Human development requires a motivation, so a calm sea does not make a good sailor, you need something to happen to allow you to see your innate abilities or test your weaknesses and remove your faults. Once you know that then one of the biggest faults in humanity is its trust in authority. Although many either have the brains or the means to learn things for themselves, someone else qualified or not tells them something and they think it has to be right. Except if two tell them something different they then rely on a third one to tell them which was right, ad infinitum.
Originally I saw this as a situation meaning those at the level above looking down would never see a change, this was how it is and we were basically stuck in a them and us situation. And then I realised telling someone about it, that if the mass of the world are exposed unanimously to a huge lie, then at first of course most will believe it, but if a few start to see the truth and gradually the others follow, then in future they will have joined those the level above as no longer believing their 'betters', and also realise they are not worse either and can either test anyone else's claims or better still find out directly if possible without needing others to tell them. This means that this form of oppression is not with bars or violence, but purely the power of people's minds. If you are told a lie where the truth is available, then all you need to do is stop believing it. Nobody has any power over anyone by lying to them as there is simply no foundation on the claim. So we have not been chained to bombs which will go off if we attempt to escape, or banned from leaving our towns by law, but simply told by our governments something will happen (it hasn't happen yet, that's the kicker), which even by a direct extrapolation can clearly be seen to be virtual nonsense. I did some simple checks we can all do which provide such massive 'reasonable doubts' even with them alone there is no case for either action or any belief at all. None whatsoever. The data grows to contradict it every week now, and you'd actually have to be thick as pig manure to still believe it once you know the new doubts. Even if it was true, the data does not indicate it so as yet it is someone's theory (Svente Arrhenius) which has no real world evidence no more than suggestive a couple of elements are correct which in a criminal case would not even make a submission to the crown prosecutor.
Therefore we the people have the doors which can be opened directly, there are no keys as no locks and can simply be opened by discovery they are open. As yet these gumps don't even know there is a door, and are sitting in their man made (Al Gore) cell seeing no chance of ever leaving it and at best handing it over to their grandchildren in 90 years if we can reduce our CO2 emissions to negative. Now knowing the data they are already free. Man makes 3-6% of all atmospheric CO2, so reduce our output totally, and it will only remove that much. Each new step on the Gore ladder drops you another rung as it breaks the second you put the weight of scrutiny on it, so when you look at the divergence from the 20 year IPCC predictions we are now below the lowest, the sea level has never risen more than 8 inches a century for thousands of years and is now falling, the polar ice has not melted overall, and our esteemed consensus told us that the Himalayan glacier chain was losing 50 billion tons of water a year, till someone decided to measure it and found they'd lost none for 10 years. They lied guys, big time. If they didn't lie, then they are even thicker than their intended victims as you won't get a chef saying they've put a pinch of salt in the soup when they've put in a bag or vice versa. Normal people in normal jobs rarely screw up like that and when they do they get sacked. These bods have got Nobel Prizes and billions in grants ($2.5 in the US alone) and will lie to their own children if that keeps it going. I'm sure they do as if they didn't they don't yet have the thick shell that would allow them to go to school and tell the other kids 'My daddy doesn't really think the world is warming but he wants the money'. So these a-holes even must lie to their children as they can't keep secrets.
Anyway, the point is that if the only power of a huge lie is in the people's belief it is true it has no power. None at all as there is nothing there. If you are in a cartoon and keep running till you realise you've run of a cliff and then fall then if you're in real life and someone tells you it's getting warmer and you pull out a thermometer and find it isn't (or someone else's using their satellite nowadays) then you see it isn't and the lie is gone. It's not like we need a black or white pregnancy type situation here, but just no case to answer from the null hypothesis, which requires a case beyond reasonable doubt before it is presented. There is no logic involved in AGW whatsoever as requires a trust in predicting the future in a chaotic system and the belief that whatever the new data says, how far current readings diverge from predictions and how many scientists have been caught getting it wrong then you can't still believe the theory if you are logical. The two cannot exist together. So we all have logic to some extent, and if we'd simply drop our blind trust in authority and learn some trust in our own logic then we'd grow manyfold and their power would all but vanish.
