Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Climate summary for global warming 2012

Write full summary on global warming data. Only the science, no politics as that is irrelevant and dragged in to confuse the opposition by unscrupulous fanatics.


UN use 1850 as temperature base, current measurements taken 1979 onwards by satellite.
PDO/Multidecadal oscillation 30 years cold and warm from solar activity and Milankovitch cycles. Always have, always will.
Medieval warm period revised around 2000 despite still being in all older records. Can't both be right.
Temperature risen 0.8C from a 50% rise in CO2 less around half of that from natural causes.
Sea ice and level barely changed over period beyond normal variation (many studies cited).

All temperature rises only exist in imagination (models and claims) ahead of our lifetimes (2050-2100). That is not scientific is impossible to know or observe.
Current datasets include almost universal adjustments up worldwide when the hockey stick rises. A common practice implies a common source, ie instructions to do so.
If revised temperatures mean old ones were wrong (and glacier measurements etc) that proves that before those measurements were altered the science was inadequate. And until the next ones ad infinitum.
If you can model a human mind you can model the climate. If not, stick to weather forecasting only and that's wrong most of the time.
20 years on original IPCC estimates all above actual 2012 temperatures, what does that say about the models and their future predictions?

Mechanisms requiring positive feedback which would increase the bare 1C per doubling of CO2 is from increased moisture in the air, which is a stronger greenhouse gas. After a rise from 260-400 no such mechanism has been present, observation says if the experiment is half run and there was no expected delay, there is no such feedback, partly as the water vapour which is released goes to clouds, which block the sun and cool.

Ottmar Edenhoffer, IPCC head economist stated clearly in 2010 it was not about the climate but economic redistribution. That ought to have been sufficient, except no one besides the original reported ever published it. I wonder why?

Climategate 1 and 2 clearly show scientists working together by email worldwide and colluding to smooth gaps and falls in temperature as well as criticising others for doing so. No one has been challenged since despite being published widely. Of course if the authorities charged to deal with such trangressions had given the orders to do so how could they punish them as it would lead back to them anyway.

Unlike the temperature the sea level rise is caused half by thermal expansion, not possible without serious warming (way over 2C and above) and half by land ice melting, requiring serious warming. The sea rose 7 inches in the 20th century and current rises already show this to be expected if nothing changes. Under current conditions there is no known mechanism able to make the temperatures rise sharply from CO2 in the future, as it has already with no such rise. Simply adding more as it currently occurring can from existing trends only cause a maximum of maybe 1.5C by 2100, which recent studies are revising downwards as a result. As such this is so much within existing variations that there would be no issue to address, the IPCC are working at a 3-6C rise, which apart from having no direct knowledge of the effects bears no relationship to actual recent changes. The only evidence we do have is from the Roman and Medieval warm periods, both showing an improvement in living conditions for the majority as most people would expect.

Recent studies correlating solar changes (sunspots and radiation) with past temperature changes show a fit almost 100% closer than with CO2, combined with the PDO it is almost exact. Why have the IPCC not taken that into account in their new report drafts? In advance some have been leaked, and appear to now be catching on to what I and many like me have said for a decade or so. As long as they do then our work will be done.

The media and scientists alike have worked on the least scientific methods of all, induction and prediction. Taking small local changes and extending them to the total would fail any student, so just because they are already qualified so can't fail twice is no different to a failure action. Predicting in a non-linear system becomes so unstable over time the error bars are wider than the range itself. Normally they would never exceed this parameter, but all IPCC diagrams do. Both these actions have disqualified the scientists from any further role in this area as they have used methods foreign to good science, no different to be caught cheating outright. Little different to the 30 billion tons a year being said to be lost from the Himalayan glaciers till this year, when someone actually measured them and found they had lost nothing. No apology or explanation followed.

Climate must look from the wide to the narrow. With temperature, ice and sea levels known within narrow parameters, nothing else is possible to pin on them. Coral bleaching is often used, although coral is one of the oldest living organisms on the planet so clearly not sensitive to such tiny variations let alone the massive ones in the distant past. Polar bears were admitted in a Canadian court case (under oath) to be 'at a healthy population' while their eye was off the ball campaigning to stop oil pipelines or a similar blockage of any form of new industry in the name of 'emissions', and didn't realise by attempting to stop such events in the future, they inadvertantly admitted the problem currently did not actually exist.

