Friday, December 30, 2011

Beginner's summary on global warming

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.