Therefore if you want to wake up most people you give them a test, something which affects them all, and they only have their own brains to release themselves. That requires a collusion among the elite so they are unanimous in their lies so only the brainy ones realise it to start with, but as a lie then the longer it continues the fewer people can believe it as more clues will come out it is not true. So if that was the case, man made global warming now actually goes against the solid data yet despite now to me at least clearly being no more than a huge revenue collection exercise and I can probably prove it, most people are still turning down their heating and living more and more like third world paupers as they are terrified they'll all die otherwise. Fear of death, especially for your children, motivates people above all else, and that's Al Gore's continuing meme, the sort of thing which would put a biblical character in the pits of fire for eternity for imposing on his people. Think King Herod and you'll be pretty well on the button. But if the result is the awakening of billions of people worldwide, who will then write it for the next generations to see, that they had the new ability to open their minds and think for themselves, then this world government would simply have been the means to get the hard of thinking to bloody well think for the first time in their lives.
Seeing it like that then my role is not of a rescuer, but more a bystander as long as people will wake up simply by noticing they have been told things are not as they really are. I will always offer data where possible, but the psychological attempts to talk to individuals in great time and detail may not be either necessary or the best way at all to work, as this ought to have a momentum of its own, a gravitational force driving the mass consciousness closer and closer to release from the chains of illusion. My own path was not any different, as of course a band of scientists saying the temperature is rising with CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is logical enough, and if they said the sea would rise yards then who am I to argue. That was in the 80s and no internet to hand. Some years later I wondered how it was going (this was before climate laws so the governments didn't talk about it much, just the odd newspaper), and couldn't find anything at all. The sea level it turned out had hardly ever risen for centuries and still wasn't, while all the other claims in the reports were about 80% higher than reality. I realised it was just another hype and left it behind like Harold Camping and Planet X. But when governments then banded together and stole money and freedoms based on absolutely nothing at all (the changes since the 80s have been notable in their ordinariness, besides that naughty CO2) then I had to tell the world.
A decade later and maybe two people have questioned their beliefs from thousands. Not a good price-dividend ratio, although one mind gained is a miracle I just haven't got the time to spend in detailed conversations for a 0.01% success rate. But if the purpose of this is to provide a lie which is easily seen through for the whole world, so they can fight the way out of the paper bags themselves then it will be a valuable lesson to maturity for those old in age but young in mind. If I can trust the system to work itself out, and the power of Obama, Gore, Cameron, Monbiot, Lovelock, Mann, Hansen etc will all evaporate away just as their wild predictions already have. You can be the president of the United States or head of the mafia (or both) but if you tell a lie it can never become true whoever says it. They may be being used to get the masses out of their sleep and those of us already awake may not have to be the alarm after all.
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Friday, December 30, 2011
Beginner's summary on global warming
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.
----------------------------------------
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.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The myth of big oil opposing climate laws
All the time the soggy wets on the warming side roll out the stock neo-fascist phrase 'well of course this study to dismiss global warming is funded by the fossil fuel industry'. It's simplistic and moronic mindsets like that which allow the thieves to come to our houses while the residents have left the doors open, the keys for their car and the bedroom door to their wives and daughters open with a free pack of condoms ready. Exploitation is cruel and immoral. This is the true situation.
1) There is no such thing as 'big oil'. The accused companies are actually 'energy companies'. They produce and sell power. They do not care how they do it as their sole motive is profit.
2) Therefore Shell, BP, Exxon-Mobil etc will sell as much 'green energy' as they can if it makes them a profit. The fact that these have been promoted (enforced in many countries by law) using tax subsidies guarantees a level of profit above and beyond fossil fuel.
3) Climate policies restrict the use and exploration of fossil fuel. This has one single effect. It raises the price of the reserves. Consumption remains stable as fuel is an essential, and as a result is not sensitive to price rises.
4) Therefore existing gas and oil reserves are now worth way over their market price, ramping up the value of all oil companies' assets for no added effort.
5) Carbon credits made billions for energy companies in the EU as they were given free and sold on the markets, again, for absolutely no added work. If at a future date, they are paid for this all just gets passed onto the consumers as energy is not price sensitive as we would die without it.
6) Knowing 1-5 it comes as no surprise that much of the funding for research to promote the theory of man made warming comes as much from energy companies as activist groups. They know they are not against it even if everyone here does not.
1) There is no such thing as 'big oil'. The accused companies are actually 'energy companies'. They produce and sell power. They do not care how they do it as their sole motive is profit.
