Someone just asked about whether climate change was man made or natural, and as requested I provided a short summary based on the latest data, which I think everyone should copy and paste for future times when the same question is asked:
----------------------------------------
There are two single figures here which were used. First the sharp rise in CO2, albeit not from known sources as since discovered by Japan's Ibuki satellite. The jury's still technically out on that one. Secondly, if you didn't check behind it, a slight rise in temperatures for the same 150 year period.
After that it is literally all down to interpretation. Using logical methods rather than scientific (although the two should be the same they are not always) what would we say about the changes, from the temperature to the ice and sea levels, had CO2 not risen:
Temperature rise: 0.8C in 150 years
Sea level rise: 10 inches a century
Global ice level: Stable, although totally unbalanced from north (warmer) to south (colder).
Compare those with historical charts going back thousands of years, and you will see minus the red herring of CO2 figures they look almost flat, and definitely relatively stable. These figures have swung wildly by a few degrees a decade and up to 100 feet of sea level a century after an ice age, while remove the error bars and today's changes almost vanish altogether.
Therefore, like always, people have looked at the birdie and not the sniper pointing his gun or the pot of gold in front of you. The attention has always focused on the definitely unusual but clearly harmless (a 50% rise in 150 years has produced the above figures, and physics says a 100% rise would produce a 1C rise with no positive feedback, their trump card). However, observation and deduction are keystones of physics. We observe an experiment, one here which is well within a primary school science level of understanding, and say "If CO2 adds a degree to the average temperature by doubling without positive feedback, and the experiment is half run and it has added about half a degree, what do you expect the second half to show?"
I'll conclude my presentation here so as not to muddy the water with what are no more than background figures behind the main picture I have given.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Friday, December 30, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011
The death of climatology
I can now explain why climate change can never become genuine. Measuring the present is science. Measuring the past is science. Measuring a linear track into the future is science. Measuring a complex set of linear interactions is science.
Trying to predict a future complex, non-linear system with countless influences, huge unknowns including massive gaps in temperature coverage, ice thickness, and most of all future feedback on top of the known CO2 effect is not scientific.
By pretending that they can guess the temperatures up to and beyond 100 years, plus the associated sea levels they have abandoned science for superstition. Our world, courtesy of the UN, is now being run by superstition. The sacrifices of current human beings for unborn ones in that imaginary future are the same as the Mayan sacrifices for a good year of crops ahead.
They may fool most people most of the time, but basing an ostensible scientific theory, claiming the status of gravity, heliocentrism and evolution the climatologists have dropped to the level of the Spanish Inquisition except the people see them as heroes saving them from the threat of frying under an identical sun to the one we have today and had yesterday. The time has come to take that trust and reliance away. There is no longer a discipline called climatology, they have deliberately chosen to leave the constraints of science and now no better than mock auctioneers.
The main criteria that need adding include: El Nino, La Nina, the oceanic oscillations over a decade to 30 years or so, plus their strength which of course is different every time and FOLLOWS NO KNOWN PATTERN. Solar rays and sunspot activity (different every cycle) and the distance from the sun which works on about a 100,000 year cycle plus the tilt which also varies over time. Then the geological continental drift and faultline activity which also affects the balance of the climate through shifting the previous figures around and affecting sea level when plates rise and fall. The land is also rising from the melting of the ice age glaciers and is subtracted from total sea level rise as a consequence. Undersea volcanic vents must be taken into account for the oceanic warming they add. You also need to factor in the existing trend, without which it would be impossible to know how much man may or may not have been able to alter it.
Then they have to know the saturation point of added CO2 (the as yet unknown concentration which fills its IR absorption spectrum), the reaction of water vapour to CO2 at all levels of the atmosphere (unexpectedly found to be replaced by it by the Aqua satellite, ie negative feedback effect) and potential cloud seeding effects, the possible reaction (or not) of the Gulf Stream, all delay mechanisms of ice melts to temperature rises, added CO2 dwell time (currently estimated between 3 and 500 years apparently...), oceanic and vegetative uptake (including the effects from added vegetation adding to the uptake), every single jet stream (ie the mechanisms which make it impossible to predict the season ahead by more than 50% certainty), and most of all the potential added water vapour predicted to be released by the oceans to the atmosphere as positive feedback. This is the climate sensitivity which in fact is the sole criterion the IPCC exist and fear additional CO2, but although the whole equation of multiplying CO2 can be done on a primary school level equation of 1C per 260ppm the rest is feedback which as yet has never been seen. By including positive feedback in the models all they have done is create the ending they required. And finally (but not least) they have to imagine the existing trend from the past and both extend that ahead and separate it, in the IPCC's case, from any alleged future man made element. Looking back in history the climate and temperature graphs are not exactly stable, in fact as I stated at the beginning, chaotic as that is their nature. Seeing how they alone project forward, add unknown effects from rising CO2, and then try and subtract one from the other to get an accurate separation between the two (based on at least the above criteria and many more) adds another even greater dimension to the task.
Expecting to take the variables, gaps in data and sheer unknowns (such as CO2/cloud sensitivity alone) and get anything meaningful is one beyond all reason and sense. The IPCC and associated scientists announce through the media and government spokespersons every day how policies must be made to stop these results happening solely based on this list of criteria it doesn't seem so sensible then.
Trying to predict a future complex, non-linear system with countless influences, huge unknowns including massive gaps in temperature coverage, ice thickness, and most of all future feedback on top of the known CO2 effect is not scientific.
By pretending that they can guess the temperatures up to and beyond 100 years, plus the associated sea levels they have abandoned science for superstition. Our world, courtesy of the UN, is now being run by superstition. The sacrifices of current human beings for unborn ones in that imaginary future are the same as the Mayan sacrifices for a good year of crops ahead.
They may fool most people most of the time, but basing an ostensible scientific theory, claiming the status of gravity, heliocentrism and evolution the climatologists have dropped to the level of the Spanish Inquisition except the people see them as heroes saving them from the threat of frying under an identical sun to the one we have today and had yesterday. The time has come to take that trust and reliance away. There is no longer a discipline called climatology, they have deliberately chosen to leave the constraints of science and now no better than mock auctioneers.
The main criteria that need adding include: El Nino, La Nina, the oceanic oscillations over a decade to 30 years or so, plus their strength which of course is different every time and FOLLOWS NO KNOWN PATTERN. Solar rays and sunspot activity (different every cycle) and the distance from the sun which works on about a 100,000 year cycle plus the tilt which also varies over time. Then the geological continental drift and faultline activity which also affects the balance of the climate through shifting the previous figures around and affecting sea level when plates rise and fall. The land is also rising from the melting of the ice age glaciers and is subtracted from total sea level rise as a consequence. Undersea volcanic vents must be taken into account for the oceanic warming they add. You also need to factor in the existing trend, without which it would be impossible to know how much man may or may not have been able to alter it.
Then they have to know the saturation point of added CO2 (the as yet unknown concentration which fills its IR absorption spectrum), the reaction of water vapour to CO2 at all levels of the atmosphere (unexpectedly found to be replaced by it by the Aqua satellite, ie negative feedback effect) and potential cloud seeding effects, the possible reaction (or not) of the Gulf Stream, all delay mechanisms of ice melts to temperature rises, added CO2 dwell time (currently estimated between 3 and 500 years apparently...), oceanic and vegetative uptake (including the effects from added vegetation adding to the uptake), every single jet stream (ie the mechanisms which make it impossible to predict the season ahead by more than 50% certainty), and most of all the potential added water vapour predicted to be released by the oceans to the atmosphere as positive feedback. This is the climate sensitivity which in fact is the sole criterion the IPCC exist and fear additional CO2, but although the whole equation of multiplying CO2 can be done on a primary school level equation of 1C per 260ppm the rest is feedback which as yet has never been seen. By including positive feedback in the models all they have done is create the ending they required. And finally (but not least) they have to imagine the existing trend from the past and both extend that ahead and separate it, in the IPCC's case, from any alleged future man made element. Looking back in history the climate and temperature graphs are not exactly stable, in fact as I stated at the beginning, chaotic as that is their nature. Seeing how they alone project forward, add unknown effects from rising CO2, and then try and subtract one from the other to get an accurate separation between the two (based on at least the above criteria and many more) adds another even greater dimension to the task.
Expecting to take the variables, gaps in data and sheer unknowns (such as CO2/cloud sensitivity alone) and get anything meaningful is one beyond all reason and sense. The IPCC and associated scientists announce through the media and government spokespersons every day how policies must be made to stop these results happening solely based on this list of criteria it doesn't seem so sensible then.
