Saturday, March 30, 2013

Peer review, or clothing the wolf.

As this piece is about authority I'll state my own background (in case anyone hasn't seen it before), as being qualified in law and psychotherapy, two disciplines not entirely unconnected. They both for example work on principles of authority, that of the law and how they are made, and who decides what they are, and the other being who people believe and trust. My own personal experience has shown me that most people, the majority who believe what they are told, are not concerned in analysing what they are told by professionals and politicians, but when the identical things are given by anyone else, if contradicting the first set, are correspondingly dismissed out of hand, and if the feeling is strong enough condemned personally for doing so.

Goebbels and Machiavelli were two of the best known names who knew and exploited this principle, part of man's evolution, where the masses have still not learnt to think or rely on their own judgement but pass it up to a small group of experts who do that for them. This as a result means when those in such positions wish to exploit the situation, they can say things which normally would make no sense, such as the longest and coldest winter in living memory being caused by global warming (as they did yesterday) and everyone nods and (if where permitted) cocks their weapons to shoot anyone they see emitting too much CO2. In the end this mechanism only serves to delay the inevitable discovery of the truth, but the money taken in the meantime has completed the missions enough to move onto the next.

Personal charisma and sheer effort is the sole exception to this principle, as no one I am aware of has ever questioned David Icke's authority for accusing famous people of the worst crimes known to man, and turn out lists of facts relating to the present and future plans of the shadow government behind over 200 countries. But he was already a TV reporter so possibly that is a qualification in itself as once you're on TV people tend to view that in itself as a reason to believe you, as how could you be there if you weren't special in some way. The fact two different TV reporters disagree may challenge this position, and then I presume it's how qualified each person is before they decide who to believe.

David Icke aside, we have a current formula where the identical correct figures will be dismissed from an unqualified messenger, even when quoting the qualified, whereas the qualified can say whatever they want and enough people will blindly accept it. Once the intelligent among us discover this, then as with all people at all levels, the decency is spread in the same proportions among the clever as everyone else. The sociopaths, officially accepted as being the best leaders, devote their lives to earning power over others, and then use it to change whatever they believe needs changing, and improve their own conditions of wealth and power. They have no conscience (the basis of being a sociopath) so are (at the extreme or partially) not sensitive to other people as fellow human beings so only see them as a means to their own personal advancement.

Once enough people learn this formula (from someone they can trust of course) then they can't be caught again. The knowledge they have been taken advantage of is easily enough to work on its own to close that wide open door to their wills which was previously equivalent to a lorry leaving the back door open on a deserted road full of expensive kit. However gullible people are to begin with they still have a stronger sense of survival than their relative IQs, and therefore when they realise these sods are out to get them will no longer be susceptible to Al Gore or the outgoing head of the UK met Office whose parting words were 'This freezing weather is because of global warming' and left to a chorus of cheering. Of course, like the people who blamed the banks for offering unlimited loans they couldn't pay back, the victims tend to pass the responsibility to the clever crooks who legally or otherwise exploit their wide open brains and raid them for every ounce of material before they suddenly realise they're broke and wake up. That's the easiest way to do it, but look at the cost, and they still haven't completely woken up as they still genuinely believe as the loans not been available they had no responsibility to think before they accepted them all. This means they still have divested the entire responsibility onto those with authority (despite now discovering they were bent), with little or no insight into their own willing and entirely optional role in the formula.

This observation itself is a start, and when taken on as a recognised means to exploit the majority of unwilling citizens while unaware what is being done to them, most of the time quite deliberately, is the means to their escape and freedom.

Back to peer review, now you've seen the big picture it fits in, it's basically those in authority endorsing those in authority so comparable with internal disciplinary procedures and the like. It is supposed to stop scientists from producing inaccurate material for any reason, but is apparently used to protect them when they need it. It is not the same as marking an exam, but more of a safety net just to pick up the really dodgy stuff and pretty much let the rest through especially when chosen by the authors.

"It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication."