To summarise: Using approved UN figures

Temperature has risen around 0.8C since 1850
CO2 has risen from 260-400ppm
Sea level has risen around 7 inches a century
The world ice is roughly stable overall, shrinking in the north and growing in the south
There has been no warming in 16 years
CO2 has risen steadily
The temperature chart follows the 60 year oscillation and solar activity far better than CO2 which is roughly a 45' angle.
Errors and inadequate measurements are constantly being altered, meaning until that point they were not fit for purpose. Who is to say they are now as that may happen again indefinitely.
Temperatures are below even the error bars of the IPCC 1990 projections for 2010.
Making projections is less reliable with distance ahead. It is not acceptable to have parameters smaller than the increasing error margins as they become negligible and meaningless.
The media take individual studies showing local changes and pretend they represent a world situation, which are further taken up by politicians. Basing an issue on unscientific foundations makes it void per se.
Polar bears and coral can be measured fairly well and neither are suffering as claimed by the pressure groups.
There is plenty of data showing any warming releases CO2 from the ocean and thus is a symptom of warming, not a cause.
Similar warming can be found throughout the solar system, the one common element being the solar part.

Taken as a whole, how is it possible to say anything decisive about the hitherto unknown results of a 50% plus increase in CO2 while all else stayed as before? In fact without a scientific control, ie an identical planet with no CO2 increase, anything else would only be supposition and speculation. Furthermore when an experiment is half run, ie a doubling of CO2, and no moisture or other mechanism causing positive feedback has been seen to be present. The figures are constantly disputed, many equally qualified scientists offer contradictory positions yet are treated as if they do not exist, or worse still incompetent or dishonest. Yet why should one scientist be any more correct than another until the situation plays out to the end? Given so many measurements are either adjusted before release or altered long since, if you were in a hospital or business with such variations you'd either risk dying or losing your money. Why should standards be any lower just because there is no direct loss from errors?

I will keep editing this until it is completed.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Simple rules for living

I've worked out my approach to life (not politics, as that's an ideological base) is down to two words, 'what works?'. That simple formula can be applied to all our similar lives, and would suggest to begin with we look at the basic essentials:

Cheap and available energy: We all need an optimum temperature to live in, which requires heating, which requires energy. Take that away and you reduce every level of the quality of life.

Cheap and available fuel: Do you travel to work? How much do your fares cost you? Many people appear to believe by raising fuel price people will use public transport more (which doesn't go exactly where nearly anyone wants directly), although their costs rise exactly the same amount as private cars. Reduce the ability to travel and you reduce the ability to work and see friends and family. And it raises the prices of everything else. All food and heating are essential commodities, so are spent first ahead of options and luxuries, so the poorer you are the more you pay as a proportion of your total capital.

The protection principle: In law this is the same as the golden rule of the bible. Protect people from threats to themselves and their property. That's it. Anything else by definition is harmless, and therefore should not be a crime. No personal, local or moral issues which do not also fulfil this beyond reasonable doubt (the legal level of a crime) should not be law.

Minimal government: As with the criminal law, so should civil law be to the minimum. Provide a safety net for those unable to work, free health care and nationalise public services as you cannot compete for a single railway line or water supply. That will ensure no restrictions to the energy and transport system and individuals should never be penalised for their health problems which cost the same to fix for all but affect everyone regardless of their income.

I will continue to edit more in but these pretty well cover the basics, and I can't see much anyone can argue about on this as other concepts such as equality and positive discrimination etc are ideological constructs which have no basis in actual nature.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Wolves in sheep's clothing

The more I learn the more sense I see in the bible, that these situations were all seen and known about (no need for God, it's human awareness and discovery) yet we never learn as each generation is born in ignorance. Today's lesson is recognise your enemy, going right back to the bible and not just the wolf but Satan himself, who works by coming like the saviour, promising everything, getting your trust with gifts and bribes, and then eating you or burning down your house when you're asleep.

