good year of crops ahead.
They may fool most people most of the time, but basing an ostensible scientific theory, claiming the status of gravity, heliocentrism and evolution the climatologists have dropped to the level of the Spanish Inquisition except the people see them as heroes saving them from the threat of frying under an identical sun to the one we have today and had yesterday. The time has come to take that trust and reliance away. There is no longer a discipline called climatology, they have deliberately chosen to leave the constraints of science and now no better than mock auctioneers.
The main criteria that need adding include: El Nino, La Nina, the oceanic oscillations over a decade to 30 years or so, plus their strength which of course is different every time and FOLLOWS NO KNOWN PATTERN. Solar rays and sunspot activity (different every cycle) and the distance from the sun which works on about a 100,000 year cycle plus the tilt which also varies over time. Then the geological continental drift and faultline activity which also affects the balance of the climate through shifting the previous figures around and affecting sea level when plates rise and fall. The land is also rising from the melting of the ice age glaciers and is subtracted from total sea level rise as a consequence. Undersea volcanic vents must be taken into account for the oceanic warming they add. You also need to factor in the existing trend, without which it would be impossible to know how much man may or may not have been able to alter it.
Then they have to know the saturation point of added CO2 (the as yet unknown concentration which fills its IR absorption spectrum), the reaction of water vapour to CO2 at all levels of the atmosphere (unexpectedly found to be replaced by it by the Aqua satellite, ie negative feedback effect) and potential cloud seeding effects, the possible reaction (or not) of the Gulf Stream, all delay mechanisms of ice melts to temperature rises, added CO2 dwell time (currently estimated between 3 and 500 years apparently...), oceanic and vegetative uptake (including the effects from added vegetation adding to the uptake), every single jet stream (ie the mechanisms which make it impossible to predict the season ahead by more than 50% certainty), and most of all the potential added water vapour predicted to be released by the oceans to the atmosphere as positive feedback. This is the climate sensitivity which in fact is the sole criterion the IPCC exist and fear additional CO2, but although the whole equation of multiplying CO2 can be done on a primary school level equation of 1C per 260ppm the rest is feedback which as yet has never been seen. By including positive feedback in the models all they have done is create the ending they required. And finally (but not least) they have to imagine the existing trend from the past and both extend that ahead and separate it, in the IPCC's case, from any alleged future man made element. Looking back in history the climate and temperature graphs are not exactly stable, in fact as I stated at the beginning, chaotic as that is their nature. Seeing how they alone project forward, add unknown effects from rising CO2, and then try and subtract one from the other to get an accurate separation between the two (based on at least the above criteria and many more) adds another even greater dimension to the task.
Expecting to take the variables, gaps in data and sheer unknowns (such as CO2/cloud sensitivity alone) and get anything meaningful is one beyond all reason and sense. The IPCC and associated scientists announce through the media and government spokespersons every day how policies must be made to stop these results happening solely based on this list of criteria it doesn't seem so sensible then.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The myth of big oil opposing climate laws
All the time the soggy wets on the warming side roll out the stock neo-fascist phrase 'well of course this study to dismiss global warming is funded by the fossil fuel industry'. It's simplistic and moronic mindsets like that which allow the thieves to come to our houses while the residents have left the doors open, the keys for their car and the bedroom door to their wives and daughters open with a free pack of condoms ready. Exploitation is cruel and immoral. This is the true situation.
1) There is no such thing as 'big oil'. The accused companies are actually 'energy companies'. They produce and sell power. They do not care how they do it as their sole motive is profit.
2) Therefore Shell, BP, Exxon-Mobil etc will sell as much 'green energy' as they can if it makes them a profit. The fact that these have been promoted (enforced in many countries by law) using tax subsidies guarantees a level of profit above and beyond fossil fuel.
3) Climate policies restrict the use and exploration of fossil fuel. This has one single effect. It raises the price of the reserves. Consumption remains stable as fuel is an essential, and as a result is not sensitive to price rises.
4) Therefore existing gas and oil reserves are now worth way over their market price, ramping up the value of all oil companies' assets for no added effort.
5) Carbon credits made billions for energy companies in the EU as they were given free and sold on the markets, again, for absolutely no added work. If at a future date, they are paid for this all just gets passed onto the consumers as energy is not price sensitive as we would die without it.
6) Knowing 1-5 it comes as no surprise that much of the funding for research to promote the theory of man made warming comes as much from energy companies as activist groups. They know they are not against it even if everyone here does not.
1) There is no such thing as 'big oil'. The accused companies are actually 'energy companies'. They produce and sell power. They do not care how they do it as their sole motive is profit.
2) Therefore Shell, BP, Exxon-Mobil etc will sell as much 'green energy' as they can if it makes them a profit. The fact that these have been promoted (enforced in many countries by law) using tax subsidies guarantees a level of profit above and beyond fossil fuel.
3) Climate policies restrict the use and exploration of fossil fuel. This has one single effect. It raises the price of the reserves. Consumption remains stable as fuel is an essential, and as a result is not sensitive to price rises.
4) Therefore existing gas and oil reserves are now worth way over their market price, ramping up the value of all oil companies' assets for no added effort.
5) Carbon credits made billions for energy companies in the EU as they were given free and sold on the markets, again, for absolutely no added work. If at a future date, they are paid for this all just gets passed onto the consumers as energy is not price sensitive as we would die without it.
6) Knowing 1-5 it comes as no surprise that much of the funding for research to promote the theory of man made warming comes as much from energy companies as activist groups. They know they are not against it even if everyone here does not.
Friday, December 09, 2011
Rome is burning
Meanwhile Rome is figuratively burning, as the future of individual EU countries is about to be signed away tomorrow, with the potential fate of Italy to follow us all by having our governments replaced by unelected EU officials, many from the very banks that wrecked the world economy- three alone are from Goldman Sachs. That's pretty much like allowing the most successful thieves in a country to join the cabinet as in financial terms they are qualified to do the same for the country. That means Nick Leeson could soon become our prime minister if anything happens to Cameron like being offered something better on the continent. He's clearly working for the other side (ie Axis powers) as he's said he's putting the survival of the Euro over all other considerations. As he's in charge no one under him has a single chance to challenge it.
So by the weekend the EU will be run by the Axis, Germany, France (they were not really against the nazis, they were roughly split in practice, the resistance probably evened out by the collaborators from what I've learnt), with Italy swinging sides as usual. Everywhere else will simply do as they're told, with the rules coming from the top whatever government happens to be in charge, pretty much what the last two wars attempted to do unsuccessfully. Germany, to their credit, know how to run a country, and if we were all run the same way would probably have never had a recession. However, in a democracy they would travel the world teaching others how to do the same, much like the better parts of the British Empire, than simply taking us over.
So by the weekend the EU will be run by the Axis, Germany, France (they were not really against the nazis, they were roughly split in practice, the resistance probably evened out by the collaborators from what I've learnt), with Italy swinging sides as usual. Everywhere else will simply do as they're told, with the rules coming from the top whatever government happens to be in charge, pretty much what the last two wars attempted to do unsuccessfully. Germany, to their credit, know how to run a country, and if we were all run the same way would probably have never had a recession. However, in a democracy they would travel the world teaching others how to do the same, much like the better parts of the British Empire, than simply taking us over.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
Seeing through the illusions
It's taken me some time but now realised what I've been doing. I am naturally able to see through much deception, and if not then learn the first time it happens and apply it in the future, there aren't many variations so mopped up the remainder pretty quickly and can now see straight away something is a shit in a velvet jacket, from the wildest African emails many people I know personally who run businesses believed first time, to claims and deals to good to be true, to every single prediction (as they can't be done).
This means I can and should be used as a lens to correct perception for others, as if I see a steaming turd behind a pretty face I expose it every time and tell everyone, and will perform this happily to order. But pride gets in the way and most people have the view that they don't want it to be pointed out as it makes them look stupid as they didn't see it. So with most people having that attitude all I get when I regularly do point out scams is get told off and insulted by everyone who hasn't already worked it out for themselves. As this probably covers about 70% of the population the scammers know this and take full advantage as pointing it out makes no difference and as long as most people believe a lie the others suffer as a result if it affects us all. As I simply work things out one at a time I only really just realised what I was doing, the abuse it actually attracts is because people both can't work it out themselves, and then when explained how its done unless you actually provide signed confessions and following convictions they say I'm making it up. No, they've been fooled, and unless either the authorities or perpetrators admit it directly no messenger can get through.