In theory, but if a lot of the utter nonsense that gets through represents the actual position then it is an honourable theory but in practice can and almost certainly has been used to give credibility to any old junk the system wants to get out there. It can be done properly, but can and is also used to endorse political and related material which can then be defended by claiming it's passed peer review, as if that makes it beyond any further questioning. As with equity law, peer review is designed as a shield and not a sword (in law meaning you cannot sue someone under it, but use it to defend against another), but with no higher court available in science once something has been peer reviewed there is no known way to challenge it at a higher level unless you discover a pretty obvious error. Not being a scientist myself the only channel I've come across is Retraction Watch, which is simply a service which posts every withdrawn paper online, the great majority being for fraud. Peer review assumes honesty, meaning various professors at the highest level have made up data for years, and as it looked convincing was passed up and published. This alone proves the total lack of safety in relying on it to confirm a paper is genuine, and shows a vast hole in the security of scientific papers in general, which is there to be used and exploited by anyone driven to do so.

Tie this up with my general points on the evil exploiting the average and you will see exactly how and where it fits in.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

It's official, the Jews have top status

I have proved the Jews have the highest status in the world. While Europeans have invaded entire continents for hundreds of years and slaughtered the natives, when the UN gave Israel to the Jews by legal charter, anything they do against the Arabs who attack and slander them is held up to the closest scrutiny and criticism, often to the level of questioning the country's entire existence.

This only demonstrates one thing, non-Jews hold the Jews in the highest esteem as they expect perfect standards from them while little or nothing from everyone else as currently countries like Tibet and Cyprus, occupied or annexed by hostile forces, including religious persecution and genocide in Tibet are largely overlooked but when one innocent bystander is hit by accident, or even known terrorist is killed by Israel the world is up in arms, as the Jews are not expected to do anything wrong at all but be perfect. So really we should take this attitude as a compliment.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

The problem, what is the solution?

While I'm here (I was going to watch TV but called the radio and want to see if anyone responds) I'll expand on yesterday's report on no news. Greece did not default, France and Italy elected apparent nutjobs, and Cyprus will get bailed out as they all do and everything will carry on as it has since day one. My own life is by far more important, but when these sods tread on my toes at the same time, and many others, I like to see the causes end. The EU has made us piss poor by reducing our access to energy, and will soon be without power altogether like some dipshit backward hellhole in Africa. Many of them are rich with natural resources as well, but the authorities rip them off at source, and now we're following them. So of course any chance the system is cleaned up would be good news, but it doesn't happen.

Instead every move made to attempt to escape is blocked by the prison guards at every point, and as the masses (read 'voting majority') are so thick they don't knit together cause and effect and keep voting the same ways. Labour here have a massive lead in the opinion polls, even though they caused nearly all the problems we have now and are going to take two governments or so to clear up assuming we get ones prepared to do it. If you spray a country with shit and then give the new staff toothbrushes then you can work out how long it needs to clean it all up. And without being ostracised by the rest of the world we can't send back the few million immigrants they let in during that period either who are the equivalent of carrying tons of dead wood on a truck. Or parasites. So we don't just have to get out of the situation we were in, but cater for millions of third world arrivals many who don't speak English, have full access to benefits, have a few times as many children as Europeans, and are basically the equivalent of a family with a disabled child. The care and attention needed 9and offered to) the third world immigrants means all the other children barely get any at all. That is not fair and just wrong.

So each news item offering a possible way out is journalistic invention, based on taking a tiny possibility, like an ejaculation into a cervix, and naming the baby already. Then you realise the sperm didn't even fertilise the egg, but the papers have been sold, the people have been misled, and the journalists are onto the next false dawn when there isn't much real news to report instead. The Cypriot affair crossed this line even further as it took three entire days to discover the money hadn't been agreed to be taken in the first place. None of the many reports I heard said it hadn't been decided yet, they said the money was due on the 19th and then maybe they'd haggle over the percentages. The day before a new report said Cyprus were set to reject it, revealing it had never been decided in the first place. Coming the exact day Britain brought in approval for statutory regulation of the press, that event would not be covered as it is designed to protect celebrities and not the actual consumers of said newspapers. How sad.