Saturday, September 03, 2011
Simplifying the climate
For a non-scientific observer such as myself, the macro areas of climate are incredibly easy to follow, just as most of the micro are complex. As the large is made up of the small then the minutiae are irrelevant, only the overall picture counts. That means signal/noise etc are totally irrelevant, as we have a few major indicators.
1) Temperature. If that does not rise then nothing can follow.
2) Sea level. Far easier to measure than temperature but still variable and highly open to interpretation
3) Ice coverage. Similar to sea level, the only queries are thickness estimations and gaps in measurement coverage
4) CO2 concentration
The one thing which rises consistently according to all accounts is CO2. That begs the question ‘What if it had been stable and the temperature had varied indentically?’. Would anyone even have remarked on it? The warmists began turning out predictions in the 90s. Bear in mind they had a problem. CO2 had never risen in historic memory, so it was a new area to investigate from scratch. All they had were two existing figures, the lab experiment and the paper experiment, both giving a 1/33 of the total greenhouse effect at 260ppm (1C), expected to double to 2C with no feedback. To further simplify, as sea and ice are micro in relation to temperature, at a 50% rise at 390ppm temperatures are now up by 0.8C on an existing rising trend from the ice age recovery, giving around the exact figure predicted. I am not aware of any study that envisaged a delay, waiting over half way along the route before it gradually or suddenly appeared (through cloud increase from sea evaporation). As the sea ought to evaporate (as it melts and freezes) seasonally with temperature fluctuations it is fair to assume it should do so on a linear fashion.
As for modelling, climate is not something able to be future projected. Until global warming was thought up, scientists stuck to 3-6 month projections max. More than that was never supposed to be possible (as it indeed is not), as these were created for shipping, oil drilling etc who needed the best possible predictions when they could go and get on with their work. It was never designed or expected to be used for anything else. Climate has more influences than virtually any other terrestrial phenomenon, and as such is an open system, non-linear and chaotic. Trying to tame such a system on a computer and run it forwards is no different from trying to predict the stock market a week, a year and a century ahead. Pure idiot arrogance. But our world has been taken over by the IPCC who make laws affecting us all in some degree purely based on the 2100 projection, with around a +/- 400% error margin (1.5-6C).
If a business were to offer such a budget to a bank, or accountant then they would be struck off or put away. Yet our world’s politics is now driven by nothing more and only the people here and on similar sites care, the rest are driven by fear for their unborn grandchildren (as I’m told regularly) and probably burn down pediatrician’s houses thinking they are pedophiles (this really happened in Portsmouth after a newspaper article). They are the masses, average IQs, average lives and average occupying the middle of the bell shaped curve, always the majority. That is why Julia Gillard is currently about to send Australia down the toilet to follow Britain and Spain with her similar policies. But the second pig in a poke is that nothing is even expected to happen by the IPCC so’s we’d REALLY notice before around 2100 but we can’t find out as we’ll all be dead. Every single one of us.
We are up against a combination of weak minds, huge criminal interests and worst of all irrational fear. How simple facts and logic can beat that goodness only knows, but in all religious texts truth always wins out as that is all there is. And one final crumb, in 1962 the official amount of atmospheric CO2 was 260….
-400ppm.
It’s currently 390. As in 1962 it was accepted as varying then had it been measured there back then it may not have been considered unusual either.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
21st century politics
Having just discovered climate change is now officially a business, and it's headed by the same man who runs the BBC pension fund, such connections show a complete circle when it comes to the financial flow of money from the law makers at the top who make the laws to collect the money, and then invest in the areas themselves and get the national broadcasters to do the same, and at the same time restrict the broadcasting to anything that supports these actions.
the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change headed by Peter Dunscombe.
Looking even at the few crooks unearthed in politics, like cockroaches if you see a few there are always thousands nearby, and the same goes for the handful of politicians and leaders who get exposed compared to the ones doing far worse. Just imagine you were in the cabinet, had vast tracts of land (as many of them do), and created a law saying people who use their spare land for wind farms get a guaranteed rent for 25 years without having to do anything, and then instal hundreds on their own land, if necessary putting it in your wife's name or children to avoid any official claims of corruption. And you're saving the planet so no one complains even when it earns you millions.
That I'm afraid is how business is done nowadays, the links I keep turning up connecting Al Gore, Rothschilds (about to help run Australia's carbon tax, no surprises there), the BBC and even the bloody Dalai Lama (no longer on my chanukah card list now) are all working as a massive team to squeeze as much cash from a false flag threat of CO2 while everyone's looking the other way adjusting their pants. They don't even need the money- these politicians were millionaires already before they got into it, so as well as ramping up their personal incomes drastically it is taken from government subsidies, ie my money. So basically anything the mafia has done with protection rackets and money laundering can now be shown as the politics of the 21st century. It's not even hidden any more as they know no one can police the police themselves- unless they make a mistake as a few have done. And carbon trading itself had to be removed from the laws of theft as a decade earlier a similar scheme got the Enron management sent down for years. We never seem to learn and keep electing the same people as it hurts too much to imagine they're as dirty as a rock festival toilet.
the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change headed by Peter Dunscombe.
Looking even at the few crooks unearthed in politics, like cockroaches if you see a few there are always thousands nearby, and the same goes for the handful of politicians and leaders who get exposed compared to the ones doing far worse. Just imagine you were in the cabinet, had vast tracts of land (as many of them do), and created a law saying people who use their spare land for wind farms get a guaranteed rent for 25 years without having to do anything, and then instal hundreds on their own land, if necessary putting it in your wife's name or children to avoid any official claims of corruption. And you're saving the planet so no one complains even when it earns you millions.
That I'm afraid is how business is done nowadays, the links I keep turning up connecting Al Gore, Rothschilds (about to help run Australia's carbon tax, no surprises there), the BBC and even the bloody Dalai Lama (no longer on my chanukah card list now) are all working as a massive team to squeeze as much cash from a false flag threat of CO2 while everyone's looking the other way adjusting their pants. They don't even need the money- these politicians were millionaires already before they got into it, so as well as ramping up their personal incomes drastically it is taken from government subsidies, ie my money. So basically anything the mafia has done with protection rackets and money laundering can now be shown as the politics of the 21st century. It's not even hidden any more as they know no one can police the police themselves- unless they make a mistake as a few have done. And carbon trading itself had to be removed from the laws of theft as a decade earlier a similar scheme got the Enron management sent down for years. We never seem to learn and keep electing the same people as it hurts too much to imagine they're as dirty as a rock festival toilet.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Global logic
As a therapist and hypnotist I am depressed and horrified with the ease the majority of the world have been persuaded to accept vast costs and restrictions for something which is 100% undetectable, and in fact not actually real as our current climate is completely within historic patterns of change.
That aside the saddest part is failure to analyse. What does a slightly warmer world mean to me? Firstly you look at warmer places here. The worst are the desert regions and the simple answer is people don't live there very much. Logical captain. Warm the planet and they indeed increase, while the polar deserts, where even less can live (the Antarctic landmass (ie not the surrounding sea) has no animals or plants larger than your fingertip as permanent residents), would decrease accordingly. That would be expected to roughly even out.
Then the chaotic weather. What is the weather where you live like? Predictable? Regular? Always harmless? I doubt it, you have a prevailing climate (ie local annual average seasons) with the weather variations within. There is no new weather, you will just get more or worse of what there is already. No more is possible. Then look to history to see the planet in past warm conditions. There was no chaos, more people survived and food production increased. That is all.
So, I ask, what are people worried about? Clearly they believe everything Al Gore has told them, despite it not bearing any connection to either what we know about the past or any threat of it happening in our lifetimes if at all. It simply shows me the world has been given an IQ test and failed dramatically. I don't know how we can fix this, once infected few have so far returned to reality, and while people worry about non-existent bad weather after they're all dead then they can't notice the real threats the authorities don't want us to worry about. Terrifying.
That aside the saddest part is failure to analyse. What does a slightly warmer world mean to me? Firstly you look at warmer places here. The worst are the desert regions and the simple answer is people don't live there very much. Logical captain. Warm the planet and they indeed increase, while the polar deserts, where even less can live (the Antarctic landmass (ie not the surrounding sea) has no animals or plants larger than your fingertip as permanent residents), would decrease accordingly. That would be expected to roughly even out.
Then the chaotic weather. What is the weather where you live like? Predictable? Regular? Always harmless? I doubt it, you have a prevailing climate (ie local annual average seasons) with the weather variations within. There is no new weather, you will just get more or worse of what there is already. No more is possible. Then look to history to see the planet in past warm conditions. There was no chaos, more people survived and food production increased. That is all.