I've found my position and will now work from the top down, and taking my findings to the media for them to take or leave. They are only interested in a story and if interesting will publish absolutely anything, so my only hope as far as making more people aware of what is being done to them. But it's a natural ability and I'll use it in full knowledge now.
This means I can and should be used as a lens to correct perception for others, as if I see a steaming turd behind a pretty face I expose it every time and tell everyone, and will perform this happily to order. But pride gets in the way and most people have the view that they don't want it to be pointed out as it makes them look stupid as they didn't see it. So with most people having that attitude all I get when I regularly do point out scams is get told off and insulted by everyone who hasn't already worked it out for themselves. As this probably covers about 70% of the population the scammers know this and take full advantage as pointing it out makes no difference and as long as most people believe a lie the others suffer as a result if it affects us all. As I simply work things out one at a time I only really just realised what I was doing, the abuse it actually attracts is because people both can't work it out themselves, and then when explained how its done unless you actually provide signed confessions and following convictions they say I'm making it up. No, they've been fooled, and unless either the authorities or perpetrators admit it directly no messenger can get through.
I've found my position and will now work from the top down, and taking my findings to the media for them to take or leave. They are only interested in a story and if interesting will publish absolutely anything, so my only hope as far as making more people aware of what is being done to them. But it's a natural ability and I'll use it in full knowledge now.
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Consensus politics
The longer time indoors has ended me spending more time on political research for questions asked online than anything else. I'm learning a lot even if no one new who reads it wants to know. Looking back on my education I do actually use the majority of what I learnt as I do still remember it when required, and whatever the level I stopped at is still extremely useful to me when I need it. Having done a year of accounting before switching to law I also learnt economics, plus sociology as we needed a minor subject for law as well. Constitutional law and jurisprudence join together to find political systems and motivations for law, so as well as my A level could put that all together to pretty well see how vested interests and power connections make the real world policies.
As we are painted as a democracy people vote and think it makes a difference. Over time the common policies grow, so we actually vote on the few differences while getting the same general plans whoever gets in. This is a gradual process much increased since the 60s, and Britain joined when in the Common Market from 1971 onwards, gradually handing over all its main functions. So we vote for very little now, the Tea Party appears to be the sole opposition in the western world currently, as look around and the EU is unified by regulation, Australia and New Zealand follow like sheep, Canada unfortunately seem to miss the radar entirely (but Leonard Cohen gets a lot of material from it if nothing else), and really there's no one else left who isn't either impoverished, totalitarian or both.
Thank goodness nothing stays fixed. However cynical I can't believe that things are stuck forever however powerful vested interests are, but is more a matter of luck to me than people power somehow overturning the corruption at the top levels as people only jump up and shout if corruption is discovered in the X Factor vote, when politicians do it they say 'so what, they always do' and return to their pint. That attitude lets the worst of the worst get in and stay in (I'd name names here but we can all think of plenty) while training their successors. Mafia politics basically and as the internet now allows people to find a few investments of top politicians and their families, you'll see how they change the law to make their pensions grow while they are still working. It's not only third world dictators who do this, they just don't care who knows as they would simply kill anyone who complained. Here it's a lot more subtle but no less criminal.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Latest EU harmonisation plans
Should the current EU attempt to metricate heartbeat measurements succeed then the next item on the list is music. Bear in mind the trial in Nazi Germany, which successfully reduced the permitted music to Wagner and military marches, this will have a similar effect in eliminating all unnecessary or non-permitted notation and timings from all EU published music.
As a result 4/4 would become 5/5, 6/8 would become 0.75, blue notes would become illegal under EU regulations, and a Europe-wide mission would be set up to rewrite all the classical music to convert it. The scale would be altered from A-G to kilohertz, so not only would you know the note (by association once you learnt the new tables) but which octave it was. 261hz- middle C etc.
So you'd get efforts like Bach's prelude in 466hz, Air on a 392hz string etc, and if the Germans got their way you could have 'Take the 440hz train' as well. I should suggest it to them, it would certainly earn a Nobel Prize if adopted and make billions for the minions changing all the equipment.
As a result 4/4 would become 5/5, 6/8 would become 0.75, blue notes would become illegal under EU regulations, and a Europe-wide mission would be set up to rewrite all the classical music to convert it. The scale would be altered from A-G to kilohertz, so not only would you know the note (by association once you learnt the new tables) but which octave it was. 261hz- middle C etc.
So you'd get efforts like Bach's prelude in 466hz, Air on a 392hz string etc, and if the Germans got their way you could have 'Take the 440hz train' as well. I should suggest it to them, it would certainly earn a Nobel Prize if adopted and make billions for the minions changing all the equipment.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Is Australia still a democracy?
In all democracies there are two simple rules of law. You can neither backdate the law to make innocent people criminals nor bind future governments to make changing a law impossible. This separates the democracies from the dictatorships, and although many democracies include a higher level of law which is entrenched, a constitution, there will always be methods to change this when it proves unjust or incorrect. There may have been attempts in the past to do so around the democratic world, but till now they were no more than a speculative foot in the water which was rapidly removed by one way or another. But today, October the 11th 2011 marks a new stage in western and indeed world democracy.
Today Australia has, as fully expected, voted to introduce a carbon tax. This in itself is quite unremarkable, but looking within the act itself, in ways only lawyers would think to do, it contains clauses which, without going into the legal side, would charge a future government so much to buy back the rights of the individuals handed over to the state by this act it would de facto be virtually impossible to afford. Being on a relatively shaky ground, Julia Gillard has a minority coalition government likely to fall at the slightest push. There was no real mandate for this law, she in fact promised not to introduce it at all (although this is also not unusual for any politician) but relying on the Green party for her position of Prime Minister ended up with no choice. Attempting to entrench this law meant however short her personal or party leadership lasted, one thing which was not going to fall was her essential law.
“The function of independent judges charged to interpret and apply the law is universally recognised as a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state, a cornerstone of the rule of law itself”
- Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Today Australians woke up as normal, heard the law had been passed, most heaved a sigh of reluctant acceptance, and carried on with their daily business. But besides a handful of interested lawyers, none realised they were now living in a de facto dictatorship. Technically binding the future, even if not expressed, is equivalent to cheating and getting top marks if in the future those marks are relied on. Therefore in effect this law has now set the precedent that Australia can and has retrenched its law. Having a single law entrenched is bad enough to lose your democratic status, but as now on the statute book unchallenged and unquestioned, it means it can be repeated ad infinitum should a similar situation and PM choose to do so. The genie is out of the bottle and it will take the knowledge and action of the Australian people to truly put it back and stop such a scandal from ever happening anywhere in the democratic world in the future.
‘under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.’(Dicey, The Law of the Constitution 1885 p39-40)
Additionally, Britain does not have a constitution, although the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights still hold a similar position in their own limited areas, but Australia however does. And as far as a constitution is concerned, the method of breach is not relevant, only the breach itself. Whether a law deliberately or indirectly binds the future is not the point, only whether that is the likely effect, so that will be no defence if attempted in a future challenge to Gillard’s law.
This clause in the Australian constitution alone casts doubt on the binding effect in the face of a future challenge, in fact the carbon tax itself:
"just terms" for the compulsory "acquisition" of property by the Commonwealth (section 51(xxxi))
Again, without going into complex details, this means that by removing the right of Australians to use energy without an additional tax they have, in a roundabout way, breached this section already, as the minutiae of the act uses this method to both legalise and bind the tax itself. As it was the route taken in the relevant clauses to tie up the ownership of the carbon credits then allowing their return would be an almost priceless task. This reflects the similar US fifth amendment:
"nor shall private property be taken ... without just compensation"
Therefore before even using Dicey’s long-accepted principles of democracy, their own constitution implies by removing the rights of companies (and potentially individuals) to their own energy use methods without penalty, they are possibly in prima facie breach of their own constitution without compensation (which of course would negate any profit from the tax’s collection, so effectively negating the Act itself), that is up to interested parties in Australia to pursue as they would any other potentially unconstitutional law. But I would have to search long and hard, as would the combined legal forces of the western world, to find an example where a country has successfully made a new law impossible to overturn. And even if they do then all that would mean is that country (unless it was also Australia) has simply beaten Australia in the race to a western dictatorship. Whichever way you try and look at it, today is a crucial and tragic day for both the people of Australia but the whole civilised world, as what they have managed first will now spread the world over if not stopped as soon as practically possible.