So today we have charities, politicians and qualified scientists all trying to make people change how they live (not in a good way) to stop a process they claim will cause chaos but we won't know as it'll be too far ahead to know. If you get an advert which looks too good to be true or wrong in some way the chances are (99.99r%) you will be ripped off. Pigs in pokes, hidden products relying on trust and faith alone, which you get back home and unwrap and find a pile of bricks and no laptop, are always indicated by vague adverts, often from foreign shores, offering something for nothing but only if you- pay in advance for your gift (a gift you pay for? but people do), a 'mystery gift' you call a premium number and spend £10 to find out what it is, a ten year guarantee for a company who won't exist in a year, etc etc. These are all familiar to Citizen's Advice, the police and lawyers around the world, but not the public as the first (and sometimes second) time these envelopes come through the door people of all ages and social levels jump into action as they think they've got something for nothing.

The same mechanism operates with any scheme to get your money or daughters. They either use carrots such as free gifts and promises, or sticks where if you don't do what they offer you'll be in terrible trouble. The reality is always the same, they've taken just enough solid material to catch your trust, and when they've got it and you've spent money paying for a man on the internet's travel to see his sick mother abroad, or get out of a foreign cell etc, when they ask for more instead of telling them to fuck off you're usually hooked (just read the stories in the papers where people piss away their life savings gradually to these professional crooks) despite never even meeting them in many cases. That trust is a human weakness and they rely on it and exploit it.

So the lesson is, know your enemy. I'd worked out the reason people still fall for global warming even after it's stopped long enough not to be global warming any more (they said 15 years without a rise, it's now 16) was they don't think these high and mighty pillars of society (like Hitler was in the 30s for example) have anything but their best interest at heart and why on earth would they ever want to hurt us? The answer is simple, they are psychopaths and that's what they do, but there's no need to psychoanalyse the mugger pointing a gun at you any more than these bastards doing it with laws instead, making anyone who challenges them the criminal. If you can educate the masses (as they exist, they prove it regularly by voting in the sort of people who caused this scandal in the first place) to recognise bad guys without black hats or masks they would lose their power. It's another illusion, that our lords and masters are generally there to get as much out of it for themselves and care not a thing about their subjects except inasmuch to gain their trust. So your local MPs will always sort out your problems and do their jobs to the best of their ability, while voting to take most of your money and property away from you on false causes.

As I said before, scratch the surface. Don't assume a politician, policeman or anyone else is there because of their love for others, they are doing a job, and one which both pays their bills and gives them a tremendous amount more power than everyone else has. Look at their actions and history. The Common Market burnt and buried food to keep the prices up, and made Greece suffer with high exchange rates to make their sales expensive to customers to save the Euro. They don't care about the Greeks, the other countries in a similar position, or even the Germans as to them they are just herds of useless eaters they can corral and control as far as possible. Don't try and analyse them as they are not rational, just determined to do what they do, the same reason billionaires still try and save money although they can't ever spend it or twenty generations of issue ahead. It's simply a single lesson, all on this entry, to question the integrity of everyone in charge of you and every rule they  make. Don't assume anything, least of all if they give you something they're on your side, especially as politicians don't use their money but take it off other people, often who can't afford it. They're not giving away anything, they're just moving money around. And not how you want it, but how they do.

So to summarise, if people begin by assuming everyone making rules for them has to be put on trial before you know what they're like, and by historic experience this is often against you and your country's interest, you can keep them out of power. So by raising energy and fuel prices for example, which are essentials for life, people have to spend money on them first (as with food which also goes up directly as a result) the poor spend more of their capital on it than anyone else. Why are they doing this again? To stop the world getting a little warmer after we're dead and can't ever know either way? I can see the disconnect, many others can, but not enough, nowhere near enough, as besides the Czech Republic and Saudi Arabia (apologies to the Saudis, I forgot them last time) no other government I know of speaks out against it. Half these countries roughly are democratic, and a few like America even have an opposition party who do, so you can get something else, but people can't see who's the enemy. Obama is such a nice man, and he's black. So fucking what? So is Herman Cain, but listen to their speeches and you will (assuming you've learnt today's lesson) see Herman Cain is a genuine decent person who is one of a minority of politicians (or they wouldn't all be in power doing the same things currently) while Obama speaks like a robot and talks utter rubbish much of the time when you read it back afterwards. So they accuse Herman Cain of some bogus criminal activity and bump him off the opposing candidates against Obama, as he may well have beaten him.