2) Therefore Shell, BP, Exxon-Mobil etc will sell as much 'green energy' as they can if it makes them a profit. The fact that these have been promoted (enforced in many countries by law) using tax subsidies guarantees a level of profit above and beyond fossil fuel.
3) Climate policies restrict the use and exploration of fossil fuel. This has one single effect. It raises the price of the reserves. Consumption remains stable as fuel is an essential, and as a result is not sensitive to price rises.
4) Therefore existing gas and oil reserves are now worth way over their market price, ramping up the value of all oil companies' assets for no added effort.
5) Carbon credits made billions for energy companies in the EU as they were given free and sold on the markets, again, for absolutely no added work. If at a future date, they are paid for this all just gets passed onto the consumers as energy is not price sensitive as we would die without it.
6) Knowing 1-5 it comes as no surprise that much of the funding for research to promote the theory of man made warming comes as much from energy companies as activist groups. They know they are not against it even if everyone here does not.
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.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Global warming: The conspiracy
There have been two overt threads leading to the current hysteria about man made CO2 emissions causing global warming, which joined together around the time they began but can't be sure which came first, although that is not important.
Al Gore was originally fascinated by his lecturer (while doing an arts degree at Harvard, he was poor at science and only took the course due to the American system of minor subjects) Roger Revelle's personal theory that this may be possible and happening, and like a man falls in love instantly across a crowded room, Al took this to his heart and although the late Mr Revelle changed his mind on retirement and told anyone who would listen that he was wrong, it was too late. Al had fallen, and dismissed Revelle as being senile.
To follow Gore to the present, as he joined the parallel bandwagon around the early 90s or before so became the mouthpiece of the movement worldwide, his main interest in global warming was not the environment, but a financial one. His film 'An Inconvenient Truth' was found to have at least ten 'material errors' (ie lies) in a British civil court, and was only the alarmist advertisement for his financial concerns. Right at the beginning, he worked out there was a vast source of profit from this assertion, and worked with Ken Lay, before the collapse of his Enron company, on how best to go about this route. Enron later collapsed after being found to have invented both profits and products, basically paper energy notes based on the collection of non-existent future profits. This worked long enough to collect millions, and I do not know what happened to these after the trial, but can only presume they were not confiscated so the job was done.
Rather than dying with the company, Enron energy credits were reborn, now legally with UN/IPCC assent as carbon credits, buying something that does not belong to the seller, cannot be delivered and conveys no actual benefit. This is the perfect crime. In addition to creating a fictional exchange system Al didn't stop there, but set up his own company, to which he now pays his own massive credits into, as well as collecting from others. This has made him from a millionaire to a billionaire so clearly works. The compliance from the authorities has been to let carbon trading and credits work on voluntary regulation so there is (as in 2011) no contract or guarantee as to where your money goes.
The second limb of the conspiracy is that carbon trading, as opposed to credits, is like car insurance in a growing number of countries. It is not something you risk as a seasoned investor (as did the customers of Bernie Madoff who wasn't sanctioned by the UN) but are forced to do by law if your country legislates for it. A win-win situation for the traders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Gore dealt with, there is a collective conspiracy not even needing a hacker to discover as with Climategate, although there is a connection between the two I will mention soon. The 1991 report The First Global Revolution, of the Club of Rome, an international policy group manned by some of the most powerful people in the world, openly stated:
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
"Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe."