So, I ask, what are people worried about? Clearly they believe everything Al Gore has told them, despite it not bearing any connection to either what we know about the past or any threat of it happening in our lifetimes if at all. It simply shows me the world has been given an IQ test and failed dramatically. I don't know how we can fix this, once infected few have so far returned to reality, and while people worry about non-existent bad weather after they're all dead then they can't notice the real threats the authorities don't want us to worry about. Terrifying.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
In which the IPCC come clean
Now free of most obligations and ambitions I can look towards the next ones. My intuition is showing itself to be more and more reliable so following that now and have the routine to explain to skeptics I am following something I can't yet demonstrate but it's as if I'm picking it up remotely (which is probably the case) without the need to understand the workings.
For instance today I tracked down two links about global warming where everything I'd said was agreed with. Nothing new there you say, but one was from the head of East Anglia's CRU in 2007, and the other direct from the IPCC. To summarise the two points. The first was about 'Post-normal science', where the fear of global warming was so great they had to act without proof just in case. That's dangerous stuff in itself but the IPCC statement then pisses over the flames totally by saying "The worst case temperature scenario is that in 100 years the developing world will be over 8 times better off than they would otherwise at over 9 times better off". It goes on to say that the actual problems faced would be exactly the same weather we have now but in different places, and there would be many benefits as well. Conversely all attempts to reduce CO2 will guarantee to make us worse off so this non-normal science or whatever they call it (I'd say 'non-honest') is actually trying to prevent, er, well, nothing, with STEALING OUR MONEY. Great deal, and now they do actually admit it so (as it's not a crime if the laws have been changed to allow it) I don't have to convince anyone, they've told you all. So with the CRU admitting truth is second to policy (their exact words), while the IPCC in their little world slip out the scenario the CRU are trying to prevent is a long chain of er, benefits, and er, more weather in different places to where it is now and sometimes more frequent, that is if they can measure it and then pin any of it down to us and not natural increases etc, the bottom line being "Our money is being extracted to prevent an unprovable and unproven future scenario which the worst computer model possibility in 100 years shows that, er, nothing is going to change besides a slight possible lowering of benefits compared to otherwise"
Now that's a deal every country has either taken on board already or working to pass through their parliaments, while the twinned organisations driving this machinery have actually said straight out (ie not me or some poor scientists accused of being insane by their opponents who want to keep their slices of the cake) there's not a problem and any changes we can see can't be proved to be relevant. I no longer need to try and source anything, I just say the purpose of green taxes is to, er, collect taxes, that's it. If they need the money that badly then just say so, don't make up a whole megillah around it to divide and rule while the people too clever to fall for it are fighting with the unfortunate majority who still think whatever our rulers tell us must be true, why would they lie? I hear this every time it's on the radio or internet, as if politicians are above theft. For fuck's sake, they probably invented it!
For instance today I tracked down two links about global warming where everything I'd said was agreed with. Nothing new there you say, but one was from the head of East Anglia's CRU in 2007, and the other direct from the IPCC. To summarise the two points. The first was about 'Post-normal science', where the fear of global warming was so great they had to act without proof just in case. That's dangerous stuff in itself but the IPCC statement then pisses over the flames totally by saying "The worst case temperature scenario is that in 100 years the developing world will be over 8 times better off than they would otherwise at over 9 times better off". It goes on to say that the actual problems faced would be exactly the same weather we have now but in different places, and there would be many benefits as well. Conversely all attempts to reduce CO2 will guarantee to make us worse off so this non-normal science or whatever they call it (I'd say 'non-honest') is actually trying to prevent, er, well, nothing, with STEALING OUR MONEY. Great deal, and now they do actually admit it so (as it's not a crime if the laws have been changed to allow it) I don't have to convince anyone, they've told you all. So with the CRU admitting truth is second to policy (their exact words), while the IPCC in their little world slip out the scenario the CRU are trying to prevent is a long chain of er, benefits, and er, more weather in different places to where it is now and sometimes more frequent, that is if they can measure it and then pin any of it down to us and not natural increases etc, the bottom line being "Our money is being extracted to prevent an unprovable and unproven future scenario which the worst computer model possibility in 100 years shows that, er, nothing is going to change besides a slight possible lowering of benefits compared to otherwise"
Now that's a deal every country has either taken on board already or working to pass through their parliaments, while the twinned organisations driving this machinery have actually said straight out (ie not me or some poor scientists accused of being insane by their opponents who want to keep their slices of the cake) there's not a problem and any changes we can see can't be proved to be relevant. I no longer need to try and source anything, I just say the purpose of green taxes is to, er, collect taxes, that's it. If they need the money that badly then just say so, don't make up a whole megillah around it to divide and rule while the people too clever to fall for it are fighting with the unfortunate majority who still think whatever our rulers tell us must be true, why would they lie? I hear this every time it's on the radio or internet, as if politicians are above theft. For fuck's sake, they probably invented it!
Friday, July 02, 2010
The cult of climate
Global warming has been called a religion quite rightly, but I realised it's not quite acting like a normal religion, but a cult. This is nothing to do with the science being good or not, but the human result of the idea. I checked out the characteristics of cults which confirmed the majority being applicable, and possibly with time more will happen. Here's how it applies:
A charismatic leader, whose misdemeanours are overlooked and treated as omniscient regardless/ Al Gore, material untruths in film, no effect on followers.
Followers controlled primarily with fear of future disaster/armageddon and given solutions by leader that must be followed in order to avoid this. Jehovah's Witnesses are a wonderful comparison with their list of strict rules for salvation. Of course if you follow these rules you earn the right to heaven, in this case a carbon neutral environment.
Own language/ The preponderance of unique terms used as essential core concepts, carbon footprint, carbon neutral, low carbon, sustainable industry, alternative energy, and many more unique terms that had never been coined before and used to control actions are rife within the movement.
Insults for outsiders/ Oil addicts, deniers, petrolheads etc were never used before then, they exclusively pour scorn and derision on outsiders who they see as a dangerous enemy.
Huge fees offered and accepted by leaders/ Carbon credits, green taxes.
Preoccupation with generating money- see above, plus grants, charity projects, research etc.
Proselytisation/ Read The Guardian and watch BBC digital for a few days just for a taster. The BBC run a couple of programmes on a loop, one for children on the Teachers Channel explaining what would happen for a degree centigrade change per degree and another interviewing children (with leading questions) on climate change.
Discouraging doubts/ Every time a new piece of data comes out that differs from their picture they explain it away. An unusually cold winter is only weather, not cvlimate. Ten years stability with maybe twenty ahead doesn't change the trend etc.
The ends justify the means/ They actually admit that it will remove much of what we take for granted in life, but worth it EVEN IF THE CONSEQUENCES ARE NOT CERTAIN.
Us v them mentality/ If you're not agreed you're a polluter. That is their mantra.
Shame and guilt used to control/ Paul McCartney said denying climate change is as bad as denying the holocaust (except that has already happened Paul). That is a typical emotionally charged guilt trip they use to try and force people to take on their belief system.
I didn't work these criteria out, I just recognised them.
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
A charismatic leader, whose misdemeanours are overlooked and treated as omniscient regardless/ Al Gore, material untruths in film, no effect on followers.
Followers controlled primarily with fear of future disaster/armageddon and given solutions by leader that must be followed in order to avoid this. Jehovah's Witnesses are a wonderful comparison with their list of strict rules for salvation. Of course if you follow these rules you earn the right to heaven, in this case a carbon neutral environment.
Own language/ The preponderance of unique terms used as essential core concepts, carbon footprint, carbon neutral, low carbon, sustainable industry, alternative energy, and many more unique terms that had never been coined before and used to control actions are rife within the movement.
Insults for outsiders/ Oil addicts, deniers, petrolheads etc were never used before then, they exclusively pour scorn and derision on outsiders who they see as a dangerous enemy.
Huge fees offered and accepted by leaders/ Carbon credits, green taxes.
Preoccupation with generating money- see above, plus grants, charity projects, research etc.
Proselytisation/ Read The Guardian and watch BBC digital for a few days just for a taster. The BBC run a couple of programmes on a loop, one for children on the Teachers Channel explaining what would happen for a degree centigrade change per degree and another interviewing children (with leading questions) on climate change.
Discouraging doubts/ Every time a new piece of data comes out that differs from their picture they explain it away. An unusually cold winter is only weather, not cvlimate. Ten years stability with maybe twenty ahead doesn't change the trend etc.