Today Australia has, as fully expected, voted to introduce a carbon tax. This in itself is quite unremarkable, but looking within the act itself, in ways only lawyers would think to do, it contains clauses which, without going into the legal side, would charge a future government so much to buy back the rights of the individuals handed over to the state by this act it would de facto be virtually impossible to afford. Being on a relatively shaky ground, Julia Gillard has a minority coalition government likely to fall at the slightest push. There was no real mandate for this law, she in fact promised not to introduce it at all (although this is also not unusual for any politician) but relying on the Green party for her position of Prime Minister ended up with no choice. Attempting to entrench this law meant however short her personal or party leadership lasted, one thing which was not going to fall was her essential law.
“The function of independent judges charged to interpret and apply the law is universally recognised as a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state, a cornerstone of the rule of law itself”
- Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Today Australians woke up as normal, heard the law had been passed, most heaved a sigh of reluctant acceptance, and carried on with their daily business. But besides a handful of interested lawyers, none realised they were now living in a de facto dictatorship. Technically binding the future, even if not expressed, is equivalent to cheating and getting top marks if in the future those marks are relied on. Therefore in effect this law has now set the precedent that Australia can and has retrenched its law. Having a single law entrenched is bad enough to lose your democratic status, but as now on the statute book unchallenged and unquestioned, it means it can be repeated ad infinitum should a similar situation and PM choose to do so. The genie is out of the bottle and it will take the knowledge and action of the Australian people to truly put it back and stop such a scandal from ever happening anywhere in the democratic world in the future.
‘under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.’(Dicey, The Law of the Constitution 1885 p39-40)
Additionally, Britain does not have a constitution, although the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights still hold a similar position in their own limited areas, but Australia however does. And as far as a constitution is concerned, the method of breach is not relevant, only the breach itself. Whether a law deliberately or indirectly binds the future is not the point, only whether that is the likely effect, so that will be no defence if attempted in a future challenge to Gillard’s law.
This clause in the Australian constitution alone casts doubt on the binding effect in the face of a future challenge, in fact the carbon tax itself:
"just terms" for the compulsory "acquisition" of property by the Commonwealth (section 51(xxxi))
Again, without going into complex details, this means that by removing the right of Australians to use energy without an additional tax they have, in a roundabout way, breached this section already, as the minutiae of the act uses this method to both legalise and bind the tax itself. As it was the route taken in the relevant clauses to tie up the ownership of the carbon credits then allowing their return would be an almost priceless task. This reflects the similar US fifth amendment:
"nor shall private property be taken ... without just compensation"
Therefore before even using Dicey’s long-accepted principles of democracy, their own constitution implies by removing the rights of companies (and potentially individuals) to their own energy use methods without penalty, they are possibly in prima facie breach of their own constitution without compensation (which of course would negate any profit from the tax’s collection, so effectively negating the Act itself), that is up to interested parties in Australia to pursue as they would any other potentially unconstitutional law. But I would have to search long and hard, as would the combined legal forces of the western world, to find an example where a country has successfully made a new law impossible to overturn. And even if they do then all that would mean is that country (unless it was also Australia) has simply beaten Australia in the race to a western dictatorship. Whichever way you try and look at it, today is a crucial and tragic day for both the people of Australia but the whole civilised world, as what they have managed first will now spread the world over if not stopped as soon as practically possible.
Saturday, October 08, 2011
How to fix the UK economy
We were just asked on the radio for our five year plan to fix the UK economy, I called in and here is mine. I have studied all the topics involved, some to degree level, and seen both in my life besides one and know the difference.
1) Leave the EU- all it does is suck our very life breath and restrict what we can do without any representation from our votes.
2) Raise interest rates to a sensible amount. Currently borrowing got us in this state already and more will continue it. Savers need to earn money so they can spend it back into the economy and borrowing discouraged. I'd actually ban it for personal use except for one house, but didn't say that bit.
3) One flat rate of income tax, 20%. It would come in around £15-20,000 and then the rich would have no reason not to pay theirs and the total income would probably increase. Everyone would have more to spend and create liquidity in the economy.
4) Use the Keynesian policy as Keynes intended, ie to create production not give to the banks. Use the same billions to set up manufacturing and we will then not be dependent on imports.
5) Nationalise all public utilities. You cannot compete in a closed market as you are selling the identical product- phone calls, railway track journeys etc, and have wrecked our utilities since privatised. Previously there was a 10% profit margin and then the prices were fixed and dropped if it increased. Now we pay as much as they can get.
Current policies help bankers and borrowers and the rest lose big time. All corruption and vote catching as there are historically more borrowers than savers so screw up the economy but get the votes from the fools who did it so they can do it again. No way Jose.
1) Leave the EU- all it does is suck our very life breath and restrict what we can do without any representation from our votes.
2) Raise interest rates to a sensible amount. Currently borrowing got us in this state already and more will continue it. Savers need to earn money so they can spend it back into the economy and borrowing discouraged. I'd actually ban it for personal use except for one house, but didn't say that bit.
3) One flat rate of income tax, 20%. It would come in around £15-20,000 and then the rich would have no reason not to pay theirs and the total income would probably increase. Everyone would have more to spend and create liquidity in the economy.
4) Use the Keynesian policy as Keynes intended, ie to create production not give to the banks. Use the same billions to set up manufacturing and we will then not be dependent on imports.
5) Nationalise all public utilities. You cannot compete in a closed market as you are selling the identical product- phone calls, railway track journeys etc, and have wrecked our utilities since privatised. Previously there was a 10% profit margin and then the prices were fixed and dropped if it increased. Now we pay as much as they can get.
Current policies help bankers and borrowers and the rest lose big time. All corruption and vote catching as there are historically more borrowers than savers so screw up the economy but get the votes from the fools who did it so they can do it again. No way Jose.
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Getting things right
If anyone's read Robert Monroe's books, one trip involved being put in the same situation over and over again until he worked out how to get it right. Possibly for the first time in my life I've been using the usual sort of setbacks as a reason to do something rather than get in a state. It wasn't even a conscious decision, after the first it was the same reaction as normal, but then I got something to compensate (an old road sign to replace one too far to return to), and decided to go and get a bunch across London I'd probably not have bothered to otherwise.
More setbacks occurred, but with the new approach which actually worked, to make lemons out of lemonade, made each one motivate me to carry on and possibly do more, rather than bend and break as I always did before. This shit hits everyone. Roads are the best example, if you drive all day for work as I once did, you have accidents. None were my fault, but being out there means every so many miles some twat will hit you. A drunk postman, a new driver, and a vandal who cut me up and then attacked the van as I didn't give way to him. You can't avoid being hit by drunks or treading in shit, but you can learn what to do when it happens.
So, I'm learning new tricks even at my advanced age, plenty of shit out there but carrying on regardless. I've also dropped the politics mission now I've seen no one new wants to know, so can and have returned to the far superior spiritual path. The dreadful happenings around the world affect me as much as everyone, but like I know I can't have what I never did but only what I do, I have half the income I would without the recession, but can manage on it so what the heck. The world will survive or fall, but it's not my problem now. Maybe a seed I've planted in someone will sprout at some point and they'll get it like I did, but that's not my problem either. I've done my bit and now will do it for myself.
More setbacks occurred, but with the new approach which actually worked, to make lemons out of lemonade, made each one motivate me to carry on and possibly do more, rather than bend and break as I always did before. This shit hits everyone. Roads are the best example, if you drive all day for work as I once did, you have accidents. None were my fault, but being out there means every so many miles some twat will hit you. A drunk postman, a new driver, and a vandal who cut me up and then attacked the van as I didn't give way to him. You can't avoid being hit by drunks or treading in shit, but you can learn what to do when it happens.
