Saturday, April 21, 2012

How the fuck do they get away with it?

This week there has been a procession of climate errors coming to light. We have the melting Himalayan glaciers which didn't melt now growing already, Arctic ice crossing the limit of positive growth before someone was caught altering the data at the last minute, plus a new study which suggests the reason the Arctic ice had been showing a decline were the measuring equipment had been drifting into open sea while the ice remained pretty much the same, akin to David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear, and another list of errors in James Hansen's graphs, all within a week.

It is basically asking the question how many gross and glaring errors, on top of blatant alterations which have been caught are the indication of a genuine scientific issue? I've never come across any other since Piltdown Man which has raised so much controversy within the profession (I don't think Piltdown Man did actually, it was accepted by consensus and then discredited all in one go decades later, lesson to be learnt there) and was so rough it kept turning up greater and greater inconsistencies of all types and levels. If your bank or doctor worked with so many breaches of standards you'd change wouldn't you? How many mistakes would you allow them to make before you lost confidence and decided to pack them in? For me I'd just go back to my own jobs and those who have worked for myself and my family.

I've done a year studying accounting before switching, and have done little bits ever since as you don't need to be qualified unlike many other professions as you get the work signed off after doing it by someone who is. Accounting is probably the easiest area to pick up errors, but they are still made, and believe it or not the size is not actually such an element of them, as a massive one can just as easily get through as a few small ones. But the point being that the means are extremely simple using balance sheets to reveal them. Extend that to other professions, science, medicine, law and the like. The deeper you get into them the more of a professional you would need to be to pick up errors. I studied law and when a friend has had bad advice it can often be clear to us and not to anyone else simply as it's what we've had to learn.

The climate is hard to measure but fairly simple to read when measurements are made. I'd say it's fairly close to accounting in that sense, except you're dealing with estimates and future budgeting, complex income statements etc which are many times beyond even the most complicated areas of accounting, but nonetheless able to go through the balance sheet test. Basically it should not be possible to make most of the errors at all. If science or a builder or tailor measured a glacier or an iceberg you'd actually expect them to get it right, especially if you were making a coat for it or more so a bridge to take its weight. I've seen the result of miscalculations in architecture, where a suspended walkway collapsed killing a number of people as the equations hadn't been done properly.

If a builder makes an error, or the architect instructing them, people can die, like the bridge over the river in Ohio which did almost exactly the same thing some years ago. They are wise after the event by working out why the structures failed, but too late for the victims. And you wouldn't employ the firm again I'd hope. The same goes for a misdiagnosis or botched operation. The glacier situation alone is no different to amputating the wrong leg, but the scientists don't ruin anyone's life directly with their errors, and apparently for 99% of the world neither their credibility.

Psychologically what exactly puts these mavens above all others? Is it because they don't directly injure or maim anyone when they stuff up, combined with the almost unanimous support by politicians worldwide? The sheer credibility of the believers who, like a parent, excuse their children of every crime and misdeed as they appear to offer climatologists unconditional love and trust, and however many people the Kray twins killed they were always good to their mother who loved them through it all.

So with a record of not just errors but such which would get your banker, accountant, architect, builder, doctor and especially an airline pilot sacked and possibly imprisoned for gross negligence (a crime at certain levels) climatologists are excused every single one as 'it doesn't affect the science'. Hold on, it IS the science! The whole theory relies on observation and when those observations become wrong, then how much of an error margin should people accept (above and beyond the professions mentioned) before the same standards everyone else is kept to are upheld? It's like some sort of Mafia-like immunity, in fact I'd go one step further and say not even 'like'. That or nearly everyone has been hypnotised, much like Paul McKenna tells people they can't count the number 7. But hypnotism always wears off on its own yet this has lasted decades, in the face of more and more new and incredibly wrong data. That really takes some doing.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Beating the system

I've just been reading a blog predicting the downfall of the New World Order, which of course is one of the rare optimistic views around, and does have a few potential points. The main one being the simple one that only the truth exists, and as the whole system relies on people believing lies which are now freely possible to refute one by one online then one way or another eventually enough people will learn the truth which will destroy the illusions. The second, which also makes perfect sense, is that the good guys not only exist (they ought to, they are after all the vast majority) but a group are working actively to bring it down from the inside by taking over the corrupt organisations and cleansing them from within. That is the sort of thing that although is quite logical we'd only know when it had already happened as you can't expose an investigation while in progress or the rats would get away as well.

It's good to see an optimistic note, although David Icke always said they can never win as only able to lie to gain power, which by its nature is temporary. So the IPCC simply used Goebbel's knowledge of the mass IQ and said global warming wouldn't really kick in till 2100. Even though to anyone with a three digit IQ (or maybe not as they still vote green) could see that it's impossible to ever find out, they fooled the people with a lie they'd never expose directly. Except it's fucking stupid. How even the green voters (the whole of Europe and now Australia at least, plus of course those great contributors to world culture, the Canadians) with three digit IQs couldn't see through that one as Al Gore said it was their unborn grandchildren who would suffer they forgot the human lifespan altogether. It's the same as Paul McKenna's trick where he hypnotises people to forget the number 7 so count their fingers and can't finish. We won't see 2100? But surely we'd be able to see the terrible climate chaos if it happened even if it's not till 2100. Duh, no, you won't.