The ends justify the means/ They actually admit that it will remove much of what we take for granted in life, but worth it EVEN IF THE CONSEQUENCES ARE NOT CERTAIN.
Us v them mentality/ If you're not agreed you're a polluter. That is their mantra.
Shame and guilt used to control/ Paul McCartney said denying climate change is as bad as denying the holocaust (except that has already happened Paul). That is a typical emotionally charged guilt trip they use to try and force people to take on their belief system.
I didn't work these criteria out, I just recognised them.
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The evidence for global warming
Yes, global warming, the long forgotten theoretical driving force of climate change, caused by the even longer forgotten greenhouse effect. Climate change is the first part of the truncated phrase, 'Climate change due to global warming' which is impossible not to happen if literally applied to the climate.
Global warming is divided in two parts, the theory and the resulting evidence. Maybe 80% of the majority of articles I've read on it base their evidence on theory, with the remainder being a scattering of examples to demonstrate how it 'must' therefore be happening. The theory in turn is divided in two parts, the mathematics and the projections. If you apply physics to any substance it will behave perfectly on paper and more or less perfectly in a controlled experiment. If not then they need more work to pass the level required to be a scientific theory. If you transfer these experiments from the lab to the atmosphere you suddenly multiply the influences many thousandfold. These are still more or less measurable for vast or very short term influences, but the scientists here are referring to a small additional amount of CO2 (the other gases are treated separately), claiming a few percent extra (man adds 3% to the 0.03% it currently makes up) is capable of producing a significant rise in temperature. If a volcano erupts you see the changes for a while as a sudden output of material is present and the results easily measured. But a gradual increase in a relatively poor insulating gas over centuries, combined with solar, oceanic and as yet unknown influences appears not to be capable of any such measurement.
The mechanics of chaos theory were demonstrated by the effects of tiny actions on the climate as a whole. One can reverbarate globally, so combine that by millions and you have a lot of competing influences. Every significant one must be factored into every CO2 equation, as outside a greenhouse the effect is joined by countless other effects. I doubt the combined power of the world's computers are sufficient to calculate a model of it all, in fact Philip Stott, the BBC science spokesman, says 85% of climate drivers are as yet unknown. I think had this not been the case it would have been edited from the programme before it went on air. Scientists without an agenda simply have no reason to invent figures.
The second part of the theory is projections. However, a projection is only reliable within a closed system, like astronomical movements. If you push an object with a certain force in a certain direction you can project its route. Compare that with adding some CO2 to the atmosphere, know how it interacts with water vapour, learn how long it stays there, measure the height it appears in etc, and then use all these to combine with the often unseen variations like el nino and sunspot activity and make projections around 100 years in the future. This is what the actual policies are based on. When they were made, not enough had happened (genuinely caused or otherwise) to show the greenhouse effect, but in order to prevent it from happening (the fact it was outside our lifetimes seemed to go over most people's heads) they say we must act first.
If you look at the factors driving the climate, the size of the atmosphere plus the solar changes outside it, the legal test of the reasonable man would be unlikely to believe that a small increase in a mild greenhouse gas could be measured in the present, let alone projected hundreds of years into the future.
---------------------------------------------------------
As for the practice, this falls into a few areas. There are the general figures like sea and ice level, temperature figures and long term trends for all. These are the roots of any known effects, as the only variable we have is temperature trends. The single effect of global warming is contained in the phrase, ie warming. Besides the fact we have historical (written by men of the day) records of the range of temperature they are predicting from the past already, meaning the fear factor is basically negated as few if any of the effects dreaded by the faithful have been mentioned in history) they have to present graphs showing the continual temperature variations, and somehow connect them with the much more easily measurable greenhouse gases (ie as well as CO2). In reality the CO2 tends to be the sole figure used, despite 95% of any greenhouse effect, (33' above what it is outside the atmosphere at present) is actually water vapour which is far more powerful in effect. But these are the macro criteria which have to be used to measure the increase in temperature.
To put this further in context, the ice age cycle means the climate cools or heats half the time naturally. As we are in a heating phase, it means they theoretically have to compare what they expected the temperature rise to be with what it actually is. Remember the complications involved in predicting future temperatures and that becomes a lot tougher than it looks.
So we have measurements of temperature, compared further with the theoretical rise had the extra CO2 (3%) been absent, and then similar comparisons made with ice coverage and sea levels. In fact only ice coverage and sea levels for the whole planet count, as although they are constanly quoting (and quite controversially) specific glaciers, they are only a part of the whole and if others are growing it's only the overall amount that exists, the rest are only elements of it. The University of Illinois have produced the ice coverage graphs showing them all since records started being measured in 1979. They show an incredibly regular shape, the only variation being a 2% reduction trough in 2007 which is now rising. Individual glaciers, being part of the whole, have no value at all as if the world temperature rises the ice can't hide somewhere else from it. The sea level, rarely mentioned nowadays, is the easiest to measure, although for reasons only the experts know it's not a constant depth for all like the water in your bath, but an average. This has risen a few inches a century for centuries, and is currently rising inches a century. They can't use these figures in the media as they imply nothing's changing, as the ice melts over land and the sea expands as temperature rises, and this indicates very little has changed. The very figure which reflects more influences the most easily is serially ignored by the media.
The second type of evidence is weather, yes, weather not climate. The IPCC view from about 2008 is that severe weather incidence was not related to temperature, yet is still used by anyone who can whenever it happens as more evidence for global warming. Firstly we are warming anyway, so whatever normal weather increases in that direction is a given, which does make it that much harder to attribute to much else. If the warm weather incidents increased in such a large number it became climate then maybe there would be something to look at, but most use single events over days or less as evidence despite every freezing winter, abnormal snowfall and the like are always dismissed as weather as being in the wrong direction are treated as they should be, part of the normal variations part of the chaos theory of climate. Such selective treatment of short term weather is misleading and easier to simply not include any of it as some is clearly impossible to assign meaning to.
The third type is physical effects. These again have many causes, but if you're already looking for specific evidence (science tries to disprove a theory before confirming it when they can't), you tend to attribute anything that looks like it could be without a definite causal connection (required in law as well). Deserts are guaranteed to extend beyond the equatorial direction as temperature rises. But man does also contribute to making deserts. They drain rivers, erode soil and cut down forests. These will cause deserts to expand in months without any need to look for any other reason. Of course they fail to mention the temperate areas moving away from the equator as well towards the poles, as the changes balance the land use pretty well. No one disputes more people die from the cold than the heat but that spoils the emotional appeal if mentioned. Land being inundated by sea is another standard photo opportunity and political weapon used by those living near the sea level. But plate tectonics tell you the land moves as well as the sea. Britain tilts to one side and sinking at one side while rising on the other. The Pacific islands are also sinking which is inevitable even if the sea level dropped it could only be delayed. And building on coastal flood plains like New Orleans or Bangladesh is simply a combination of overpopulation, forcing people to live in uninhabitable areas as only temporary land, and greed of those who build there for profit. They were doomed as soon as occupied, and if we diverted efforts to reducing the population rather than CO2 as well as the poverty that forces the poorest to live there then it would be a quick solution with visible results.
---------------------------------------------------------
To sum up the evidence, global warming is based on mathematics, lab experiments, and complex calculations looking at the possible effects a small increase in CO2 can have over time in the atmosphere. The theory works perfectly in a greenhouse, which is why it's called the greenhouse effect, and on paper or within a computer trial. The claim is man's 3% addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is both effective and measurable.
The effects are: Seal level increase, Ice coverage decreases, changing land patterns, changing weather patterns, and many less certain effects thrown in in case our extra CO2 may have caused them as well, which are so diverse it's not worth trying to keep a note of them. In fact many measurements besides the ice and sea levels are not certain. Specific glaciers are presented as evidence, yet competing measurements then appear saying they are not melting. Similarly temperature measurements are presented as a whole, but collected from satellites, air, land and sea. Each produces a different set of figures and climatologists, not surprisingly, don't actually agree on all of these. But the base year they use (but rarely mention as a figure) now has a 0.5 increase. That's not yet close to even the 1.5' rise used as some sort of tipping point, and at current rates is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. I did my best to use the official figures and then analyse them, and not use any others or ignore any I didn't like. If I missed any it was due to volume and not design. You decide.