Most people don't notice much going on around them outside their own lives, which is how all this nonsense happens in the first place. Some know a bit, but when it's offered on the radio by callers like myself, most react with disbelief rather than shock, as no one can accept their betters are actually out for themselves and some are even out to get us deliberately (read the literature on economic de-development or managed population reduction for example). That is the reality, sociopaths are suffering from a permanent untreatable personality disorder documented in medical circles, and they are allowed to vote and run countries as it's not a disqualification, despite the fact any doctor can diagnose it with a simple test. Now Chris Huhne only lost his perch as he broke a very trivial law which even your connections can't get you out of answering to. The actual harm he caused as a government minister will never be documented although his aims and partial completion of policies (as a junior partner in the coalition) demonstrate aims to take a once flourishing country and turn it into a wasteland. Julia Gillard however is accused of far greater than driving offences, and with more and more details coming out she has about six separate charges of being involved with money laundering, and would need to come out clean on every single one or will actually be impossible not to have been involved. People regularly try and shut me down talking about the climate as I'm not qualified (unlike the authors I quote rarely if ever mentioned in the media) but for new readers I am qualified in law far enough to know a good case when I see one (and a bad one, hence my involvement in the climate). Of course I haven't heard any more of her case than 'It wasn't me', 'I wasn't there' and 'It was my clerk'. Except those are almost certainly exactly the defences she's given to the police as well (or will when she has to).

As a lawyer herself she knows she doesn't have to defend herself. As long as she denies all involvement they have to prove a case against her, which really won't matter what she says if it's good enough anyway. So basically as it's only an alibi which can get someone off as a defence besides specific ones like insanity (possible), otherwise you just have to hope the links don't get connected and you can scare or pay off the key witnesses (I'm sticking my neck out but would be far more surprised if she and others like her won't). In Britain witness immunity is the exception rather than the rule, but although it's not The States, who run on scratching backs, it's not Britain either and if one of the couple of confessed fraudsters (making a confirmed conspiracy already) is offered a deal she'd go down. Assuming she was involved of course, don't accuse me of 'Doing a Cyprus' (the new term I'll coin right now for reporters going off prematurely and coming all over their trousers).

So regardless of the state or otherwise of my personal life all these events make it less good than it would have been otherwise- I'd have more money, a faster car, real light bulbs, and be able to drive relatively clear roads at a speed relevant to the conditions and not reduced to something required for MOT failures in case they fall apart any faster. I'd also have to wait less time for a doctor and dentist, and be able to walk around locally and when I see a white person (not being racist, just observing what is there) would hear them actually speak English sometimes. These decisions do affect our lives, and if you imagine each element being different then that is the actual policy they are operating which would be better otherwise. Most is entirely avoidable, or looking the other way entirely deliberate, as with huge swathes of Spain and Ireland full of empty new houses while we have 10 poles and illegal Romanians sleeping in a room as there's nowhere else to put them, plus the thousands on the streets not working who can't afford anywhere at all.

All of this is avoidable, we don't have to let a single new immigrant in if we don't want to, and kick out the illegals the same day when we find them just like Australia and New Zealand do every day on Passport Patrol. Fuel taxes are immoral, as are low interest rates, and this is about the greatest good for the greatest people. Twice as many people lose from low rates than proper market rates, and while most existing residents suffer for the benefit of a few million new arrivals then immigration isn't good for most either bearing in mind the lack of space for them, let alone even if there was you can't get in new doctors and teachers to keep up with them, if at all. Britain does represent much of the western world to some extent, as policies aren't just very similar between our main parties, but now across the countries themselves as they are all set at Bilderberg and similar meetings. But each country has a non-Bilderberg party, but people don't know enough to vote them in, which brings me back to the start.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

The news is now fiction

If you think the media can sell papers by printing things which haven't happened then really we needn't have any news at all. Slow news days already create pages by asking officials silly questions, and then reporting some crap like 'Minister does not intend us to eat children' or similar, but taking a suggestion not yet even deliberated in parliament in Cyprus, and spending three entire days treating it as an event until, well, it hadn't happened at all and wasn't even approved.

That has dropped our entire media (as there was only the one story going round whoever reported it) to a whole new level. It's too late afterwards to try and apologise (oh, they didn't) as no different from a thief offering the stolen goods back when caught, and clearly set out their stall that rather than print more cartoons or photos of Pippa's blurry tits taken from a mile away they basically make stuff up. Had they even been accurate and reported 'Cyprus are considering taking money directly from the bank accounts' it would have provided almost the same impact, plus the bonus of being correct. I am now guessing the reason it was reported this way was to see the reaction before voting, so possibly a deliberate request from the Cypriot government to see if the riots began or not, and clearly decided the reaction wouldn't be worth the risk.

