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.

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.

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."

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….
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.