Global warming is divided in two parts, the theory and the resulting evidence. Maybe 80% of the majority of articles I've read on it base their evidence on theory, with the remainder being a scattering of examples to demonstrate how it 'must' therefore be happening. The theory in turn is divided in two parts, the mathematics and the projections. If you apply physics to any substance it will behave perfectly on paper and more or less perfectly in a controlled experiment. If not then they need more work to pass the level required to be a scientific theory. If you transfer these experiments from the lab to the atmosphere you suddenly multiply the influences many thousandfold. These are still more or less measurable for vast or very short term influences, but the scientists here are referring to a small additional amount of CO2 (the other gases are treated separately), claiming a few percent extra (man adds 3% to the 0.03% it currently makes up) is capable of producing a significant rise in temperature. If a volcano erupts you see the changes for a while as a sudden output of material is present and the results easily measured. But a gradual increase in a relatively poor insulating gas over centuries, combined with solar, oceanic and as yet unknown influences appears not to be capable of any such measurement.
The mechanics of chaos theory were demonstrated by the effects of tiny actions on the climate as a whole. One can reverbarate globally, so combine that by millions and you have a lot of competing influences. Every significant one must be factored into every CO2 equation, as outside a greenhouse the effect is joined by countless other effects. I doubt the combined power of the world's computers are sufficient to calculate a model of it all, in fact Philip Stott, the BBC science spokesman, says 85% of climate drivers are as yet unknown. I think had this not been the case it would have been edited from the programme before it went on air. Scientists without an agenda simply have no reason to invent figures.
The second part of the theory is projections. However, a projection is only reliable within a closed system, like astronomical movements. If you push an object with a certain force in a certain direction you can project its route. Compare that with adding some CO2 to the atmosphere, know how it interacts with water vapour, learn how long it stays there, measure the height it appears in etc, and then use all these to combine with the often unseen variations like el nino and sunspot activity and make projections around 100 years in the future. This is what the actual policies are based on. When they were made, not enough had happened (genuinely caused or otherwise) to show the greenhouse effect, but in order to prevent it from happening (the fact it was outside our lifetimes seemed to go over most people's heads) they say we must act first.
If you look at the factors driving the climate, the size of the atmosphere plus the solar changes outside it, the legal test of the reasonable man would be unlikely to believe that a small increase in a mild greenhouse gas could be measured in the present, let alone projected hundreds of years into the future.
---------------------------------------------------------
As for the practice, this falls into a few areas. There are the general figures like sea and ice level, temperature figures and long term trends for all. These are the roots of any known effects, as the only variable we have is temperature trends. The single effect of global warming is contained in the phrase, ie warming. Besides the fact we have historical (written by men of the day) records of the range of temperature they are predicting from the past already, meaning the fear factor is basically negated as few if any of the effects dreaded by the faithful have been mentioned in history) they have to present graphs showing the continual temperature variations, and somehow connect them with the much more easily measurable greenhouse gases (ie as well as CO2). In reality the CO2 tends to be the sole figure used, despite 95% of any greenhouse effect, (33' above what it is outside the atmosphere at present) is actually water vapour which is far more powerful in effect. But these are the macro criteria which have to be used to measure the increase in temperature.
To put this further in context, the ice age cycle means the climate cools or heats half the time naturally. As we are in a heating phase, it means they theoretically have to compare what they expected the temperature rise to be with what it actually is. Remember the complications involved in predicting future temperatures and that becomes a lot tougher than it looks.
So we have measurements of temperature, compared further with the theoretical rise had the extra CO2 (3%) been absent, and then similar comparisons made with ice coverage and sea levels. In fact only ice coverage and sea levels for the whole planet count, as although they are constanly quoting (and quite controversially) specific glaciers, they are only a part of the whole and if others are growing it's only the overall amount that exists, the rest are only elements of it. The University of Illinois have produced the ice coverage graphs showing them all since records started being measured in 1979. They show an incredibly regular shape, the only variation being a 2% reduction trough in 2007 which is now rising. Individual glaciers, being part of the whole, have no value at all as if the world temperature rises the ice can't hide somewhere else from it. The sea level, rarely mentioned nowadays, is the easiest to measure, although for reasons only the experts know it's not a constant depth for all like the water in your bath, but an average. This has risen a few inches a century for centuries, and is currently rising inches a century. They can't use these figures in the media as they imply nothing's changing, as the ice melts over land and the sea expands as temperature rises, and this indicates very little has changed. The very figure which reflects more influences the most easily is serially ignored by the media.
The second type of evidence is weather, yes, weather not climate. The IPCC view from about 2008 is that severe weather incidence was not related to temperature, yet is still used by anyone who can whenever it happens as more evidence for global warming. Firstly we are warming anyway, so whatever normal weather increases in that direction is a given, which does make it that much harder to attribute to much else. If the warm weather incidents increased in such a large number it became climate then maybe there would be something to look at, but most use single events over days or less as evidence despite every freezing winter, abnormal snowfall and the like are always dismissed as weather as being in the wrong direction are treated as they should be, part of the normal variations part of the chaos theory of climate. Such selective treatment of short term weather is misleading and easier to simply not include any of it as some is clearly impossible to assign meaning to.
The third type is physical effects. These again have many causes, but if you're already looking for specific evidence (science tries to disprove a theory before confirming it when they can't), you tend to attribute anything that looks like it could be without a definite causal connection (required in law as well). Deserts are guaranteed to extend beyond the equatorial direction as temperature rises. But man does also contribute to making deserts. They drain rivers, erode soil and cut down forests. These will cause deserts to expand in months without any need to look for any other reason. Of course they fail to mention the temperate areas moving away from the equator as well towards the poles, as the changes balance the land use pretty well. No one disputes more people die from the cold than the heat but that spoils the emotional appeal if mentioned. Land being inundated by sea is another standard photo opportunity and political weapon used by those living near the sea level. But plate tectonics tell you the land moves as well as the sea. Britain tilts to one side and sinking at one side while rising on the other. The Pacific islands are also sinking which is inevitable even if the sea level dropped it could only be delayed. And building on coastal flood plains like New Orleans or Bangladesh is simply a combination of overpopulation, forcing people to live in uninhabitable areas as only temporary land, and greed of those who build there for profit. They were doomed as soon as occupied, and if we diverted efforts to reducing the population rather than CO2 as well as the poverty that forces the poorest to live there then it would be a quick solution with visible results.
---------------------------------------------------------
To sum up the evidence, global warming is based on mathematics, lab experiments, and complex calculations looking at the possible effects a small increase in CO2 can have over time in the atmosphere. The theory works perfectly in a greenhouse, which is why it's called the greenhouse effect, and on paper or within a computer trial. The claim is man's 3% addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is both effective and measurable.
The effects are: Seal level increase, Ice coverage decreases, changing land patterns, changing weather patterns, and many less certain effects thrown in in case our extra CO2 may have caused them as well, which are so diverse it's not worth trying to keep a note of them. In fact many measurements besides the ice and sea levels are not certain. Specific glaciers are presented as evidence, yet competing measurements then appear saying they are not melting. Similarly temperature measurements are presented as a whole, but collected from satellites, air, land and sea. Each produces a different set of figures and climatologists, not surprisingly, don't actually agree on all of these. But the base year they use (but rarely mention as a figure) now has a 0.5 increase. That's not yet close to even the 1.5' rise used as some sort of tipping point, and at current rates is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. I did my best to use the official figures and then analyse them, and not use any others or ignore any I didn't like. If I missed any it was due to volume and not design. You decide.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Current status of climate change
The battle against our lives being wrecked by global warming taxes and billions thrown away on useless technology is turning each day. The new data against the ridiculous guesses of the studies based purely on some figures entered into a computer programme diverges from each one as we see the reality unfolding. The latest article saying oceanic oscillations drive about 50% of the climate every 30 years or so means something is already known to be more influential than CO2- why? Because the effects are here now. Not next year, 20 years or 50 ahead, it's been applied to the last four cycles and has happened totally independently from CO2 levels. Oversimplifying the most complex system of all, the one used to illustrate chaos theory, is a crime against science and its reputation. How long it will take to get its credibility back, and hopefully shake out some of the worst offendors who have done all they can to support regimes that steal our money in the name of a false cause.