We have been treated like dirt once again, both by the press and the politicians, and most likely working together. This is the standard of both in the 21st century, along with Chris Huhne's conviction for fraud and Julia Gillard's ongoing investigation for it. She says she wasn't involved on the case as handed to a clerk (although lawyers must sign off their clerk's work) although her boss says she was, so of course one must be lying, and the boss has nothing to lose either way as a clue. Unless and until we wake up to the very basic tricks played by both, no different to a third rate conjurer, we will always be played like fools by governments using the press to maintain the illusion, while the tiny minority of those aware are told to shut the hell up and stop causing trouble.
Be part of the solution, not the problem.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

They've got it all wrong

Having studied politics at A level (along with sociology, which continued as part of my degree), I am fairly familiar with the general world systems, and have never before seen the culmination of what can best be described as a 'world mafia' now running as much as is possible, while no one except the most politically aware have the slightest clue. A few of the signs are clear- paying off failed banks with taxpayer's money is immoral, and based on a form of fascism, state corporatism, where the state is run for and by big business. So firstly it is clear (as these policies are common now across the entire western world) banks are free to lend and then collect the remainder of the losses from the state without question, while the economies go into a recession.

This is then followed by governments also going into the red, and as only the government and banks pay base rate, in the UK at least forcing interest rates down close to zero to cover themselves in paying them back elsewhere. None of us benefit, as even mortgage holders will lose the benefits when they sell up as it's forced prices up, both of housing as the interest paid falls the actual prices will rise to compensate, and all other commodities as low interest rates debase currency so the money goes into gold, food and everything else we need to live. So the low interest rates also stoke inflation, as well as costing new and other house buyers more unless they trade down, which very few would. As there are twice as many UK savers as borrowers then the people lose directly, as the savers subsidise the banks and governments, and the fact a small sector of home owners gain from low rates is entirely incidental and won't gain overall unless they don't trade up.

This is the economic foundation of the 2010s, understood very clearly by the few who know economics, and not at all by the general public who see what's on the surface and nothing more, so 'low interest rates' equates to them as low prices, even though it does exactly the opposite, as most things do in life. Being unable to look below the surface and the obvious means governments, who all can, will exploit it to its limits, and even when people are suffering they don't know why. This even has a technical name, a cacocracy, government by the worst. Keynesian economics, running at a huge deficit in order to stimulate a flat economy, is an experimental system used on and off for a century or so, and arguably never worked. Seeing the expansion of the money supply through quantitative easing people call it 'Keynesian' as they see money being borrowed in huge amounts, but Keynes used this money to create jobs by investing in building projects directly, thus running the country like a new business and taking the chance the new work will eventually turn a profit. Not a penny of QE has gone to the people, most has been bought back by the Bank of England with the rest going to the banks to recapitalise them. As base rates are so low they can gamble with huge sums of money overnight and as long as they make more than the amount they pay in interest (being so small) they make more bonuses for themselves, we see none of it.

The next issue, in Europe at least and technically the rest of the world behind the scenes, is the gradual drift away from national democracy via the growing powers of the EU. Before then we had a manifesto we voted for, and a few international treaties, and although many if not most promises were serially broken at least the mistakes and opportunities to address those mistakes were our own affair. We have no opportunity to vote for EU policies however, as our Euro MP vote is not for the legislators but the second chamber, who debate laws almost entirely made by the small group of unelected commissioners, who produce their laws mainly in private with absolutely no accountability besides the small chances of revision by MPs should they disagree in large enough numbers. But that being the exception the rule is laws are made by unelected outsiders and operate across a growing number of countries. Add to that the economic of the Eurozone, which have managed to sacrifice one poor country after another to maintain the mission, forcing willing victims to retain an economic shackle of loss of sovereignty over their own currency, so rather than leave and set the currency to the ideal national rate, they are stuck at the standard rate and lose their easiest opportunity for growth. Of course it's their choice, as none of them have to stay in, but because of the point I just made few people understand the connection between their problems and their membership despite it actually having reached a point where it's almost impossible to miss. But it's still happening regardless and demonstrates the politicians are in it for themselves at the expense of anyone who needs to be sacrificed, whether willingly or not.

Political correctness has done more to restrict freedom of speech than anything else, albeit with slightly lesser penalties than under Mao or Stalin, footballers are still being stripped of their entire careers for allegdly racist comments which are at the high end of the entire gamut of banned words and opinions. In fact the alteration of opinions to be treated as facts, where if you are against immigration or classify certain crimes by the dominant race who commit them (as the police must) you are racist (even if you are black), if you are against gay marriage you are homophobic and if you support Israel you support apartheid.