It is simply a reversal of our attitude, from inclusion to exclusion, to assume we can't trust a single person rather than we can trust them all unless it's too bloody late as they've ripped us off and run away already. It always works the same way, give a stranger (who knows politicians like friends or family?) too much trust and you're fucked. The methods are diverse and the results are universal, a loss of wealth and health or worse. People must start learning from experts with no axe to grind and ignore the bribes and smooth talk of our rulers as if they give you a pound they'll take two soon enough. And it's not their money anyway, it could be your own mother's.

Monday, December 17, 2012

The 21st century IQ test

I would suggest a change to the requirements for Mensa entry, to ask a single question, "Do you believe in man made global warming?". The minority of people who dare to speak up, loudly or in a whisper, and say "I don't think this makes sense", are all those equipped to see beyond the surface, do their own research, and see through many other illusions. It has shaken out the great and the good from all fields- the media, politics, and of course science- all equally qualified but not equally agreed.

This is a standard phenomenon in the world, the majority are wrong as they are not bright enough to understand complex issues, and the ones who are are ridiculed and accused of anything from insanity to paedophilia until the inevitable date they turn out to be correct and everyone forgets about it and moves on. From the heliocentric earth to the cause of stomach ulcers, a few good men have always stood up against the massive world 'consensus', knowing they can't be correct but not always able to prove it. But their innate ability always tells them something feels wrong, and follow it up until they find whatever claims were made were based on inadequate material or misinterpreted to within an inch of its life. These needn't be malicious, just incompetent, but once you challenge them they become malicious as no one likes their work to be attacked and will fight to the death to defend their reputations.

Before the internet the ordinary people had no access to such data, whether on global warming or any other mass delusion, but now everything has been published and we all have free access to the same things as the politicians who take our money to stop something happening which hasn't happened yet, but if it does then their actions will have failed but they would be right, and if not then they would claim a victory as it hadn't happened after all and take the credit, much like the stories of children in Liverpool charging people to watch their cars so nothing will happen to them, borrowed from the more widespread mafia protection rackets, building insurance not to pay for fire damage but to prevent it. So it all boils down to a single scientific issue, not a single political aspect at all, can CO2 (of any origin) raise the temperature to a level where humans and other forms of life suffer more than from the benefits (which are well documented, not from computer models but history). The fact politicians were the ones to take it and run with it (the UN/IPCC are political organisations, not scientific) has soiled it with the filth of politics, but it is irrelevant, the only question is by whichever means it interacts with the atmosphere can all this extra CO2 raise the temperature enough to do more harm than good, nothing else.

Intelligence, being neutral like all power, needs a second positive aspect for the spokespeople to come out in public, ethics. Do people want to be right or popular? This as a result reduces the outspoken many times, as most work for private companies or are retired experts, while most earning a living from the system keep quiet whatever they actually believe, thus skewing the perceived consesus massively. You can no more increase people's ethics than raise their IQ, so those with both will have to work far harder to do the same job, but has turned up people I would offer a Nobel Prize to, and possibly a sainthood. Nigel Lawson, Lord Monckton, James Delingpole, Christopher Booker, the Czech president who is the only world leader who will speak out against it as he says it reminds him of the old Soviet policies, David Bellamy, and a special mention to the LBC presenter Anthony Davis who has studied the data in sufficient detail to bat away callers' nonsense like a pro, and said to me it's not about having a single qualification, but common sense. Not everyone with a high IQ has qualifications, but they all still have the high IQ and ability which goes with it.

In the end, as this is the greatest illusion imposed on mankind since taken up by the UN and sprayed from above like liquid manure worldwide, it is the greatest test to their intelligence. The battles will go on indefinitely, with those in authority using the BBC, mass media and politicians like Obama to do everything possible to keep it going, despite static temperatures, continuing alterations and errors being discovered, and contradictory data. And in the end if you use lateral thinking, such as going from the effect to the cause, CO2 has consistently risen since we started carbon taxes and renewable energy (it's called renewable as they keep earning money from it) meaning these policies don't work. But the fact they simply increase the level of renewables and taxes proves to even those with double figure IQs that if you push a door marked pull even harder it still can't open. They are pouring the same alcohol down the people's throats to cure their alcoholism, and borrowing more money to pay off their debts. And the mass of people without the intelligence are both allowing them and asking them to do it more and faster. God help us all.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Channeling the universe

Time for one of my lectures, following my channeling post. Speaking personally, there have been many times where I have either seen certain things as obvious and had no teaching about what was going on, and spoken about something and material came along I hadn't even known but just came to me. On both of these occasions (with a lot of testing of both myself and many other people) I believe what we are doing is connecting to that frequency, and like a radio that particular information is there. Like any other radio some have better aerials than others, and when we do it easily and naturally we have started with a good one, and then need to practice to increase the ability.