If the warmists take it seriously then I have to. If they insist on doubling my gas bill then I take it seriously. If they waste our tax money (in a recession) on wind turbines I take it seriously. And most of all if our politicians get together in the UN and agree to lie to us I take it very seriously. I'd rather be talking about interesting things than spending hours reading and summarising articles, but unless a few people do then what'll happen? They'll assume we accept it and have barely any information not to. Until a scientist on their side comes out and admits they are wrong we won't have won, every other who says they are is discredited. They simply ignore the contradictory figures and aim at the messengers. If people finally get fed up with being ignored and patronised then one country at a time may jump ship as they realise it's better to be independent and let the others get on with it at their own expenses. So far only Saudi Arabia are 100% against accepting any actions on it, but maybe others may follow when their populations are pushed into poverty as a result of the new taxes we are all having to pay to be poured into the sea on alternative power, and into the pockets of the bankers in carbon credits. This is the one thing I will guarantee in 50 years, this will be known as the biggest scam in history, and I am embarrassed to be part of a society who dares to go along with it.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
All about climate
Life is still happening at least, yesterday went smoothly with no one in front of me at either the bank or the money exchange, after the work booking and still managed to get there before it closed. Snow was again predicted, I picked my friends up at 8 just after it started, and got them back at 10.30 after a reunion with one twin sister after 9 years as she moved to America. Then the snow continued till about 3pm today and haven't opened the front door since last night.
I have however managed to find loads more photos to scan in, started watching my videos and had little time to do much else. I have the filing, postal course and washing up to follow as this may last another week yet again. It's a lot deeper than December although not icy so far, which was the real bugger. So my projects are literally on ice, none have replied and somehow suspect none will, besides one on Facebook (my old English teacher) making that a 1/7 score, better than it could have been. The actress who wanted my DVD should reply sooner or later as she needs it, but really hope I can deliver it in person. Since the last road sign I went to check for had gone (and one of the best I could have found) nothing else has really happened of any interest, a few little things have turned up from existing photos and seen a few people and that's about it.
Because things seemed to be building up to more it became a disaster waiting to happen I suppose. Although I am now the contented owner of a photo of an old red triangle sign with no damage at last (after literally missing 1.5 million before they all went) I still need a picture type one, and even then will need something new to keep me occupied when that project comes to an end.
My new stats here show about 10 new and 2-4 existing visitors a day, which seems to imply a constant stream of arrivals but few regulars. I'm a regular as well, as most bloggers except a few on my links give up within a year or so, although life does not. And it doesn't cost anything so can't see why anyone would stop. Having a regular partner would make no difference as most bloggers I know do as well, and something extra to write about. I have no idea where and if my next good news or event will come from, but tomorrow should be fine and just having no more demands on me is a good place to start from.
More figures are being supplied from higher and higher authorities denying global warming (thank you Roger) and sooner or later the powers that be will have to explain why. I know why, because it's a little scam that got out of hand and too difficult to wriggle out without looking like the total slimy lying bunch of crooks they actually are. Those of us who have stood our ground will be the ones with integrity as there are a few leaders and millions of innocent but naive (at best) followers who leave the door open to let the wolves and foxes steal their property, much like Toad in the Wind in the Willows. How your average bloke/woman can assume what they are told 'must be true' beats me every time. Anyone who's done history even to O level knows what propaganda is, and it's all the same format worldwide. There's a list of tactics, and actually created by an advertising bod, borrowed by Hitler and perfected by the Soviet Union, who renamed it 'Public Relations'. It's actually 'Truth Economy' as specialises in spreading a very different view of truth to reality.
I do suspect there are hired trolls online to spread the party line in forums, as the identical quotes they churn out are too similar to be independent, and the veracity of the links they present are all about how to cope with climate change (ie tax people, make sure they run out of fossil fuel as fast as possible, and use the most expensive or dangerous ways to generate the little energy we will be allowed) than any that's actually happening. It's like researching a treatment for an illness that doesn't exist, with all the scientists and companies beavering away with our money subsidising them to make fairy water to get rid of the illness of wandering minds and imagination. Except carbon credits make money from that very fairy water, Bernie Madoff was sacrificed for doing the very thing, not because it was different, but he forgot to name his scheme 'Carbon' anything.
If I, for example, was to name this 'David's carbon blog' I'd be offered grants and advice how to present it, and probably get readers in the hundreds per day rather than the handfuls. The fact nearly all life on earth depends on carbon, is made of carbon and stops us from freezing seems to be overlooked by the insidious crooks like Obama (he has the mark of Cain now he's joined the enemy), who would be happy to extract it all and drop the temperatures to minus. Basically they would not just be bent if they did but totally fucking mad. Tweaking the climate is marginally possible, with about a million times more effort put in than the very dubious results. The Russians have been seeding the atmosphere with all sorts of elective pollution for decades with sod all success, and these arseholes say they can stop the temperature rising more than 2 degrees? Well as it wasn't going to they can't lose but if even one believes they could they should be certified. It's the biggest heap of lying shit I've heard since the Chinese tried to cover up Tiananmen Square.
Anyway, if you read the carbon pages in the papers and online you'd believe that a small rise in CO2 simply insulates the planet so the warmth can't escape as much. But if the details of how they both gather and present the information were shared by more than 1% in comparison most people would fall about laughing. But the inherent faith in authority and fear of chaos are enough to keep the sheep baaing and helping them by teaching poor innocent schoolchildren too young to be critical to talk about fucking carbon footprints. There is no such thing! We make urine and faeces and a discrete amount of rubbish. You can weigh that weekly like the Austrians (check their toilets if you don't believe me) but carbon footprints? And even if you could so what? Experiments by a proper university showed that as CO2 increased so did the plants in their own greenhouses, and that was it. Unlike humans, plants grow more or less indefinitely to a maximum limit, and the more CO2 within the sort of amounts we can produce means the rain forests they destroy can grow where still present.
All crops will increase yields, and if there really was a connection with temperature that would increase them even further. Basically a few degrees more would help everyone as the few made homeless would have a very long time to move, as they have before planes and trains could help them do it. The south Pacific for example have been shipping people back and forth for millennia as islands grew and shrunk as so low to sea level. They didn't need Al Gore selling flags for them. QED.
I have however managed to find loads more photos to scan in, started watching my videos and had little time to do much else. I have the filing, postal course and washing up to follow as this may last another week yet again. It's a lot deeper than December although not icy so far, which was the real bugger. So my projects are literally on ice, none have replied and somehow suspect none will, besides one on Facebook (my old English teacher) making that a 1/7 score, better than it could have been. The actress who wanted my DVD should reply sooner or later as she needs it, but really hope I can deliver it in person. Since the last road sign I went to check for had gone (and one of the best I could have found) nothing else has really happened of any interest, a few little things have turned up from existing photos and seen a few people and that's about it.
Because things seemed to be building up to more it became a disaster waiting to happen I suppose. Although I am now the contented owner of a photo of an old red triangle sign with no damage at last (after literally missing 1.5 million before they all went) I still need a picture type one, and even then will need something new to keep me occupied when that project comes to an end.
My new stats here show about 10 new and 2-4 existing visitors a day, which seems to imply a constant stream of arrivals but few regulars. I'm a regular as well, as most bloggers except a few on my links give up within a year or so, although life does not. And it doesn't cost anything so can't see why anyone would stop. Having a regular partner would make no difference as most bloggers I know do as well, and something extra to write about. I have no idea where and if my next good news or event will come from, but tomorrow should be fine and just having no more demands on me is a good place to start from.
More figures are being supplied from higher and higher authorities denying global warming (thank you Roger) and sooner or later the powers that be will have to explain why. I know why, because it's a little scam that got out of hand and too difficult to wriggle out without looking like the total slimy lying bunch of crooks they actually are. Those of us who have stood our ground will be the ones with integrity as there are a few leaders and millions of innocent but naive (at best) followers who leave the door open to let the wolves and foxes steal their property, much like Toad in the Wind in the Willows. How your average bloke/woman can assume what they are told 'must be true' beats me every time. Anyone who's done history even to O level knows what propaganda is, and it's all the same format worldwide. There's a list of tactics, and actually created by an advertising bod, borrowed by Hitler and perfected by the Soviet Union, who renamed it 'Public Relations'. It's actually 'Truth Economy' as specialises in spreading a very different view of truth to reality.
I do suspect there are hired trolls online to spread the party line in forums, as the identical quotes they churn out are too similar to be independent, and the veracity of the links they present are all about how to cope with climate change (ie tax people, make sure they run out of fossil fuel as fast as possible, and use the most expensive or dangerous ways to generate the little energy we will be allowed) than any that's actually happening. It's like researching a treatment for an illness that doesn't exist, with all the scientists and companies beavering away with our money subsidising them to make fairy water to get rid of the illness of wandering minds and imagination. Except carbon credits make money from that very fairy water, Bernie Madoff was sacrificed for doing the very thing, not because it was different, but he forgot to name his scheme 'Carbon' anything.