It's one thing banning neutral and technical words like spastic, cripple, backward and retarded, which just get replaced by new insults ad infinitum, but upping the game to ban opposing opinions is a totalitarianism of the worst sort, the thought police. We have our state opinion and if you disagree you're an enemy of the state. Looking at the alternatives, of course besides the obvious clash of cultures which is more a matter of social preference than anything more, the space required for open door immigration can never expand to fit, the schools and medical services can't provide the standards required without finding more professional staff, and the sewage system can't be increased quickly enough either. Let alone the road and rail system every morning when thousands more people go to work. Britain has the highest population density in Europe already but the same applies anywhere once enough people arrive there. If you study criminology you are not just allowed to racially profile, but it is obligatory, as you need to understand the relationship between different groups and their actions. It's not anyone else's fault if black people prefer using knives to coshes or broken bottles, as that's basically what they've brought with them from the ghettoes of the poor West Indies. Of course if you went to Kenya or Senegal the crime figures would probably be quite different, so it's not even because the perpetrators are primarily black, but from the lowest of the social groups where that sort of behaviour is fairly standard.

But when in history have opinions been demonised, outside the worst rogue states anyway? It may only be a temporary reaction to the almost total freedom of the 70s, when anything went and although no offence was often meant very little was originally taken either. Then the left wing intelligentsia from north London, centred around the people's republics of Haringey and Camden, got together and decided such behaviour was patronising and divisive, and as well as encouraging such up and coming politicians as Tony Blair to successfully send London back to a scene more associated with a third world capital by forcing unlimited random immigration from every poverty stricken corner of the earth, together with Muslim hate preachers and gun toting yardies, raising the gun and knife deaths from maybe one a year to one a week or so, plus the often home grown suicide bombers.

The problem was almost entirely deliberately created, and in a way the attempts to quash criticism, in fact any mention at all of the vast increase in violent crime by both many of the newer black immigrants and some from other backwaters such as Romania (who currently have no rights to be here legally at all but are) and a criminal level of growing overcrowding on public transport, hospitals, surgeries and the like, where they were never built for such large numbers. No other countries previously had inclusive immigration policies, and very few still do, so a tiny island already stuffed with more people per square mile than many others of an equivalent size being deliberately inundated by the poorest and least educated from wherever they chose to come from, legally by claiming asylum or illegally, knowing few are ever sent back once they arrive, should be the last place to allow it. And as such the only way to maintain both the existing disaster and the increasing one ahead is to shut down all discussion of it, with even a Tory prime minister shouting down the opponents with childish insults. So the Tories have nailed their colours to the flag as well, ie no change whoever gets in, the ultimate end of democracy when every party does the same whoever is voted for. That's not by chance either, as they aren't independent any longer as the UN and associated individuals from Rockefeller's Bilderberg Group and Club of Rome decide what policies the west will carry out, and the rest are minor details we get to vote for. You can read many of their ideas elsewhere and that will confirm pretty much what I've said, as they want the world to look how they choose, and only by voting in a party not run by them can we escape the clutches.

Of course many people believe in a world government, but it would need a way of reflecting the wishes of all the citizens equally, and interests, which are bound to conflict. Why in practice this would be an improvement would probably only be discovered in reality, which I would expect to reflect the power of the strongest countries at the expense of the others, exactly like the EU is today. But the more remote the parliament is from the people the less the chance of it being accountable. Bear in mind politicians are public servants who work for us, something often forgotten, when they do things to enrich themselves at our expense they have become mafia. Unless people realise it, and the reasons why, they will continue to create the illusion the loses and restrictions are inevitable and not their fault while in fact they are openly stealing our money and rights. Only information can redeem this situation, understanding how many of these are entirely deliberate and avoidable and why, and what they can do to restore democracy.

Finally I will explain the difference between political choices, where there is no right answer but a decision of allocation of limited resources based purely on personal preference, and something which is entirely wrong if only people were aware of it. Working through these I would begin with currency debasement, which can be clearly shown to favour the establishment at the expense of the majority of the people, rich and poor as the rich lose even more from reduced returns on their investment while the commodity inflation hurts the poor the most. The Euro hurts the poor primarily as they are not able to compete with the better off countries, borrow far more than they can afford as they can (reflecting that of the individuals), and then go broke trying to pay it back. And then when there's a method to raise their economy they are discouraged/persuaded/lied to to stop them doing so. I agree it is entirely their choice to all remain in the Euro, but on propaganda they are little equipped to challenge. Next the policies of the Rockefeller camp, including managed population reduction (yes, exactly like the concentration camps), forced economic redistribution (as in mugging), restrictions on energy (power cuts and rationing) and freedom of speech and movement. Pretty much everything we all fought against in the last war and thought we'd avoided.