http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13088153/Club-of-Rome-The-First-Global-Revolution
Video here http://www.youtube.com/user/satguru?feature=mhee#p/a/f/0/pQAc8RteZT4
Their previous report from the 70s was indeed an extremely sensible one, published as a book, to keep world population stable, and received virtually no publicity and absolutely no policy changes, remaining to this day a framework to manage the world's real elephant in the room which is a definite threat as unlike our temperatures it is already spiralling out of control. But their second try, possibly as there is a huge opportunity for financial gain from it rather than simply conserving the planet, was a raving success. Mikail Gorbachev joined the team on retirement from Soviet affairs, as an expert in such areas of oppressing the masses, and in 1996 restated their position:
"The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order"
The Wildlands Project http://www.libertymatters.org/ahri-wildlands-rpt.htm
"The environmental issue will bring far more people into the communist movement than peace ever did" Karl Blau, assistant to Mikhail Gorbachev
So it is not 'Why would there be a conspiracy, who would profit?' or 'Show me a conspiracy' but 'Here's the conspiracy'. Just because getting all the pieces of the jigsaw isn't as easy as watching a scary movie, it is both possible and completed. It won't be shown by the BBC or many other outlets however, as the BBC are now working for the enemy. As I suspected long before it was discovered that carbon trading was no 'like Enron' but was Enron, it was pretty obvious, as well as being confirmed by Peter Sissons, Johnny Ball and David Bellamy, who among others fell foul of their one sided policy, breached their charter by acting as a mouthpiece for an organisation set up to spread the message, Globe International. As the BBC are supposed to be balanced and independent, not in theory but by law, acting for a group who have a single agenda is not within their charter, their argument presumably being as long as they are not being paid to do so then it is fine, is hardly convincing. And to tie up another loose end, an officer of Globe International is Lord Roxborough, the very head of the enquiry who found the CRU at East Anglia University not guilty in the climategate enquiry.This is not just a conflict of interests, but as such legally Ultra Vires. That is a decision where there is the chance of a conflict of interests, whether or not it exists, is void ab initio under equity law. So technically as someone on a board specifically to support the work of the CRU, the main supplier of IPCC figures, is not qualified to judge them when they screw up, that exoneration never existed and must have another enquiry with a new head. as if they would.
I am personally a great fan of Buddhism, although know little about the Dalai Lama assumed he was working both for them and Tibet, until he recently made a speech about global warming being a major threat. Guess who he works for, yes, he's in the Club of Rome. They've even bagged a religious leader. Without a forensic accountant and a warrant I can't state the exact investments of all its members along with Globe International, but public shareholder records are not secret and David Cameron, along with other cabinet members and their families, have all got large investments in the very 'green energy' projects they have legislated to subsidies with our taxes. Not an illegal conflict of interests but still wrong. And remember black Monday, when the British economy lost billions in a single day due to speculation crashing the pound when it joined the ERM? The main player (again, simply playing the system as we all can if have enough to risk on it) was George Soros, who recently joined the campaign and invested vast sums himself in wind and solar power. Just look what happened to his last investment to see the likely results.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Despite open and less open statements and acts being revealed, I still find a blank response by believers who would rather trust data than the people who generated it, in an interview just before the Cancun Summit in 2010, a top IPCC officer, Ottmar Edenhofer, was interviewed and simply stated:
"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."
Despite this being able to stand alone, the background and history is essential to see to show Edenhofer is not speaking as a rogue individual (despite representing one of the most powerful groups on earth) but simply stating what has always been. Why he chose to 'come out' as he did remains uncertain, but around a year later can say this was not read beyond the internet, and there was absolutely no reaction among the believers, just as if Santa had dropped his beard and shown to be your father yet you still put the stocking out every following year. That is a human failing rather than a failing of the evidence, as pride and kudos will blind most people to actual facts, especially combined with the most powerful evil of all, fear, and not just for yourself (as we'll be ok) but your unborn grandchildren. But remove the mist of emotion and greed and these are the facts, take them or leave them.
If drawn as a spider's web going downwards with time, you can see a general birth around 1990, as I can't say exactly who decided the Club of Rome decision (although its members are known and the report is all online as linked here). Don't be diverted by trees in the wood looking for individual motives and actions, they are all the fruit of a single tree, a decision to invent a problem to create a reaction and then offer the pre-written solution we would never have accepted had there not been a problem, much like losing our liberty for security after 9/11, something Benjamin Franklin said over 100 years earlier, whoever does this deserves neither. It's an old trick and one despite being exposed time after time will always succeed as long as people trust those in authority. Once those at the top go bad, it is very difficult for those lower down not to follow or lose their children's school fees. Even the most honest and genuine scientists don't want to go bankrupt as those mortgages have to be paid and won't be if they are ostracised from the profession as a handful such as David Bellamy already claim to have been. The reason 'senile' (to quote Al Gore) ex-professors have always been the most vociferous opponents of global warming is they have nothing to lose. Think about it.
Al Gore was originally fascinated by his lecturer (while doing an arts degree at Harvard, he was poor at science and only took the course due to the American system of minor subjects) Roger Revelle's personal theory that this may be possible and happening, and like a man falls in love instantly across a crowded room, Al took this to his heart and although the late Mr Revelle changed his mind on retirement and told anyone who would listen that he was wrong, it was too late. Al had fallen, and dismissed Revelle as being senile.