So, I'm learning new tricks even at my advanced age, plenty of shit out there but carrying on regardless. I've also dropped the politics mission now I've seen no one new wants to know, so can and have returned to the far superior spiritual path. The dreadful happenings around the world affect me as much as everyone, but like I know I can't have what I never did but only what I do, I have half the income I would without the recession, but can manage on it so what the heck. The world will survive or fall, but it's not my problem now. Maybe a seed I've planted in someone will sprout at some point and they'll get it like I did, but that's not my problem either. I've done my bit and now will do it for myself.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Guidance progress
Following the guidance progress in my life, there hasn't been anything major or complex since the last, but although I almost finished Streetviewing for old road signs a few more came up elsewhere including roads I'd already checked yards from places I've been along regularly. That's a good example of my Buddhist passivity method where you tune yourself into particular aims and then do nothing more but wait and see what happens. As often when you make an effort for a specific end and still get nothing, like a girlfriend or a job, and then one turns up on its own, I tend to find that you can get pretty much anything besides taking an exam course just as well by letting it come to you as I've seen many ambitions fail however much work I've put into them, the energy has to open for them first.
I did have a small setback which if the guidance is universal came as a valuable lesson as far too specific to be a coincidence. I did my last long trip to complete my photo map, and two days later found I'd missed an old direction sign on the road I'd turned off to the sea front. I can't go 62 miles to one sign, there are loads a lot closer I won't waste time just to increase an already huge collection, but the first time I've missed one as it's too far to go back somewhere I'd been to already. My first reaction was to get one of the others I'd previously considered too far, and the best candidate was somewhere with 7 but on a route involving both a detour to avoid major roadworks and an assortment of roads to get there. I aimed there yesterday but have been tired for a few days for uncertain reasons as if I've been working hard without enough sleep (I haven't) and after going through every set of red lights parallel to the major road I was avoiding was too pooped to continue and turned round. I had taken photos of 5 new map squares on the way as I start as soon as I hit the first new one, so had completed a minor mission, and won't kill myself going anywhere at all now unless I feel like it, no one's making me and no one else will be impressed or care, so why should I boss myself around as if I was someone else? That's my lesson anyway, I won't make myself go anywhere in future as I've done enough, and like the sign passivity whatever needs doing will doubtless be done either way.
The good news is whatever I am doing I am free now, I have been on a good number of 50-60 mile trips this year for the photo map project and that was all I aimed to do. Missing a road sign is hardly a big deal as I've got loads and missed plenty before which were removed before I had a chance to get a photo. It's never about what we haven't got or missed but what we have, the rest doesn't exist as we haven't had it to lose it. We all have the margin of things we didn't get we could have, my first was females due to various disasters interrupting the coitus, and however willing they were didn't guarantee we could get the conditions to complete the job. We mustn't let losses put us off, as they are part of the rules of this game and the same for us all. I still disagree with some teachers who say we shouldn't care how we feel as it's unenlightened, as we are designed for pleasure and until we are enlightened can't be anything else. But not all enlightened people are fit to teach, and I doubt many even know how to become enlightened, so tend to teach their own route although maybe it won't work for many people besides themselves. There is no single route, many work, some more than others, and whoever told me none work the results don't tell me that, the more effort people apply the more are enlightened. I've seen enough examples to know that, and can never tell people who are not that they should think and act as if they are.
So, I am free at the moment, too tired for my possibly final mission (as I've decided not to waste too much effort on it any more, you have to draw a line somewhere) and mustn't feel guilty if I don't do it as no one asked me to. Hopefully the more I see the more I can trust the system and not expect to get driven into a tree if I let go of the wheel. It's a bit like a trust game and so far it seems to warrant it.
I did have a small setback which if the guidance is universal came as a valuable lesson as far too specific to be a coincidence. I did my last long trip to complete my photo map, and two days later found I'd missed an old direction sign on the road I'd turned off to the sea front. I can't go 62 miles to one sign, there are loads a lot closer I won't waste time just to increase an already huge collection, but the first time I've missed one as it's too far to go back somewhere I'd been to already. My first reaction was to get one of the others I'd previously considered too far, and the best candidate was somewhere with 7 but on a route involving both a detour to avoid major roadworks and an assortment of roads to get there. I aimed there yesterday but have been tired for a few days for uncertain reasons as if I've been working hard without enough sleep (I haven't) and after going through every set of red lights parallel to the major road I was avoiding was too pooped to continue and turned round. I had taken photos of 5 new map squares on the way as I start as soon as I hit the first new one, so had completed a minor mission, and won't kill myself going anywhere at all now unless I feel like it, no one's making me and no one else will be impressed or care, so why should I boss myself around as if I was someone else? That's my lesson anyway, I won't make myself go anywhere in future as I've done enough, and like the sign passivity whatever needs doing will doubtless be done either way.
The good news is whatever I am doing I am free now, I have been on a good number of 50-60 mile trips this year for the photo map project and that was all I aimed to do. Missing a road sign is hardly a big deal as I've got loads and missed plenty before which were removed before I had a chance to get a photo. It's never about what we haven't got or missed but what we have, the rest doesn't exist as we haven't had it to lose it. We all have the margin of things we didn't get we could have, my first was females due to various disasters interrupting the coitus, and however willing they were didn't guarantee we could get the conditions to complete the job. We mustn't let losses put us off, as they are part of the rules of this game and the same for us all. I still disagree with some teachers who say we shouldn't care how we feel as it's unenlightened, as we are designed for pleasure and until we are enlightened can't be anything else. But not all enlightened people are fit to teach, and I doubt many even know how to become enlightened, so tend to teach their own route although maybe it won't work for many people besides themselves. There is no single route, many work, some more than others, and whoever told me none work the results don't tell me that, the more effort people apply the more are enlightened. I've seen enough examples to know that, and can never tell people who are not that they should think and act as if they are.
So, I am free at the moment, too tired for my possibly final mission (as I've decided not to waste too much effort on it any more, you have to draw a line somewhere) and mustn't feel guilty if I don't do it as no one asked me to. Hopefully the more I see the more I can trust the system and not expect to get driven into a tree if I let go of the wheel. It's a bit like a trust game and so far it seems to warrant it.
Monday, September 19, 2011
The big picture
A quick summary of the big picture. The EU are planning further union to avoid Greek default, something which would have not have been nearly so easy had a pressing reason not existed to create it. It could almost have been arranged to do so.
Meanwhile geoengineering is now under way, with poisonous sulphate salts to be sprayed to a sky near you to reduce the population. If you want to know what pollution really is you will soon find out directly what the difference is.
As a woman announces on the radio Mauritius will be underwater within 15 years the sea level fell twice the amount it rose in previous years in 2011, but the media missed it. Chris Huhne has now claimed despite energy bills going up around a further 18% and rising by shopping around you can save £300. Ann Robinson did the sums a week earlier and her team couldn't break £23. I am now able to legally refer to him as 'The liar Chris Huhne' as he has joined Barack Obama in that elite group of politicians who have quite openly told porkies.
These are the people you voted in to help you, they are not helping us but themselves, and that is why they are there. If you want help from anyone look to friends and family, even the police, but not politicians.
Meanwhile geoengineering is now under way, with poisonous sulphate salts to be sprayed to a sky near you to reduce the population. If you want to know what pollution really is you will soon find out directly what the difference is.
As a woman announces on the radio Mauritius will be underwater within 15 years the sea level fell twice the amount it rose in previous years in 2011, but the media missed it. Chris Huhne has now claimed despite energy bills going up around a further 18% and rising by shopping around you can save £300. Ann Robinson did the sums a week earlier and her team couldn't break £23. I am now able to legally refer to him as 'The liar Chris Huhne' as he has joined Barack Obama in that elite group of politicians who have quite openly told porkies.
These are the people you voted in to help you, they are not helping us but themselves, and that is why they are there. If you want help from anyone look to friends and family, even the police, but not politicians.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Global warming: The science is settled?
Thanks to Peter Maxwell for compiling this list. Until now only the same handful of names were wheeled out when the media wanted an opposing view, deliberately creating the impression no one else disagreed. Well they do.