But while there was little international support for any of Hitler's policies we have almost no opposition to Rockefeller's, although they are almost the same. Of course Hitler had no need to cover up his wishes as he was working locally mainly to those who agreed with him already, as only the Jews would die while the others would gain as a result, as well as expanding their lebensraum. Nowadays not only with the internet but the memory of the previous war it's not so easy to impose such levels of totalitarianism outside the third world, so they need the combination of inventing problems which need such measures to avoid them, such as terrorism and global warming, and lies which say theft is giving. What can be better than forcing your interest rates down to almost zero when so many people pay off mortgages? The fact the liquid cash circulating (as opposed to capital which is held by the banks and not added to the economy) is reduced as more people have less to spend, shrinking the economy for all, and the house prices automatically inflate in response to lower interest rates, ultimately costing people the same either when buying or selling, means hardly anyone not paying base rate (ie no one outside banks and government) can benefit really, plus the huge inflationary effect on commodities in response to lower currency returns.

So if I asked the simple questions with no reference to policies, would you want inflation, restrictions on speech beyond hate speech and opinions, huge rises in energy prices, unelected politicians working from abroad, massive overcrowding, interacting with large swathes of the population who don't speak your language or understand your culture or you theirs, less and less control over your home politics as they have handed their powers elsewhere, and subtle ways to kill off the poor, old and weak as they are seen as a drain on society (check the Liverpool Care Pathway among others) or by raising energy prices so high they will die of hypothermia (3,000 a year in Britain currently, a million estimated in the last 30 years).

I doubt many people would knowingly vote for a single one of these policies, although the left do love their diverse multiculturalism (maybe until they get home and complain to their families how long they had to wait at the doctors while the person in front held the queue up as no one could understand what they were saying) I'd guess most will get bored of it sooner or later once it actually reaches their suburbs. Add that to a country where there are no more spaces on the roads and houses are being flattened to build soviet style flats to house everyone new arriving and it changes from a mad mixture of random people to a hellhole. Had you simply found a way to encourage the natives to have ten children and cause the rise themselves it would be little better, but it would at least have saved on translators and allowed everyone to mix freely rather than separate into their own small groups wherever they reside as that's what everyone does naturally.

If today's politicians offered their true plans openly, and as a choice rather than an obligation due to past causes only the mad and bad would vote for them, but dress them up as a combination of a one world utopia and a painful remedy to an economic disaster and they get a landslide, for the identical results.

Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Global warming realist primer

Global warming realist primer:
This is designed as answering every potential question from the general public who only know the bare minimum amount about global warming as presented by the media and politicians, in ways which are both accurate but simple enough for even a primary school child to follow, using mainly accepted UN IPCC figures

Q How much has the temperature risen?

According to the IPCC, around 0.7C since 1850, on an average temperature of 13.8C, 33C above that of space.

How much has CO2 risen?

In the same period it has gone up around 50% from 260 to 395ppm

What is the point the temperature rise could become a problem?

According to the IPCC a rise of 2C is the point where the known benefits (eg increased food production and fewer deaths from cold) become overtaken by the possible problems.

So why is there or will there be a problem?

The current belief is that the original amount of CO2 at 260ppm is responsible for 1C of the total 33C above space. CO2 reduces exponentially in its greenhouse effect, and means whatever point it starts from it adds 1C per doubling. So on these figures it would take a rise to around 1000ppm before it reached 2C.

Of course if this was the only consequence then even rising as fast as it has, it could hardly be considered a problem. But the IPCC projection was a rise of far more for a doubling, from anything from 1.7 to 6C, due to positive amplifying feedback. This comprised mainly evaporation of seawater causing a greater amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, and reduced ice absorbing more heat in the open water. But as this was theoretical and entirely based on computer models, it needed two things to confirm it, an identical planet with stable CO2 as a control, which is obviously not possible, and the passage of time and subsequent observation. So with a rise now of half that amount of CO2 on a rising trend since the last little ice age, around 0.4C of the total has been attributed to the CO2 being added, clearly demonstrating no additional warming from feedback.