The downside is as we didn't learn this information officially, it's tough as hell to explain it to other people. Even though wise after the event nearly everything has turned out to be correct, until that occurs people just assume you're making it up. I can't prove to anyone why anything is as it is I receive in this way, any more than I can confirm the ability itself unless records are kept for ages and for a large group of others. But this is traditionally the highest knowledge, that which we know, the teaching is to fill the gaps below. But that's how things work, and impossible to beat the system, and maybe the more we share the fact it may well be that way it may become more well known and as a result tested and accepted. As it's there either way.

Blogging is a great way to set it off. If nothing's happened but I want to write I open the box and write, and get most of my best material. Conversations with God is a whole series of books written that way, and whole operas and pieces of music come to composers whole which they just write down as dictated. Where does it come from? The same place as the radio waves, we are tuning in and collecting the information from a source which contains it all. My work on fraud wasn't by finding damning figures proving someone was cheating, but reading accounts which were clearly wrong at some level, and then looking for anything I could to see where the evidence was. My radar is thorough. I've picked up dangerous criminals in seconds who ended up having spectacular records, as I felt they were so. I think the negative vibes are always stronger to pick up, it's like walking on broken glass in comparison to feather pillows of good stuff which to me barely registers. I can also pick up what women are like long before I tested the theory, it was just a natural awareness of what was there and why. I'd never read a book or been told about it but just knew about it many years before my friends caught me up and found the same things. Give me any set of rules- religious, political or whatever, and I can almost instantly tune in and pick up the bad ones, and have caused a lot of trouble (with no success) throughout my life from school onwards trying to get them changed. Being intuitive often I can't explain why they are wrong, but I can feel the difference between having them and not. And I can sometimes work out why they were put there in the first place to keep us down and stop us having access to the sort of powers we otherwise could freely.

Politics is an intuitive minefield. With practice, as like most things it grows with use, I can spot good and bad ones the same way as criminals, and can nowadays also spot really good people as well but that did take a lot longer. I can reliably say certain individuals in the public eye are the best or the worst, not necessarily why, but they feel like it to me and once I watch and listen they go and be who they felt like. Tony Blair is an egotistical school bully, who learnt not to beat up his victims but charm them to give him the power so he could lord it over them with their consent, and then royally fuck them up. David Cameron is an empty headed shell with a good heart but no brain so does and says whatever he thinks is right without a clue what he's doing so pretty random and subject to the forces of his ministers. Having a good heart his final decisions are usually good, if allowed to complete them by the Lib Dems, but hasn't a clue why. And as it takes one to know one I can pick up fellow channelers. Peter Hitchens was on TV last night and he picks the same things up, Lord Monckton is both a saint, a genius, and a channeler. David Davis is a good sensible politician forced onto the back benches as he's kept his principles while his party wanted to be popular rather than right.

Barack Obama is a great test. I tune in and get nothing. That means he does not exist. He has pretty well got a clean slate and been employed to do a job by others such as the Rockefeller Foundation and all connected with them. He doesn't care what he does, he has no ego (how can a zombie have an ego), but just does what he's told whether it's to hug a flood victim or pay a billion dollars to Arab terrorists. It makes no difference to him either way. No wonder his and his family's records are sealed- I've never come across an alien but if there was a case for who could be it he'd be the top candidate. He may well simply be a long term operative, picked at an early age and created a history to make him look genuine, while he could be anyone from anywhere trained to take over the country and possibly infiltrate many others while in power. Fantasy? Maybe we'll know in a few years, but his emptiness is as real as anything. Mitt Romney is a hit man, who does whatever he wants to get there, but as he was working for himself and not really backed by Rockefeller couldn't do a thing. Ron Paul is another channeler, he just knows the score and won over more Democrats than his own lot as they were also tuned in to that frequency. But he inspired many new faces and win or lose has affected many of the people touched by the truth frequency. Obama won as he was set up to win, as what he had to do couldn't be done in a single term as who'd vote someone back who made America a third world country? That will come, quickly or slowly, as he has been put there to do it. But in the great scheme of things you can't do that twice. The people who were hypnotised to vote him back will be so alienated by the disaster he will create they will be lost to them for life.