Following is a sample of some of the scientists and other experts who actually worked for the IPCC as contributors / editors / reviewers and have publicly expressed their scepticism about the IPCC "process."
Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).
Dr. Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."
Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."
Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."
Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."
Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers."
Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."
Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."
Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."
Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."
Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980's. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."
Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."
Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."
Dr Kenneth Green: "We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority."
Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen."
Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists."
Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."
Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
Dr Georg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,"
Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."
Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."
Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."
Dr. Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."
Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."
Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."
Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."
Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."
Dr Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a "consensus of thousands of scientists" are both a great exaggeration and also misleading."
Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."
Dr Johannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine."
Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system."
Dr Jan Pretel: "It's nonsense to drastically reduce emissions ... predicting about the distant future-100 years can't be predicted due to uncertainties."
Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists."
Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the "science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."
Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."
Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites--probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?"
Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change."
Dr Roy Spencer: "The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal."
Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."
Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."
Dr Robert Watson: "The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."
Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."
Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."
Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."
Dr. Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines... a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication."
Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).
Dr. Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."
Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."
Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."
Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."
Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers."
Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."
Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."
Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."
Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."
Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980's. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."
Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."
Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."
Dr Kenneth Green: "We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority."
Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen."
Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists."
Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."
Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
Dr Georg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,"
Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."
Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."
Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."
Dr. Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."
Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."
Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."
Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."
Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."
Dr Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a "consensus of thousands of scientists" are both a great exaggeration and also misleading."
Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."
Dr Johannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine."
Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system."
Dr Jan Pretel: "It's nonsense to drastically reduce emissions ... predicting about the distant future-100 years can't be predicted due to uncertainties."
Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists."
Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the "science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."
Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."
Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites--probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?"
Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change."
Dr Roy Spencer: "The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal."
Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."
Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."
Dr Robert Watson: "The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."
Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."
Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."
Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."
Dr. Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines... a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication."
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Seaford beach
Seaford beach
Originally uploaded by satguru.
Well well, a new blog format, and it says I've got more hits than before. So what the heck should I write? First I've been to the seaside for the first time in about 9 years as illustrated here, completing a 9 month project to extend my photo coverage as far as possible for my online map. Otherwise nothing's really new, I am possibly detaching a bit more from external events I am clearly unable to affect whatever I do, and trying to pay more attention to my personal reality than that made by other people. Now my trips are complete officially I can spend more time around locally, not feel guilty, and take photos for art again rather than location as I did today. If it lets me upload photos without having to share them from Flickr (there is a button but so far not functional) I will add some of them as well, they aren't going anywhere now.
A few oddities, first someone I was at school with sent me a message with his brother's email, I'd been looking for him since I went online with no success as he went to Holland in 1975, and despite having no known reason not to ignored my message. That almost compares with the two other friends who died before I could find them, except they had no choice in the matter. My ex girlfriend who didn't chuck me also didn't reply when I finally found her as well, married and carrying a baby in the photo, like basically telling every other man to keep away or else. As we didn't part on especially good terms long after her mother chucked me (it turns out a good many exes didn't chuck me personally but their parents did it for them), and would have been amazed if she had replied. Nobody who has is local any more, half are abroad and even if I could have revived a friendship won't do it if they're not around here.
My new room is now complete and gradually clearing the bags left over from after we sold my grandma's house, the garage (the rubbish man came yesterday so only small things to remove now), and the garden. I won't feel guilty wandering around locally now (which I actually prefer doing nowadays), and can usually find something to do whether or not other people are also involved at the moment. Meanwhile the spiritual work will always continue as well, maybe it works but you can't usually tell till you're almost there. I hope more people start blogging again as Facebook seems to have taken over, but this is still unique in what it does. I've also learnt about detective work, having spent many years doing my own. The qualifications required are time, patience, logic and access to information, and ideally a technical advisor. David Icke isn't qualified for anything as far as I know but taught me more than any other individual, and juries aren't needed to be qualified either. That basically says it all.
Saturday, September 03, 2011
Simplifying the climate
For a non-scientific observer such as myself, the macro areas of climate are incredibly easy to follow, just as most of the micro are complex. As the large is made up of the small then the minutiae are irrelevant, only the overall picture counts. That means signal/noise etc are totally irrelevant, as we have a few major indicators.
1) Temperature. If that does not rise then nothing can follow.
2) Sea level. Far easier to measure than temperature but still variable and highly open to interpretation
3) Ice coverage. Similar to sea level, the only queries are thickness estimations and gaps in measurement coverage
4) CO2 concentration
The one thing which rises consistently according to all accounts is CO2. That begs the question ‘What if it had been stable and the temperature had varied indentically?’. Would anyone even have remarked on it? The warmists began turning out predictions in the 90s. Bear in mind they had a problem. CO2 had never risen in historic memory, so it was a new area to investigate from scratch. All they had were two existing figures, the lab experiment and the paper experiment, both giving a 1/33 of the total greenhouse effect at 260ppm (1C), expected to double to 2C with no feedback. To further simplify, as sea and ice are micro in relation to temperature, at a 50% rise at 390ppm temperatures are now up by 0.8C on an existing rising trend from the ice age recovery, giving around the exact figure predicted. I am not aware of any study that envisaged a delay, waiting over half way along the route before it gradually or suddenly appeared (through cloud increase from sea evaporation). As the sea ought to evaporate (as it melts and freezes) seasonally with temperature fluctuations it is fair to assume it should do so on a linear fashion.
As for modelling, climate is not something able to be future projected. Until global warming was thought up, scientists stuck to 3-6 month projections max. More than that was never supposed to be possible (as it indeed is not), as these were created for shipping, oil drilling etc who needed the best possible predictions when they could go and get on with their work. It was never designed or expected to be used for anything else. Climate has more influences than virtually any other terrestrial phenomenon, and as such is an open system, non-linear and chaotic. Trying to tame such a system on a computer and run it forwards is no different from trying to predict the stock market a week, a year and a century ahead. Pure idiot arrogance. But our world has been taken over by the IPCC who make laws affecting us all in some degree purely based on the 2100 projection, with around a +/- 400% error margin (1.5-6C).
If a business were to offer such a budget to a bank, or accountant then they would be struck off or put away. Yet our world’s politics is now driven by nothing more and only the people here and on similar sites care, the rest are driven by fear for their unborn grandchildren (as I’m told regularly) and probably burn down pediatrician’s houses thinking they are pedophiles (this really happened in Portsmouth after a newspaper article). They are the masses, average IQs, average lives and average occupying the middle of the bell shaped curve, always the majority. That is why Julia Gillard is currently about to send Australia down the toilet to follow Britain and Spain with her similar policies. But the second pig in a poke is that nothing is even expected to happen by the IPCC so’s we’d REALLY notice before around 2100 but we can’t find out as we’ll all be dead. Every single one of us.
We are up against a combination of weak minds, huge criminal interests and worst of all irrational fear. How simple facts and logic can beat that goodness only knows, but in all religious texts truth always wins out as that is all there is. And one final crumb, in 1962 the official amount of atmospheric CO2 was 260….
-400ppm.
It’s currently 390. As in 1962 it was accepted as varying then had it been measured there back then it may not have been considered unusual either.
Friday, August 26, 2011
International politics
I have totally turned off on Libya. Vietnam was a total fiasco, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc. Other countries always have civil wars and by their very nature there is little outsiders can and should do. If they were genuine they'd have stopped the genocide in Rwanda which was widely reported and known about and somehow the UN and NATO filtered it from their agendas. But Libya is an internal issue miles away and you don't see foreign powers running to help or invade, depending on your point of view, when the west has issues. The sole consequence here of invading/helping Libya was a huge rise in the oil price, so it's going down now but only as it looks like it all might be over soon, if we hadn't gone there it would probably have been far less of an effect. But we can't be involved in everyone else's business without an extremely good reason. Rwanda was a rare one and we didn't, Zimbabwe is another, ditto. Very selective and in my opinion if there are far worse atrocities elsewhere and you choose somewhere different it's clearly a bad move. So if the Iranian people kick off next (and they really should under that regime but would be wiped out in days compared to elsewhere) will we go there as well? Syria has been well avoided so far, despite being a lot smaller than Libya, and I really no longer know or want to know why, Britain has major problems with debt, investments down to almost zero and prices doubling, and all we're doing is falling at the same rate China is rising till we meet in the middle and then end up like Zimbabwe. Pre-Nazi Germany printed money when they didn't have it and it started off the last war. We are going the same way, making the same mistakes and at this rate we'll be invaded by the Chinese when weakened enough and the few troops we have left will be in Afghanistan getting themselves shot by terrorists. Does it make sense? Not to me.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Political points
The role of government is to look after those in trouble and protect citizens from harm. Anything more is simply ideological interference.