As there is and was no delay expected with the feedback, besides a slight holding of warmth by the oceans, that alone is not enough to explain any more than a negligible amount, and at any case was not part of the original expectations.

So why is there still a problem at all?

The main reason is stated by Prof. Chris Folland, of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, who stated "The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models."
Of course going solely on the observations normally the science would have moved along and the odds for an unforseen delay (bearing in mind the water vapour evaporates evenly when heated whatever the release of heat) saving it for later were so great that there simply was no feedback and the threat had gone. In fact the real world supported that when the overall temperature stopped rising in 1997 while CO2 rose steadily. So although the CO2 may well have continued adding an amount consistent with the equation with no feedback either way (or slightly negative, as water vapour can also increase cloud cover, which has a cooling effect as it creates shade during the day) there is no mathematical evidence for any more.

If CO2 is rising and the temperature is not, what else could have caused the temperature to rise when it did?

The most recent research shows if you combine the multidecadal ocean oscillations, which create a roughly 30 year alternate warm-cool phase due to the tilt and wobble of the earth, plus total solar output it gives a very good fit with the temperature line, while the 45 degree rise of CO2 is nothing like it. Furthermore the most recent and largest analysis of climate data by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2013 found no likely man made warming.

To further complicate the issue many studies have also shown the CO2 comes just after the warming as it is released by the oceans as the temperature rises, much like fizzy drinks go flat faster as they heat up. It was also considered a possible positive feedback on top, but observations have shown its absence as described. As the models put what is called a high CO2 sensitivity in, meaning they expected a high level of feedback, the 1990 IPCC model had temperatures predicted way above the actual result for 2010, and has not risen since so currently diverging further each year.

But isn't the science settled?

The agreement on the greenhouse effect with CO2 amounting to 1C of the total is generally but not universally accepted. The view that adding more CO2 will cause an increase is also generally accepted. But beyond that scientists have a full variety of opinions, both before the temperature slowed down and since. There are thousands of equally qualified scientists including those in Jerusalem and many other top universities such as Ole Humlum in Norway who are confirming more and more of the sceptic's questions and challenges to be likely to be correct, including the influences of the sun and CO2 lag, plus many admit sensitivity is far too complex to be predictable at all so beyond their ability to measure reliably, especially the effect on cloud cover and where the water vapour would go. The CO2 lag also greatly challenges the man made element, especially as from all the CO2 emitted only around 4% is man made anyhow, which does make me wonder how creating or stopping that amount being added would make enough difference to be noticed.

But isn't it better to use the precautionary principle just in case it does happen?

This is not a scientific question but an economic one, as global warming is an observation and not normal for scientific observations for nature to become a cause of political policy, unless something is actually discovered to be dangerous per se like smoking. Unlike smoking however, which is 100% harmful, global warming of any type is beneficial to many people and up to 2C is going to save energy for heating and food production as well as reducing wars over resources as it did during Roman times. But we do know the exact cost of every measure in attempts to slow it down, a combination of fines and reducing fossil fuel usage. These have now been in place in growing numbers for over 20 years and the CO2 increase has not changed at all. So we have spent (and arguably lost) all this money and had absolutely no effect in return. We do know 3000 people now die in Britain annually of hypothermia as the energy prices have risen so much, and many people in the third world have died of starvation as food crops have been sequestred for biofuel, but we are not aware of a single death directly from the rise in temperatures, except a few people who died in heatwaves (although they always will regardless) but unlike hypothermia which kills everyone equally high temperatures within the normal range will only kill people who were dying already by a few days sooner. Also in budgeting accounts you plan for a point you will be aware of, and 2050-2100 is not possible to account for as it is impossible to know what the effects would be. Also if there is (as observed directly) no apparent feedback, then by the time CO2 rose to the point where it would cause a rise over 2C it's far more likely the technology would have improved so much before then we'd have both stopped using fossil fuel anyhow and found far better ways to deal with scientific issues in general than taxing and banning things.

What about the Arctic ice melting?

Climate scientists always warn against short term and local conditions being confused with climate, which works over decades rather than months, and worldwide rather than locally. So like the Australian droughts of 2008, where the government warned this would become permanent, nature balanced as it nearly always will, with major floods soon after. Just like that, the Arctic is warming slightly while at the south it is cooling slightly, and as the Antarctic holds 90% of the world's ice and growing, the overall is increasing, but the media don't appear to mention that very much. So of course the effects can't happen without causes, and in order for the total ice to decrease long term the temperature would need to increase long term, which it hasn't, and neither has the ice decreased.