What else? Firstly, it's not just a few people who can do this- we are all equipped the same and mainly dismiss the information as our minds assume it can't be right without evidence. Feeling something is evidence especially once you've seen you were right. Keep doing it. Pick a few names and tune in, it won't be long before the tap turns on and it flows. (my computer just added around 100 blank pages below this when I clicked a different tab and returned, that's never happened before).

So doing this myself is practice. I want to provide more and more. I had lessons for a couple of years as well which helped a lot, and once you see your first successes it will click and you will start doing it properly.

The spiritual traditions have always said this, if you have any teacher you can and will find errors and ignore them among the rest of the good stuff. In the end you'll work out the best teaching as a combination of what they've all said, and of course as many teach different things only you are there to decide which is right as you can't follow them both or all. Believe me if Maharaji's Knowledge did it all for me I'd have stuck there in 1997 or so and done nothing else, as many lucky disciples do. But although it extended my consciousness limits for a few minutes so I knew it was possible, it happens so rarely I kept looking and learning. I got the awareness method in 2004, it's done bugger all so far and then found Higher Balance, although self taught, believed in everything I did already and teaches methods specifically to do what I wanted to do for exactly the same reasons. Just enough has worked so far to know he's on the case, as usual the exception rather than the rule for me, but he's got the keys. I think the next stage for me is asking others for questions so I can get enough chances for spontaneous answers on any subject required without me having to think of more.

Thursday, December 06, 2012

Opening the box

I had the urge to visit here before bedtime, as sometimes by writing things down, even if no one reads (and certainly don't comment) I work things out myself. It's been slightly downbeat since the beginning of the cyclical dental phase which has two weeks to its next event, and see it as a test to make the best of inevitable shite situations, rather than the world's against me. I'm managing but am still getting the odd kick in the gonads which is less like having the cricket box in front of them than usual, metaphorically. But I plough on as the principle is the same. From now till then there's nothing on the system either way, I could go to deepest Sussex for a road sign I remembered today when the place was mentioned and would keep me busy for a day, and that's about it.

The difference between me and a friend of mine is she has an inbuilt certainty about angels while it's all new to me and can never accept a thing unless I've experienced some indication it exists. I do know (as do many around me) life is not random, as synchronicity has now become the norm, which is impossible without a guiding force. angels however are our servants, so if we request they must respond. I have begun to request, and apart from the teeth (miracles beat science so clearly within their official scope) although nothing wonderful has happened everything has gone reasonably smoothly compared to normal. No more mind you. Angels can (in theory) move mountains, all miracles are equal to them as a miracle itself is supposedly impossible, so gifting a penny or a million pounds from nowhere is no different to them. I'll know when it happens, as things are generally blocked, whatever I try shifts things a little but no finishes. No specific women etc as affects free will, but a general one with no target name would do. And the new (or old) meditation hasn't appeared to do anything either, whatever the advertised (and paid for) benefits.

Of course I'm always learning new things, as we all do, but is probably far more I don't know which stops me from finishing any of these jobs myself without the angels or anyone else helping. Other than that the moment my new phone crashed on Monday when testing it has been tracked down to a single screen and as a result have to travel in the freezing weather to return it, now the local shop is gone. They won't have this colour in stock, and probably no other I want, so will be without one for a couple of days at least. I don't see any lesson or benefit in having my free day this week being sidetracked to waste time hanging about while someone pokes my phone and fills in pages of forms for a return. The angels can't stop me getting a piece of shit instead of a working item? As I don't have faith, I see the holes which eat away the theories of those who do, and unlike free will blockages they could fix the phone and save me the trouble. A minor irritation but whatever I would have done yesterday will be interrupted at best.