The law of socialism (maths not included): Anyone having more money than most people reduces the total amount available and has to be claimed back from them in tax. In fact each person has the potential to become rich independently, and if so they create what economists call 'growth', ie the total wealth has actually increased. This means they are either too thick to add up or thieves, neither of which are a good thing.CO2 emissions have shown despite huge taxes the only time they went down was the year of the world recession, showing only a correlation with reduced growth. Therefore, by further reducing the economy by growing restrictions the politicians will guarantee a long term depression which will indeed reduce CO2. In a pyramid scheme the product is the means to an end, not important in itself. They use it as a reason to move money up the pyramid from the bottom to the top until it collapses through lack of people to add. Solar and wind power are using this principle to pay users with the money taken from those who use other sources. The products don't work and it just moves the money around.
Money comes in two basic types, earned and created. They are not the same. If you create money it is akin to forgery, and in the UK
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The new totalitarian state
A democracy is a political organisation where every qualified individual has the regular opportunity to choose who represents them. The EU is slowly taking over the functions of individual governments, and has now reached the point it is about to impose restrictions not seen since the fall of the Soviet Union and worse. Had they been democratic the people would have objected, and voted such measures out at the next election, problem over. But the EU policies are not made by the European Parliament (I'm still not quite sure what they do do but that's another issue) but the permanent EU Commission. They debate in private and do not require published minutes, all we usually know about it is when they announce their latest policies.
So, as the EU have reached the point where they make the majority of decisions in Britain at least then whatever we vote for we always get the same, and have no means of redress or accountability. That actually means all EU members are in the start (or worse) of a totalitarian state. For example no EU member state can actually choose on carbon reduction programmes, they are compulsory. Commodity prices mainly in the area of food are set by the EU by holding back goods and paying producers not to produce. In individual countries this would normally be illegal but in the EU it's de rigeur and always was. Protectionism and price fixing are also indicative of totalitarianism, so they qualify on that count as well. And with the imminent removal of rail subsidies, road pricing and banning cars altogether in cities can you think of a single country who would have actually voted such measures in? Or one with a constitution allowing them if they were attempted?
Saturday, August 06, 2011
This is realpolitik
The economic news is simply boring. The US debt is just a symptom of wild lending and fraud, and technically the UK is not affected but is hardly going to lead the world much longer in their current position. The Euro crisis is about to be settled with a debt pool, so says the smart spokesman, as then no one country will be affected and in true communist style all the rich countries will have their debts increased to even the problem despite not being responsible for them personally. It's a bit like if your sewer floods, and rather than it overflow your house you make holes to the houses next door and have a lower level of sewage through them all. That's communism, everyone sinks to the lowest level, and although Britain won't be hooked as we're not Euro users the others will be economically unified to do so. No national tax or much else when that happens, basically a single state. If they hadn't had the Euro debt zones they would never have had the chance to unify the whole zone, so you could say that if they wanted a unified state all along then creating a currency that would fail and need unification to hold it together, then that has now been achieved. It can all be set up in advance more or less as reckless lending will always lead to a crash and if the solution was in place before the crash then the cart was put before the horse, many many years before in this case.
There is a big picture in politics and economics, and once you see it then it all makes sense. Wars make arms traders rich. Opec zone wars make Opec rich as it shoots the price of oil up, they already have reserves and it's like saying your savings have suddenly tripled in value for doing nothing. Create a small war every now and then and you can keep the oil producers happy and get your donations in for the next election from the big arms dealers. It all fits together like a jigsaw made from faeces. Each piece of dirt fits nicely with the next one and basically the whole scene is one of filth and corruption, as threats and bribes have always oiled the wheels of politics better than votes and helping people ever can.
So basically the world governments operate like an international mafia. They will let the ordinary people have a reasonably good life otherwise they may turn against them, so they turn the screw but only enough to keep the cash flowing and not enough for a full revolution to occur. You won't get the town to keep silent when they witness a murder if you don't give them some kind of freedom. So it's a balance of oppression and limited liberties, just enough so people feel free and don't realise they could be a lot freer. Those hippies in the 60s were a rare diversion from the tracks, and actually many of their communes were left in peace and seemed it was easier to leave them alone than stir things up and only shot at them when they demonstrated about unpopular issues like Vietnam. But if they kept quiet and out of the way smoking a little weed didn't usually cause too many ructions.
But that was a short diversion into an oasis among the rest of the storm. Like the bible says (they did invent a lot of wisdom that works without the slightest need for god) you can't lie openly, you have to hide it in truth, and you can't mistreat people openly (except in half the world as the people are so poor that they haven't the resources to revolt) but in the west they pretend to be nice and only suck your blood at night when you're asleep and don't notice, like a mosquito. You hardly ever know when you're being bitten but you sure know afterwards. They offer the moon before an election, they get in and miraculously continue 80% of the policies of the precious government they'd spent four years running down. In fact for decades now the policies have hardly changed whoever has got in, the differences are now the exception and whatever they say in opposition virtually the same crap happens in power. Tuition fees, fortnightly bin collections, the congestion charge, the Climate Change Act, petrol taxes, all things the opposition criticised and now they're in charge have all been kept, although the congestion area has been reduced none of the others have happened at all. They scrapped one policy immediately, medical waiting times were deregulated so we can wait two weeks to see the doctor and a year for a consultant again after that had actually been fixed.
It doesn't often get better nowadays, does it?
There is a big picture in politics and economics, and once you see it then it all makes sense. Wars make arms traders rich. Opec zone wars make Opec rich as it shoots the price of oil up, they already have reserves and it's like saying your savings have suddenly tripled in value for doing nothing. Create a small war every now and then and you can keep the oil producers happy and get your donations in for the next election from the big arms dealers. It all fits together like a jigsaw made from faeces. Each piece of dirt fits nicely with the next one and basically the whole scene is one of filth and corruption, as threats and bribes have always oiled the wheels of politics better than votes and helping people ever can.
So basically the world governments operate like an international mafia. They will let the ordinary people have a reasonably good life otherwise they may turn against them, so they turn the screw but only enough to keep the cash flowing and not enough for a full revolution to occur. You won't get the town to keep silent when they witness a murder if you don't give them some kind of freedom. So it's a balance of oppression and limited liberties, just enough so people feel free and don't realise they could be a lot freer. Those hippies in the 60s were a rare diversion from the tracks, and actually many of their communes were left in peace and seemed it was easier to leave them alone than stir things up and only shot at them when they demonstrated about unpopular issues like Vietnam. But if they kept quiet and out of the way smoking a little weed didn't usually cause too many ructions.
But that was a short diversion into an oasis among the rest of the storm. Like the bible says (they did invent a lot of wisdom that works without the slightest need for god) you can't lie openly, you have to hide it in truth, and you can't mistreat people openly (except in half the world as the people are so poor that they haven't the resources to revolt) but in the west they pretend to be nice and only suck your blood at night when you're asleep and don't notice, like a mosquito. You hardly ever know when you're being bitten but you sure know afterwards. They offer the moon before an election, they get in and miraculously continue 80% of the policies of the precious government they'd spent four years running down. In fact for decades now the policies have hardly changed whoever has got in, the differences are now the exception and whatever they say in opposition virtually the same crap happens in power. Tuition fees, fortnightly bin collections, the congestion charge, the Climate Change Act, petrol taxes, all things the opposition criticised and now they're in charge have all been kept, although the congestion area has been reduced none of the others have happened at all. They scrapped one policy immediately, medical waiting times were deregulated so we can wait two weeks to see the doctor and a year for a consultant again after that had actually been fixed.
It doesn't often get better nowadays, does it?