So why do both scientists and politicians continue to legislate for and describe exactly the same issues they did 20 years ago?

That is the 64,000 dollar question. Normally science moves on in the face of new evidence, and up till now it always has. But today the media and more so the politicians (but not the scientists) have not changed one millimetre from their original positions, but the experts are divided between those shouting even louder (despite the temperature calming down) and those packing their bags ready to go home. There is a growing number of respectable universities as described before turning out new studies almost weekly, finding more and more about solar, cloud and oceanic influences, and the actual figures on temperature and associated changes are speaking for themselves with no need for a human mouthpiece. It is only the lack of outside reporting which means although all these studies are published online, many free and all with summaries available only the ones supporting the old view tend to be reported. Until this is changed then of course everyone won't react as it's very unlikely many are even aware they aren't still expecting a 6C rise by 2100 as claimed by activist groups such as Greenpeace and metres of sea level rise while it's only rising around 7 inches a century as it did last century. Also the almost religious reliance on models means many scientists prefer to stick to their own work (despite the fact the sensitivity was introduced manually and therefore guaranteed to occur within their fantasy world whatever happened outside), and wait steadfastly for the real world to catch up as they are so certain (so they claim) the models are right they are now saying we must wait another 10 or 20 years before they can be proved wrong.

Friday, March 01, 2013

Rare and unusual car number plates


Unusual number plates seen in and around London

Guyana (diplomatic)


G'day from Oz!

UK import plate

New Zealand




Not Irish but...

Fake plate

'Bent as a nine bob note'

Poland mix-up

UK Japan import (front)

UK Japan import (rear).

Sweden temporary plate

Dutch temporary

Fake not French

USA remake

Cyprus visitor plates

Dutch temporary plate?


Tropical Ford

British export


new york

Poland old type

 1 Comment 

AUS New South Wales


Sweden ? custom


Texas plate

German temporary

Luxembourg temporary

Christ knows


Denmark commercial

 1 Comment 

French Temporary

Belgian reissue


Ontario plate

German trade plate

Saudi Arabia_edited.JPG

Swiss CD plate front.JPG

Swiss CD plate rear.JPG

CD plate front.JPG

CD plate rear.JPG

Hockey sticks rule the 2000s, except temperature


< Food prices.
Oil till 2005 >
Gold v

Fertiliser prices

Spot the odd one out. They all look damn similar don't they, but just one is not reliable, the temperature record. Unfortunately all the prices are absolutely real, as is the world population. The familiar hockey stick, which needed to both compare like with unlike (the temperatures from 1979 onwards were satellite based, land based for 50 years earlier and then proxy) and rewrite history to dispose of the little ice age and medieval warm period, both in textbooks for decades until then, in order to give the impression our temperatures had suddenly started rising. Steve McIntyre followed this up by using the computer algorithm to show whatever data was put in the same shape was guaranteed.
But the 2000s have indeed been the decade of the hockey stick economically. Are they connected? Mostly they are, and not by chance either. Bear in mind the Bilderberg Group planned to use mid-east chaos such as invading Libya and Iraq to raise the oil price artificially to $150, which has been closely reached now twice, and as can be seen the 2005 price here, already the peak of the stick is now double that in 2011. This has been engineered through wars and selective restrictions on exploration and energy taxes, nominally in the name of the environment but actually to allow the same remaining oil to be sold for around double the previous market price or more. Therefore big oil are definitely involved with climate change, as it has made their work a lot easier, gaining twice the price for the identical amount of work. Inflation causes a ripple effect, so food and fertiliser (partly oil based) follow faithfully, while gold has risen simply as the currencies have been puffed up without added production through bailouts and quantitative easing (creating cash from nowhere), meaning they become worth less per pound or dollar as there is no more production behind a greater total sum of cash. That means the money shifts to hard currency, ie commodities, with gold as king.
The final and sharpest rise which is probably the major reason behind the others is world population. As food production remains flat and oil reduces, and the people multiply logarithmically, the shareout ratio is obvious. And bear in mind in nature most sharp peaks end with a sharp fall. If this occurred for any of the prices it would be a welcome miracle, if for the population it would be a disaster.