To follow Gore to the present, as he joined the parallel bandwagon around the early 90s or before so became the mouthpiece of the movement worldwide, his main interest in global warming was not the environment, but a financial one. His film 'An Inconvenient Truth' was found to have at least ten 'material errors' (ie lies) in a British civil court, and was only the alarmist advertisement for his financial concerns. Right at the beginning, he worked out there was a vast source of profit from this assertion, and worked with Ken Lay, before the collapse of his Enron company, on how best to go about this route. Enron later collapsed after being found to have invented both profits and products, basically paper energy notes based on the collection of non-existent future profits. This worked long enough to collect millions, and I do not know what happened to these after the trial, but can only presume they were not confiscated so the job was done.
Rather than dying with the company, Enron energy credits were reborn, now legally with UN/IPCC assent as carbon credits, buying something that does not belong to the seller, cannot be delivered and conveys no actual benefit. This is the perfect crime. In addition to creating a fictional exchange system Al didn't stop there, but set up his own company, to which he now pays his own massive credits into, as well as collecting from others. This has made him from a millionaire to a billionaire so clearly works. The compliance from the authorities has been to let carbon trading and credits work on voluntary regulation so there is (as in 2011) no contract or guarantee as to where your money goes.
The second limb of the conspiracy is that carbon trading, as opposed to credits, is like car insurance in a growing number of countries. It is not something you risk as a seasoned investor (as did the customers of Bernie Madoff who wasn't sanctioned by the UN) but are forced to do by law if your country legislates for it. A win-win situation for the traders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Gore dealt with, there is a collective conspiracy not even needing a hacker to discover as with Climategate, although there is a connection between the two I will mention soon. The 1991 report The First Global Revolution, of the Club of Rome, an international policy group manned by some of the most powerful people in the world, openly stated:
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
"Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe."
http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13088153/Club-of-Rome-The-First-Global-Revolution
Video here http://www.youtube.com/user/satguru?feature=mhee#p/a/f/0/pQAc8RteZT4
Their previous report from the 70s was indeed an extremely sensible one, published as a book, to keep world population stable, and received virtually no publicity and absolutely no policy changes, remaining to this day a framework to manage the world's real elephant in the room which is a definite threat as unlike our temperatures it is already spiralling out of control. But their second try, possibly as there is a huge opportunity for financial gain from it rather than simply conserving the planet, was a raving success. Mikail Gorbachev joined the team on retirement from Soviet affairs, as an expert in such areas of oppressing the masses, and in 1996 restated their position:
"The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order"
The Wildlands Project http://www.libertymatters.org/ahri-wildlands-rpt.htm
"The environmental issue will bring far more people into the communist movement than peace ever did" Karl Blau, assistant to Mikhail Gorbachev
So it is not 'Why would there be a conspiracy, who would profit?' or 'Show me a conspiracy' but 'Here's the conspiracy'. Just because getting all the pieces of the jigsaw isn't as easy as watching a scary movie, it is both possible and completed. It won't be shown by the BBC or many other outlets however, as the BBC are now working for the enemy. As I suspected long before it was discovered that carbon trading was no 'like Enron' but was Enron, it was pretty obvious, as well as being confirmed by Peter Sissons, Johnny Ball and David Bellamy, who among others fell foul of their one sided policy, breached their charter by acting as a mouthpiece for an organisation set up to spread the message, Globe International. As the BBC are supposed to be balanced and independent, not in theory but by law, acting for a group who have a single agenda is not within their charter, their argument presumably being as long as they are not being paid to do so then it is fine, is hardly convincing. And to tie up another loose end, an officer of Globe International is Lord Roxborough, the very head of the enquiry who found the CRU at East Anglia University not guilty in the climategate enquiry.This is not just a conflict of interests, but as such legally Ultra Vires. That is a decision where there is the chance of a conflict of interests, whether or not it exists, is void ab initio under equity law. So technically as someone on a board specifically to support the work of the CRU, the main supplier of IPCC figures, is not qualified to judge them when they screw up, that exoneration never existed and must have another enquiry with a new head. as if they would.