Monday, August 01, 2011
Wasted efforts?
Today's theme is delayed reactions, or technically no reactions. If I stay up till 4am doing research it's because I don't get interrupted that late so get on with everything without a break, and the end result is blog posts and articles from what I've discovered. Besides a handful of comments from those who already know these things the reactions and responses I've had have been precisely zero, besides a genuine shock from a radio presenter I called. Nothing happened but he knows. And that's the only result, the bare minimum. People have been told. They can't then say whenever it comes out 'Wow, who'd ever have expected that', much like the poor simpleton Gordon Brown, an economist who genuinely thinks we're dumb enough to think he couldn't see uncontrolled lending would mean a mass default. They hear it, ignore it, but it's there.
So I won't give up digging and sharing the dirt, but now realise people don't care. Otherwise efforts are expended similarly in other areas, and the rule is quality not quantity for success. You don't succeed by almost killing yourself, but by focusing and knowing where to focus. Not that I do, but even when you do then it doesn't guarantee results, it just buys you a ticket. Funnily enough I've just joined the first dating site for years and waiting for their activation link, and although it took two years I did meet my last girlfriend on one, and basically if this one is actually free (the site is blocked until you join, go figure) I have nothing beyond the wasted hours on the phone to total strangers plus the embarrassing evenings in dodgy pubs continuing said phone calls with women I'd never dreamed of even approaching had I met them face to face first. But I'll try it in case. The media work is no different. My focus was the only way you can succeed without an Equity card or being a qualified journalist. I networked, my one known contact needed what I could offer and took off ever since. But the media has levels like any other career, and I'm on step one, voluntary usage in fringe areas. Beyond that level we can't dictate who uses what, I've had many leads which could have got me on step two or even higher, but is pure chance which projects get completed or not.
But as far as the news goes, I've never seen things like this before. The world situation is at a lifetime low, the signs are all out there (I compiled a list of world commodity prices, which have been shooting up the last few years as well as the population which has tripled!), and what do people do? Ignore it. What this man made recession has done is to increase prices and regulations threefold while keep incomes where they are, or a fraction if you live off investments. We're not at third world rates yet but if you graph the pay over price ratio ahead, if nothing stops the trend we soon will be. So people ignore the trend and wait for the disaster and then realise. What can they do about it then? Search me, it's never happened before in my lifetime. The graphs show stability since the end of rationing in the 40s, and then the last few years before the crash prices rocketed. That money's going somewhere- Russia, China, politicians, bankers, and away from us. The total hardly changes but the shift is to the already super rich from everyone else. If prices go up we all lose except the retailers. Do you own an oilfield or a wind farm? Or a supermarket? If not then all these price rises will slowly cripple you all. Houses now cost three times the multiple of income they did a few years ago. So there's already a lot less left. I don't know how people even manage now but somehow they seem to as they aren't rioting on the streets or even writing to the papers. But if you can't see it now you soon will believe me. The mechanism has already been put in place to put the recent price rises into the big time and then you'll notice. And guess what, I told you.
Of course the first thing I want is action- people realising they are fucked and they must start telling everyone else how and why as once you know this you will stop accepting it. Currently I am blamed as paranoid although all the data is in, as it always is before I begin any campaign. But no one who hadn't worked it out already even believes me, or cares. They feel rich so they think they are. They feel free, unless they want to buy a light bulb, park your car or take a photo without being stopped and questioned. Those are the very beginnings of restrictions, and must come in slowly or we'll all notice and object. So look for them and realise if you can be taxed on something new at a low level then it will rise, like car parking outside your own house. This is happening worldwide in one way or another as there is only one connected economy, there's one pool of cash and it's moving away from you and me.
So I won't give up digging and sharing the dirt, but now realise people don't care. Otherwise efforts are expended similarly in other areas, and the rule is quality not quantity for success. You don't succeed by almost killing yourself, but by focusing and knowing where to focus. Not that I do, but even when you do then it doesn't guarantee results, it just buys you a ticket. Funnily enough I've just joined the first dating site for years and waiting for their activation link, and although it took two years I did meet my last girlfriend on one, and basically if this one is actually free (the site is blocked until you join, go figure) I have nothing beyond the wasted hours on the phone to total strangers plus the embarrassing evenings in dodgy pubs continuing said phone calls with women I'd never dreamed of even approaching had I met them face to face first. But I'll try it in case. The media work is no different. My focus was the only way you can succeed without an Equity card or being a qualified journalist. I networked, my one known contact needed what I could offer and took off ever since. But the media has levels like any other career, and I'm on step one, voluntary usage in fringe areas. Beyond that level we can't dictate who uses what, I've had many leads which could have got me on step two or even higher, but is pure chance which projects get completed or not.
But as far as the news goes, I've never seen things like this before. The world situation is at a lifetime low, the signs are all out there (I compiled a list of world commodity prices, which have been shooting up the last few years as well as the population which has tripled!), and what do people do? Ignore it. What this man made recession has done is to increase prices and regulations threefold while keep incomes where they are, or a fraction if you live off investments. We're not at third world rates yet but if you graph the pay over price ratio ahead, if nothing stops the trend we soon will be. So people ignore the trend and wait for the disaster and then realise. What can they do about it then? Search me, it's never happened before in my lifetime. The graphs show stability since the end of rationing in the 40s, and then the last few years before the crash prices rocketed. That money's going somewhere- Russia, China, politicians, bankers, and away from us. The total hardly changes but the shift is to the already super rich from everyone else. If prices go up we all lose except the retailers. Do you own an oilfield or a wind farm? Or a supermarket? If not then all these price rises will slowly cripple you all. Houses now cost three times the multiple of income they did a few years ago. So there's already a lot less left. I don't know how people even manage now but somehow they seem to as they aren't rioting on the streets or even writing to the papers. But if you can't see it now you soon will believe me. The mechanism has already been put in place to put the recent price rises into the big time and then you'll notice. And guess what, I told you.
Of course the first thing I want is action- people realising they are fucked and they must start telling everyone else how and why as once you know this you will stop accepting it. Currently I am blamed as paranoid although all the data is in, as it always is before I begin any campaign. But no one who hadn't worked it out already even believes me, or cares. They feel rich so they think they are. They feel free, unless they want to buy a light bulb, park your car or take a photo without being stopped and questioned. Those are the very beginnings of restrictions, and must come in slowly or we'll all notice and object. So look for them and realise if you can be taxed on something new at a low level then it will rise, like car parking outside your own house. This is happening worldwide in one way or another as there is only one connected economy, there's one pool of cash and it's moving away from you and me.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
21st century politics
Having just discovered climate change is now officially a business, and it's headed by the same man who runs the BBC pension fund, such connections show a complete circle when it comes to the financial flow of money from the law makers at the top who make the laws to collect the money, and then invest in the areas themselves and get the national broadcasters to do the same, and at the same time restrict the broadcasting to anything that supports these actions.
the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change headed by Peter Dunscombe.
Looking even at the few crooks unearthed in politics, like cockroaches if you see a few there are always thousands nearby, and the same goes for the handful of politicians and leaders who get exposed compared to the ones doing far worse. Just imagine you were in the cabinet, had vast tracts of land (as many of them do), and created a law saying people who use their spare land for wind farms get a guaranteed rent for 25 years without having to do anything, and then instal hundreds on their own land, if necessary putting it in your wife's name or children to avoid any official claims of corruption. And you're saving the planet so no one complains even when it earns you millions.
That I'm afraid is how business is done nowadays, the links I keep turning up connecting Al Gore, Rothschilds (about to help run Australia's carbon tax, no surprises there), the BBC and even the bloody Dalai Lama (no longer on my chanukah card list now) are all working as a massive team to squeeze as much cash from a false flag threat of CO2 while everyone's looking the other way adjusting their pants. They don't even need the money- these politicians were millionaires already before they got into it, so as well as ramping up their personal incomes drastically it is taken from government subsidies, ie my money. So basically anything the mafia has done with protection rackets and money laundering can now be shown as the politics of the 21st century. It's not even hidden any more as they know no one can police the police themselves- unless they make a mistake as a few have done. And carbon trading itself had to be removed from the laws of theft as a decade earlier a similar scheme got the Enron management sent down for years. We never seem to learn and keep electing the same people as it hurts too much to imagine they're as dirty as a rock festival toilet.
the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change headed by Peter Dunscombe.