My mission is over now, as I've complied around 50 pages of A4 on the topic and wallowing in shite all day makes you smell nasty. I am now back to my spiritual work and my climate and fraud investigations are all on this very blog for no one to read. As for the climate that will look after itself, the speed of new data overturning guesses is increasing weekly, the penguins are now spreading after models said they'd lose 95%, the melting glaciers that never did are now growing despite expectations in the models they'd be gone some time before lunch/2350/2525 depending who you read. The models are only valid until the day the results come in, and as Harold Camping gave exact dates although so soon he was made to look like a total dick (although more so the people who believed him) in months, and again when he got it wrong a second time. The IPCC are looking like total dicks every time a new measurement comes in now, as their best case scenario for 2010 was some way above the actual temperature despite the CO2 itself being their worst case scenario. But they still cling to the connection as they want more money and the same people are so darn stupid they believe a stable temperature is global warming as long as someone says it is.

If blown apart then this generation would wake up overnight, sack all the politicians, put the climatologists in prison and sweep the old cancer away. It can happen and I will guarantee it must by 2100 as those models were written in stone and at some point between now and 2100 the people will see they are so different from reality they will become obsolete and worthless, as will the idiots who produced them. I'd love to be here when it happens, but even if not it has to happen as if the sea level is falling now it's going to take a decade of rising just to get back what it's lost, except it's still falling. Ditto for the temperature and as the ice has never lost more than 2% which lasted a few years before coming back all three fronts are not indicating anything more than natural variability.

Then as well as climate false money will die a death when the currencies become so devalued by debt they become worthless and people have to barter goods again, after sacking all their politicians. The economics behind the current levels of debt (the US alone is so high it can't cover the world GDP a few times over once you take into account the non-recorded financial instruments) [see Max Keiser for details] are providing short term liquidity to delay repayments, but increase the money supply without a corresponding increase in capital. All this does it make things into currency, so while currency falls commodities rise, and the results are, unlike the climate, totally predictable. Gold is the thermometer and oil and food follow in unison. The same money buys less, as interest earned is lower than inflation and inflation rises above wages. The results are guaranteed.

So this blogger says it's all being taken care of, the fake accounts and stolen gold are being reclaimed as I speak, and eventually when the mission is complete we'll all know about it as many big names will no longer be in office but behind bars. Of course if you make the laws all you do is decide what you want to do and make it legal, but that sort of selective protection can only ever be temporary as eventually the victims will enforce their own versions as they did in Egypt. The fact the Egyptians replaced a corrupt individual with a group of gangsters just reflects local conditions, but in the west we've got the gangsters already so what would replace them would not be anything like the originals. I've no idea how long they think this operation will take, but the punchline is the mass arrest of the bankers and their support system, and as the governments are the major part of this support by keeping interest rates low so their margins are greatly widened and they can borrow at next to nothing to manipulate the markets overnight and make enough to pay it back and still make a profit, not to mention the total lack of regulation which allows structured financial instruments (ie hidden), naked short selling (check it out), gambling with depositor's money, bailing out business to business investment banks, all fraud but legalised. There is enough to not just go round but remove poverty everywhere, and one day it may be released and not part of the rulers' wealth while everyone else rots.

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

How much are our rulers elected?

I wrote this in answer to a forum question, and something we all need to know in Britain:

The sum total of who makes our rules is on a sliding scale of election. The MPs themselves have been covered, while the powers of the unelected lords are negligible unless appointed as ministers. But most of our new laws (eg the latest deregulating of postage prices) are made by the EU, and as such we must consider who votes for them? Their structure is on two main levels, the parliament and the commission. To be honest I don't actually know the legislative power of the parliament as the little research I have done appears to indicate they discuss existing decisions made by the commission and little else. Unless someone can put me right I am wondering if they can do anything at all. But the EU regulations are made by the commission directly, they are unelected and can stay for many years as they are civil servants given the role of legislators, instantly breaking the rule of separation of powers.

As a result they are free to legislate pretty well unhindered, and there is a further ability above and beyond where they can meet and draft material in private and their records are not open to the public. As this is their primary role (legislature and executive combined) I am as I say unsure if the parliament do any more than the Queen or presidents of countries like Ireland, as the actual regulations originate from above them and don't know if they can even amend them let alone veto any.

Above the EU is the UN. in 1991 they wrote Agenda 21 for sustainability, and as such every member state is bound by the regulations, usually applied through local councils through the body titled ICLEI. Fortnightly bin collections,  compulsory recycling, road narrowing and restricting new parking spaces are all influenced directly by Agenda 21 as one plank is to reduce dependence on private transportation, hence EU plans to ban cars from city centres and flight taxes. So one can say that at the scope of the UN and Agenda 21 (all unelected) there is no accountability, or with anything which comes from the EU as once joined and new treaties accepted we have signed away greater and greater functions previously assigned to our elected parliaments, if you read about any new laws or regulations like the postal charges just check the source and you'll find most are direct from the EU and only applied by our parliament.