If I, for example, was to name this 'David's carbon blog' I'd be offered grants and advice how to present it, and probably get readers in the hundreds per day rather than the handfuls. The fact nearly all life on earth depends on carbon, is made of carbon and stops us from freezing seems to be overlooked by the insidious crooks like Obama (he has the mark of Cain now he's joined the enemy), who would be happy to extract it all and drop the temperatures to minus. Basically they would not just be bent if they did but totally fucking mad. Tweaking the climate is marginally possible, with about a million times more effort put in than the very dubious results. The Russians have been seeding the atmosphere with all sorts of elective pollution for decades with sod all success, and these arseholes say they can stop the temperature rising more than 2 degrees? Well as it wasn't going to they can't lose but if even one believes they could they should be certified. It's the biggest heap of lying shit I've heard since the Chinese tried to cover up Tiananmen Square.
Anyway, if you read the carbon pages in the papers and online you'd believe that a small rise in CO2 simply insulates the planet so the warmth can't escape as much. But if the details of how they both gather and present the information were shared by more than 1% in comparison most people would fall about laughing. But the inherent faith in authority and fear of chaos are enough to keep the sheep baaing and helping them by teaching poor innocent schoolchildren too young to be critical to talk about fucking carbon footprints. There is no such thing! We make urine and faeces and a discrete amount of rubbish. You can weigh that weekly like the Austrians (check their toilets if you don't believe me) but carbon footprints? And even if you could so what? Experiments by a proper university showed that as CO2 increased so did the plants in their own greenhouses, and that was it. Unlike humans, plants grow more or less indefinitely to a maximum limit, and the more CO2 within the sort of amounts we can produce means the rain forests they destroy can grow where still present.
All crops will increase yields, and if there really was a connection with temperature that would increase them even further. Basically a few degrees more would help everyone as the few made homeless would have a very long time to move, as they have before planes and trains could help them do it. The south Pacific for example have been shipping people back and forth for millennia as islands grew and shrunk as so low to sea level. They didn't need Al Gore selling flags for them. QED.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Snowed in, week 2 begins
The snow (day 8) made sure I had little to do and more time for the computer again, although may be gone tomorrow as it's been raining for hours. Last night some total mental midget called the radio claiming the snow wasn't due to global warming but climate change. He must have been pretty young as anyone about 50 or more will tell you snow here in December is not new, but perfectly normal. And moving the snow from early winter to late winter isn't much of a change either, it's still snow. I'm wondering how far these modern day Jesus freaks can stretch the scapegoat mentality the way Hitler did, and instead of the Jews blame every ill on climate change. It's a virus that's affected some and others not at all. I work to neutralise them one by one and honestly every soul I save with simple facts is a miracle, just like a cult buster for the routine is identical.
I say it every time, I'll stop going on about it when they do, but if I ignore it they'll think they're right.
I do suspect many would do just that, if global warming was admitted as yet another 'mistake' (we know what that really means) then they'd just switch to something else, as they feel so victimised by the world if the people can't be blamed for having more money than them and actually daring to drive cars, then the Jews will be a very easy alternative target. With a recession I just saw a big knob on Facebook picking apart the recession and blaming Zionists. Now Hitler has not died in spirit as the same now hard left (they called themselves socialists as well) have the same views but just replace the word 'Jew' with 'Zionist'. Not all correspond but a pretty high correlation, enough to assume a connection with hating either/both. People who blame others for the problems in their life are going to bully people unless they grow up, which rarely seems to happen.
The news has been extremely quiet this week, outside and around me, and am finding it hard to do any more to make anything interesting happen. There's a fixed amount of data on the internet, as items in my house, and when you've found all the items in any set, like old road signs, you can't keep looking any more. I hope things pick up soon, even though the interesting period has been something quite recent I do miss it when it goes and it all appears to return to the way it was before. I can see how what they call raising your vibration works, and don't think it will drop much once you have whatever it seems at the time. Once you've seen a new system work you don't expect it to disappear. And a week since I took a photo- I did the whole snow lot in February and besides the roads being unusable they'd all have looked the same if I had got anywhere. There was a bit more TV on today and had to wait in for the cleaner so missed a trip I intended to make when the sun was out. Then I heard the main road was down to a single lane and backed up for miles, and the cleaner was caught in it for an hour as well. So I stayed in besides a trip to replace the milk I got from a less reputable outlet that packed up two days before it was supposed to. I really haven't achieved a lot this week as there wasn't a lot left to do indoors. There aren't any friends for miles and can't go out in the evenings to the few who may have me while the roads are iced over. Of course my grandma took up two evenings a week for some years till June, but where she lives I may not have got to either as the top of a very steep hill and people have been sliding down them here for a week. This time there's really very little else I could do.
I say it every time, I'll stop going on about it when they do, but if I ignore it they'll think they're right.
I do suspect many would do just that, if global warming was admitted as yet another 'mistake' (we know what that really means) then they'd just switch to something else, as they feel so victimised by the world if the people can't be blamed for having more money than them and actually daring to drive cars, then the Jews will be a very easy alternative target. With a recession I just saw a big knob on Facebook picking apart the recession and blaming Zionists. Now Hitler has not died in spirit as the same now hard left (they called themselves socialists as well) have the same views but just replace the word 'Jew' with 'Zionist'. Not all correspond but a pretty high correlation, enough to assume a connection with hating either/both. People who blame others for the problems in their life are going to bully people unless they grow up, which rarely seems to happen.
The news has been extremely quiet this week, outside and around me, and am finding it hard to do any more to make anything interesting happen. There's a fixed amount of data on the internet, as items in my house, and when you've found all the items in any set, like old road signs, you can't keep looking any more. I hope things pick up soon, even though the interesting period has been something quite recent I do miss it when it goes and it all appears to return to the way it was before. I can see how what they call raising your vibration works, and don't think it will drop much once you have whatever it seems at the time. Once you've seen a new system work you don't expect it to disappear. And a week since I took a photo- I did the whole snow lot in February and besides the roads being unusable they'd all have looked the same if I had got anywhere. There was a bit more TV on today and had to wait in for the cleaner so missed a trip I intended to make when the sun was out. Then I heard the main road was down to a single lane and backed up for miles, and the cleaner was caught in it for an hour as well. So I stayed in besides a trip to replace the milk I got from a less reputable outlet that packed up two days before it was supposed to. I really haven't achieved a lot this week as there wasn't a lot left to do indoors. There aren't any friends for miles and can't go out in the evenings to the few who may have me while the roads are iced over. Of course my grandma took up two evenings a week for some years till June, but where she lives I may not have got to either as the top of a very steep hill and people have been sliding down them here for a week. This time there's really very little else I could do.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Mafia wars in reality
Something I've been aware of for a long time is however powerful or apparently qualified a person is they seem to have huge holes in their intelligence. Mine were due to lack of knowledge and experience, and after many years of both, plus almost as many of training believe there are no longer any. This to me seems normal, yet when seemingly bright and qualified people miss the bleedin' obvious it makes me wonder how few people actually develop a blanket awareness or remain specialists but not able to comprehend apparently simple things for others?
If I don't understand something I have a strategy to learn, and that leads to a termination of opinions on a subject to an awareness what an answer is, the difference between belief and faith and knowledge. I and thank goodness many others (but still not enough) can easily scratch the surface of the political global warming soviet-style propaganda (all catchphrases and sanctions with no actual substance behind it) yet enough people fall for it who ought to know better. This applies to every other seemingly true situation that falls under close scrutiny, and those that seem confusing as well. There is a logical series of steps I was taught from college which anyone can use, and now with the internet can quickly fill any required gaps if uncertain until filled. I still don't know if I'm one of few or just many pretend they don't understand to rip people off.
I spent most of my time on photography this week, videos and scanning old stuff in when it gets dark early. It would be really nice to punctuate my activities with face to face conversation but can't have it all. I'm also searching more people on Facebook, and found two who haven't replied. Nothing new there. Not one council I enquired about old signs have either so pretty typical. Tomorrow is a mystery, there's plenty of paperwork when it really fizzles out and may well end up doing some. I used all my own resources this week so far but is always nice when others join in, like the Surrey sign that was found last weekend. The red sign triangle hasn't arrived yet and need it by Saturday if I can fit in on Sunday when someone's there. 50-50 I think. And some twat in a newspaper just predicted temperatures will rise by the maximum 6'. Now maybe the extreme bullshit level will shake many more people to awaken as such a claim is not one requiring an IQ of 150 to doubt, but a brain full stop. They know temperatures will rise by 6' after they've risen .4' till 1998 (no idea from when, they never mention that bit) and then, er, stopped.
So once they start rising again (they must have Alice's looking glass to see that) they know how much now? Did someone maybe give them God's phone number? Has Stephen Hawking used his wheelchair as an antenna and channeled the climate fairy? Please. They didn't know what our summer would be like this year and they're wittering on the world is ending as they need more taxes!