Looking even at the few crooks unearthed in politics, like cockroaches if you see a few there are always thousands nearby, and the same goes for the handful of politicians and leaders who get exposed compared to the ones doing far worse. Just imagine you were in the cabinet, had vast tracts of land (as many of them do), and created a law saying people who use their spare land for wind farms get a guaranteed rent for 25 years without having to do anything, and then instal hundreds on their own land, if necessary putting it in your wife's name or children to avoid any official claims of corruption. And you're saving the planet so no one complains even when it earns you millions.
That I'm afraid is how business is done nowadays, the links I keep turning up connecting Al Gore, Rothschilds (about to help run Australia's carbon tax, no surprises there), the BBC and even the bloody Dalai Lama (no longer on my chanukah card list now) are all working as a massive team to squeeze as much cash from a false flag threat of CO2 while everyone's looking the other way adjusting their pants. They don't even need the money- these politicians were millionaires already before they got into it, so as well as ramping up their personal incomes drastically it is taken from government subsidies, ie my money. So basically anything the mafia has done with protection rackets and money laundering can now be shown as the politics of the 21st century. It's not even hidden any more as they know no one can police the police themselves- unless they make a mistake as a few have done. And carbon trading itself had to be removed from the laws of theft as a decade earlier a similar scheme got the Enron management sent down for years. We never seem to learn and keep electing the same people as it hurts too much to imagine they're as dirty as a rock festival toilet.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Hockey sticks rule the 2000s
< Food prices.
Oil till 2005 >
Gold v
Temperatures?
Fertiliser prices
Spot the odd one out. They all look damn similar don't they, but just one is not reliable, the temperature record. Unfortunately all the prices are absolutely real, as is the world population. The familiar hockey stick, which needed to both compare like with unlike (the temperatures from 1979 onwards were satellite based, land based for 50 years earlier and then proxy) and rewrite history to dispose of the little ice age and medieval warm period, both in textbooks for decades until then, in order to give the impression our temperatures had suddenly started rising. Steve McIntyre followed this up by using the computer algorithm to show whatever data was put in the same shape was guaranteed.
But the 2000s have indeed been the decade of the hockey stick economically. Are they connected? Mostly they are, and not by chance either. Bear in mind the Bilderberg Group planned to use mid-east chaos such as invading Libya and Iraq to raise the oil price artificially to $150, which has been closely reached now twice, and as can be seen the 2005 price here, already the peak of the stick is now double that in 2011. This has been engineered through wars and selective restrictions on exploration and energy taxes, nominally in the name of the environment but actually to allow the same remaining oil to be sold for around double the previous market price or more. Therefore big oil are definitely involved with climate change, as it has made their work a lot easier, gaining twice the price for the identical amount of work. Inflation causes a ripple effect, so food and fertiliser (partly oil based) follow faithfully, while gold has risen simply as the currencies have been puffed up without added production through bailouts and quantitative easing (creating cash from nowhere), meaning they become worth less per pound or dollar as there is no more production behind a greater total sum of cash. That means the money shifts to hard currency, ie commodities, with gold as king.
The final and sharpest rise which is probably the major reason behind the others is world population. As food production remains flat and oil reduces, and the people multiply logarithmically, the shareout ratio is obvious. And bear in mind in nature most sharp peaks end with a sharp fall. If this occurred for any of the prices it would be a welcome miracle, if for the population it would be a disaster.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Getting where exactly?
I still do my almost daily blog elsewhere simply as that's where the audience appears to be. But people do still visit here so not planning to give up, but think it's site wide and not just my blog as people move over to Facebook. Partly due to the latest photo site encouraging us to travel as far as possible to extend our coverage, and a gradual return of my energy I've managed more this year already than I had for a few years. If your health's up the creek you're stuffed whoever or whatever you are. And having the blood tests come up clear were a great relief, as has now eliminated most of any of the worst (although being initialized couldn't work out what they were all for) and can relax on that front.
Other than that I am fine when things are going well (which isn't a given when you have other health problems and the like hanging about) and just need to stay up when knocked down by events. Things will always break, fall apart and go against you throughout your life, and with no one normally around to help mean if you're on your own there's no one to share any burden. That must make every event worse as I don't remember them causing so much grief when I still lived at home as I always had the support. Mind you, if you can crack that one there's not much left, and I seem to have covered everything on the way to that hurdle. I didn't ask to be super human, but seem to be being gradually broken down to be rebuilt in true shamanic fashion, except over years instead of days.
Losing faith and belief is another part of these tests- although I've always said how the process is cruel in the short term as however much you advance and see the world becoming more connected (the outward sign of that progress) you still keep on suffering. The traditional result of enlightenment is the end of suffering, though some teachers say there is still suffering but they don't associate with it. That's a typical statement you'll never get until you are so no point attempting to analyse it further. Obviously once you see life is being guided at all then it is being guided. And likely even the seeming gaps where everything returns to random can be looked into further to find a purpose. And even though I'm only on this path for my own benefit if I learn anything new my nature is to share it. I've no idea how many people learn anything from my offerings on screen, but do know it helps people when they come to me directly for help. When I was at my worst points it was the logic of my mother who helped me more than anyone else. Of course mine is inherited from her and her parents, as well as my father's academic mind. Looking at the careers of my family then I can see why they expected so much of me.
I don't know what to expect next if anything. I see myself grow from one issue to the next but the new problems never stop. They aren't unusual ones, but just a constant stream as soon as the last ones are fixed. The old story is whenever everything else is sorted then it's time for the dentist, and tends to be the case sooner or later as now. Nothing major at least and should be fixed in minutes but still have to both go and probably be sent to the hygienist as well as they don't do that as part of the checkup where I go now, plus it's private so have to pay the full price despite being an NHS practice otherwise. So it's been optician, doctor, outpatients and suppose the full set was on the cards really. I suppose at least there's no psychiatrist on the list. Anyway, here are a couple of photos from last week's trip to Oxford.
Other than that I am fine when things are going well (which isn't a given when you have other health problems and the like hanging about) and just need to stay up when knocked down by events. Things will always break, fall apart and go against you throughout your life, and with no one normally around to help mean if you're on your own there's no one to share any burden. That must make every event worse as I don't remember them causing so much grief when I still lived at home as I always had the support. Mind you, if you can crack that one there's not much left, and I seem to have covered everything on the way to that hurdle. I didn't ask to be super human, but seem to be being gradually broken down to be rebuilt in true shamanic fashion, except over years instead of days.
Losing faith and belief is another part of these tests- although I've always said how the process is cruel in the short term as however much you advance and see the world becoming more connected (the outward sign of that progress) you still keep on suffering. The traditional result of enlightenment is the end of suffering, though some teachers say there is still suffering but they don't associate with it. That's a typical statement you'll never get until you are so no point attempting to analyse it further. Obviously once you see life is being guided at all then it is being guided. And likely even the seeming gaps where everything returns to random can be looked into further to find a purpose. And even though I'm only on this path for my own benefit if I learn anything new my nature is to share it. I've no idea how many people learn anything from my offerings on screen, but do know it helps people when they come to me directly for help. When I was at my worst points it was the logic of my mother who helped me more than anyone else. Of course mine is inherited from her and her parents, as well as my father's academic mind. Looking at the careers of my family then I can see why they expected so much of me.
I don't know what to expect next if anything. I see myself grow from one issue to the next but the new problems never stop. They aren't unusual ones, but just a constant stream as soon as the last ones are fixed. The old story is whenever everything else is sorted then it's time for the dentist, and tends to be the case sooner or later as now. Nothing major at least and should be fixed in minutes but still have to both go and probably be sent to the hygienist as well as they don't do that as part of the checkup where I go now, plus it's private so have to pay the full price despite being an NHS practice otherwise. So it's been optician, doctor, outpatients and suppose the full set was on the cards really. I suppose at least there's no psychiatrist on the list. Anyway, here are a couple of photos from last week's trip to Oxford.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)