If there's a message out there I'm missing this is the way to get it. I can't see beyond the horizon any better than anyone else, so if the cliff is round the next corner I'm heading to I can't avoid it. My memory contains elements of life I'd like again, although the form would be different the nature would not. You can't beat living in a family, and if anything stretches our sanity to a breaking point living alone will do it. Any kinks will grow to the point of visibility as it's an unnatural and unnecessary position. I reckon even the millions of people who say they like living alone have just lived with such pains they think being alone is better. But if they got someone decent they'd nearly all prefer it. And who likes to admit they're a failure, so better to say they want to live alone and enjoy it than they've fucked up (although it's never anyone's fault as we have no control over the people we meet). But they feel it's a failure so pretend it's what they wanted all along, while they secretly spend five hours a night internet on dating sites. Well so far nothing new has come to me writing this except recycling the old concepts from day one, but as it's my life I can't have anything outside. The interest should be seeing how each blog life changes and develops over time, and how each thread comes and goes and changes as it goes along. Or not as the case may be. I don't make the rules.

Wednesday, December 05, 2012

How I got dragged into global warming

Long ago I abandoned the news as a source of interest as most of it was space filling and the rest depressing, and having been sucked into it for a few months as Facebook was flooded with US election campaigning, not even my country but affects the world in their case, I really ought to be cured for life. It's nonsense, most is made up (I could explain why but I'd need a few pages) and the rest just demonstrates how totally nasty people can be.

I just read David Icke was told to get out of politics as it was a dirty business and become spiritual, which is exactly what he did over 20 years ago now, and as he taught me in his books a lot of what I know now I am following him but so far only on the internet and reaching a handful of people. I do believe a few stories I find are both pure gold (only as evidence people have been busted cheating in the news, see my earlier making up comment) and unreported beyond the internet, some for over a decade gathering virtual i-dust, and saved by me. There is a weight growing, and rather than people getting it gradually seems it needs a certain amount to build up before everyone suddenly gets it. If you've ever heard of psychics being channeled information, when they are shown a screen and pictures along with telepathic information, that is how it seemed to happen with me. For example, being fascinated by extreme weather (I live in London, we get everything in neutral here) when I read the sea levels were going to rise and flood London I was interested mainly as it was something I could watch. Tornado chasers don't enjoy seeing people's property being destroyed but there's something about nature overwhelming the landscape which pulls the attention of many, or National Geographic wouldn't fill half the day with it.

I kept up with the articles, and after a few years went to check what was going on and even in that period discovered the figures to be about a tenth of the original claims, and by then the internet was available so followed them all up. Bearing in mind my legal training I came across the sort of fabricated nonsense a company would use to defraud their investors and siphon the money to themselves, and then use every trick in the book to divert attention until they'd got to Brazil. I was not happy, and decided to save all this material in a file as I wanted to challenge the claims in some way directly.

That was over ten years ago, I now have pages of material all stored on the computer and here, the claims have never changed since day one in the 80s, and the ensuing time has shown them to continue to have never existed in reality as the reality is within normal variations. The only effect of sharing this information is anyone young enough now to live to the time when the temperature hasn't risen for so long the whole issue quietly evaporates will remember someone kept going on about it back in the 2000s and it wasn't something everyone accepted and believed at the time. That's it. Nothing more, just a few people in 30-40 years will remember that obsessive nutcase who kept quoting figures from other scientists disagreeing with those paid by the politicians was right but too late now as they needed to learn it directly from observation. But they'll all be lighting candles and burning wood to keep alive by then so too late to stop the damage after the event.

But I had no other interest in the topic, and apart from the possibility of a day off work (it never happened) when it snowed I really didn't care about the weather and how it was generated, and forced me into an area of physics I left at 16 as it became too hard to follow. I learnt a lot about debate and psychology, and history of propaganda going back 100 years to its German roots. People in each generation go through the same process of being sorted into the leaders and followers, with the leaders exploiting the followers to believe whatever they need them to to rob them blind. From church indulgences, the South Sea Bubble and then Enron and Bernie Madoff, the people never saw it coming. Unless that pattern can be broken we'll be robbed every single generation as no one looks back and sees how it was done to the last. It's always happened, the pattern was identical except for the particular illusion projected to the public, and people would rather learn from their own direct loss than the suffering of others before them. The illusion becomes more and more sophisticated and complicated, with Al Gore now using the exact methods which got Enron sent down for fraud in carbon trading, but now legalised to 'save the planet', and the worst thing is not that he's doing it as the world's full of crooks, but people believe him. I am so disappointed with humanity I sometimes feel like I'm not part of it.