Get it?
Anyway, hopefully they've shot themselves in the foot with this one, as it's so ridiculous even the hoverers may question this level of certainty when absolutely no actual facts support it. The mafia are not just from Italy, they operate just the same at all levels and the equivalent is behind this one. They spend a fortune advertising and bribing scientists knowing they'll get more back in contracts (new taxes). Actually I'd like to move so should start becoming a climate change counsellor, helping people overwhelmed by all the changes in the world caused by our CO2 emissions. Why not join them as I need the money as much as anyone else. They have their script and despite no data actually supporting the claims stick to it regardless, just like the Nazis did. CO2 is the Jew of the 21st century and the bedwetters (as named by Lord Monckton) are the Nazis chasing them to their demise. The holocaust is financial so far, and will become technological, by destroying industry to 18th century standards, when finally killing millions of people when the first nuclear leak happens, as it has to.
So eventually their policies can and probably will cause another holocaust, they can't predict tomorrow's weather but I can safely say if they go nuclear one reactor will leak and we all know what happens then. Only the mafia could manage this on such a scale.
If I don't understand something I have a strategy to learn, and that leads to a termination of opinions on a subject to an awareness what an answer is, the difference between belief and faith and knowledge. I and thank goodness many others (but still not enough) can easily scratch the surface of the political global warming soviet-style propaganda (all catchphrases and sanctions with no actual substance behind it) yet enough people fall for it who ought to know better. This applies to every other seemingly true situation that falls under close scrutiny, and those that seem confusing as well. There is a logical series of steps I was taught from college which anyone can use, and now with the internet can quickly fill any required gaps if uncertain until filled. I still don't know if I'm one of few or just many pretend they don't understand to rip people off.
I spent most of my time on photography this week, videos and scanning old stuff in when it gets dark early. It would be really nice to punctuate my activities with face to face conversation but can't have it all. I'm also searching more people on Facebook, and found two who haven't replied. Nothing new there. Not one council I enquired about old signs have either so pretty typical. Tomorrow is a mystery, there's plenty of paperwork when it really fizzles out and may well end up doing some. I used all my own resources this week so far but is always nice when others join in, like the Surrey sign that was found last weekend. The red sign triangle hasn't arrived yet and need it by Saturday if I can fit in on Sunday when someone's there. 50-50 I think. And some twat in a newspaper just predicted temperatures will rise by the maximum 6'. Now maybe the extreme bullshit level will shake many more people to awaken as such a claim is not one requiring an IQ of 150 to doubt, but a brain full stop. They know temperatures will rise by 6' after they've risen .4' till 1998 (no idea from when, they never mention that bit) and then, er, stopped.
So once they start rising again (they must have Alice's looking glass to see that) they know how much now? Did someone maybe give them God's phone number? Has Stephen Hawking used his wheelchair as an antenna and channeled the climate fairy? Please. They didn't know what our summer would be like this year and they're wittering on the world is ending as they need more taxes!
Get it?
Anyway, hopefully they've shot themselves in the foot with this one, as it's so ridiculous even the hoverers may question this level of certainty when absolutely no actual facts support it. The mafia are not just from Italy, they operate just the same at all levels and the equivalent is behind this one. They spend a fortune advertising and bribing scientists knowing they'll get more back in contracts (new taxes). Actually I'd like to move so should start becoming a climate change counsellor, helping people overwhelmed by all the changes in the world caused by our CO2 emissions. Why not join them as I need the money as much as anyone else. They have their script and despite no data actually supporting the claims stick to it regardless, just like the Nazis did. CO2 is the Jew of the 21st century and the bedwetters (as named by Lord Monckton) are the Nazis chasing them to their demise. The holocaust is financial so far, and will become technological, by destroying industry to 18th century standards, when finally killing millions of people when the first nuclear leak happens, as it has to.
So eventually their policies can and probably will cause another holocaust, they can't predict tomorrow's weather but I can safely say if they go nuclear one reactor will leak and we all know what happens then. Only the mafia could manage this on such a scale.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Global warming, case closed.
My personal research into global warming has reached its conclusion and I reckon enough evidence for every neutral (not carbon neutral!) to agree. What started as a light hearted extra in the end of a few news reports as a wonderful relief to the impending ice age predicted for the previous 20 years became a man eating monster within a decade. People can, however deceived, see through a lie if it carries on long enough. It can't be maintained as evidence of the truth slowly creeps through the farago of nonsense they put up.
In the last few weeks the final nails went in the coffin. Studies showed world average climate stopped rising in 1998 (and only rose and fell for a few decades at a time prior to that regardless of industrial activity). So there is actually nothing called global warming, in the present anyhow. It's actually global cooling now as temperatures have been dropping now since December.
Then it was announced hurricanes and tornadoes did not increase with temperature, and actually went down a little. Another fear removed. And (this takes some research currently as it changes so much it's hard to find the full picture) after the great polar melts followed the great polar freeze. What melts big time freezes big time, that's nature.
Other experts are now admitting there are unlikely to be many deaths should there be global warming as the number of people dying of the cold now would more than cancel out anyone dying from heat or flooding, except the sea level figures which are rising have risen steadily at almost bugger all for over a century. And if they carry on at that level for another century they will have risen at very slightly more than bugger all, making bugger all difference even for the many generations to come that haven't yet been born the global warming promoters are warning of.
I could go on, but as a panel said on the radio, if this lot alone was presented in defence to a jury having heard the case for the prosecution none in the world could find them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Firstly a crime has to have been committed first, and the propaganda continues to repeat old predictions of 2-10' in a century as they haven't got a lot more to go on, plus the long discredited 'hockey stick' diagram, which started this whole fiasco off and moves now under its own momentum even after the engine's gone off. I have a legal background and smelt a rat as soon as the words 'carbon tax' were mentioned, plus the fact no one had reported any of the phenomena we were told would be associated with global warming. In fact studies taken from the many times it had been warmer in the past showed few people suffered and as we all know, it costs money to heat a house and nothing to freeze in the winter if you don't. There's no historic precedent for said disasters predicted, quite the opposite.
Anyhow, one by one scientists are having to admit each guess or measurement was wrong and sooner or later the governments will be forced to stop taxing us for something that no longer warrants the payment. In legal terms that would be called obtaining money by deception and the same juries would have no trouble finding them guilty of that. Criminal at worst and naive at best, but led by criminals who knew exactly what they were up to.
But do you think they'll give our money back when the gaff has been blown? My bum they will...
In the last few weeks the final nails went in the coffin. Studies showed world average climate stopped rising in 1998 (and only rose and fell for a few decades at a time prior to that regardless of industrial activity). So there is actually nothing called global warming, in the present anyhow. It's actually global cooling now as temperatures have been dropping now since December.
Then it was announced hurricanes and tornadoes did not increase with temperature, and actually went down a little. Another fear removed. And (this takes some research currently as it changes so much it's hard to find the full picture) after the great polar melts followed the great polar freeze. What melts big time freezes big time, that's nature.
Other experts are now admitting there are unlikely to be many deaths should there be global warming as the number of people dying of the cold now would more than cancel out anyone dying from heat or flooding, except the sea level figures which are rising have risen steadily at almost bugger all for over a century. And if they carry on at that level for another century they will have risen at very slightly more than bugger all, making bugger all difference even for the many generations to come that haven't yet been born the global warming promoters are warning of.
I could go on, but as a panel said on the radio, if this lot alone was presented in defence to a jury having heard the case for the prosecution none in the world could find them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Firstly a crime has to have been committed first, and the propaganda continues to repeat old predictions of 2-10' in a century as they haven't got a lot more to go on, plus the long discredited 'hockey stick' diagram, which started this whole fiasco off and moves now under its own momentum even after the engine's gone off. I have a legal background and smelt a rat as soon as the words 'carbon tax' were mentioned, plus the fact no one had reported any of the phenomena we were told would be associated with global warming. In fact studies taken from the many times it had been warmer in the past showed few people suffered and as we all know, it costs money to heat a house and nothing to freeze in the winter if you don't. There's no historic precedent for said disasters predicted, quite the opposite.
Anyhow, one by one scientists are having to admit each guess or measurement was wrong and sooner or later the governments will be forced to stop taxing us for something that no longer warrants the payment. In legal terms that would be called obtaining money by deception and the same juries would have no trouble finding them guilty of that. Criminal at worst and naive at best, but led by criminals who knew exactly what they were up to.
But do you think they'll give our money back when the gaff has been blown? My bum they will...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