I am personally a great fan of Buddhism, although know little about the Dalai Lama assumed he was working both for them and Tibet, until he recently made a speech about global warming being a major threat. Guess who he works for, yes, he's in the Club of Rome. They've even bagged a religious leader. Without a forensic accountant and a warrant I can't state the exact investments of all its members along with Globe International, but public shareholder records are not secret and David Cameron, along with other cabinet members and their families, have all got large investments in the very 'green energy' projects they have legislated to subsidies with our taxes. Not an illegal conflict of interests but still wrong. And remember black Monday, when the British economy lost billions in a single day due to speculation crashing the pound when it joined the ERM? The main player (again, simply playing the system as we all can if have enough to risk on it) was George Soros, who recently joined the campaign and invested vast sums himself in wind and solar power. Just look what happened to his last investment to see the likely results.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Despite open and less open statements and acts being revealed, I still find a blank response by believers who would rather trust data than the people who generated it, in an interview just before the Cancun Summit in 2010, a top IPCC officer, Ottmar Edenhofer, was interviewed and simply stated:
"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."
Despite this being able to stand alone, the background and history is essential to see to show Edenhofer is not speaking as a rogue individual (despite representing one of the most powerful groups on earth) but simply stating what has always been. Why he chose to 'come out' as he did remains uncertain, but around a year later can say this was not read beyond the internet, and there was absolutely no reaction among the believers, just as if Santa had dropped his beard and shown to be your father yet you still put the stocking out every following year. That is a human failing rather than a failing of the evidence, as pride and kudos will blind most people to actual facts, especially combined with the most powerful evil of all, fear, and not just for yourself (as we'll be ok) but your unborn grandchildren. But remove the mist of emotion and greed and these are the facts, take them or leave them.
If drawn as a spider's web going downwards with time, you can see a general birth around 1990, as I can't say exactly who decided the Club of Rome decision (although its members are known and the report is all online as linked here). Don't be diverted by trees in the wood looking for individual motives and actions, they are all the fruit of a single tree, a decision to invent a problem to create a reaction and then offer the pre-written solution we would never have accepted had there not been a problem, much like losing our liberty for security after 9/11, something Benjamin Franklin said over 100 years earlier, whoever does this deserves neither. It's an old trick and one despite being exposed time after time will always succeed as long as people trust those in authority. Once those at the top go bad, it is very difficult for those lower down not to follow or lose their children's school fees. Even the most honest and genuine scientists don't want to go bankrupt as those mortgages have to be paid and won't be if they are ostracised from the profession as a handful such as David Bellamy already claim to have been. The reason 'senile' (to quote Al Gore) ex-professors have always been the most vociferous opponents of global warming is they have nothing to lose. Think about it.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
A cautionary tale
Just imagine this scenario. Some nutjob state (eg the UK) under orders from a higher authority (eg the EU) hooks up a small town to 100% renewables. Because of a newly elected Green council (high on rhetoric, but painfully low on facts) they want to prove their commitment to clean energy and zero emissions, so rely entirely on wind and solar, as one of their older members refused to pass the law if nuclear was included (despite being on their approved list).
What their lack of application allowed through was to include the local hospital on to this grid. Soon after the coal fired station was bulldozed and a statue of Stalin erected on its rubble one of the council leader's elderly parents suffered a heart attack and had to go on life support. That night (ie the solar panels, like most of the people, were sleeping) the wind increased (ie not stopped or dropped below the threshhold) so much that it breached the maximum working limit on the windmills (how many people know it has that?) and as built, they cut out to stop the system overloading. As the only two sources of power had run out within minutes the whole town went dark, and as the old hospital backup generator, used during the power cuts of the 70s had been disconnected when the law was passed as it ran on dangerous diesel, every machine in the hospital suddenly ground to a halt, and within a couple of minutes the woman was dead, as were all the other patients on life support.
In an interview the following day the councillor said that 'Although of course I deeply regret the death of my mother, the cost benefit of lives saved now and in the future from climate change mean far fewer people will die overall from this policy than have died last night. As a result we will continue with our policy for the sake of the planet.'
How long will it take before each of these scenarios becomes reality?
What their lack of application allowed through was to include the local hospital on to this grid. Soon after the coal fired station was bulldozed and a statue of Stalin erected on its rubble one of the council leader's elderly parents suffered a heart attack and had to go on life support. That night (ie the solar panels, like most of the people, were sleeping) the wind increased (ie not stopped or dropped below the threshhold) so much that it breached the maximum working limit on the windmills (how many people know it has that?) and as built, they cut out to stop the system overloading. As the only two sources of power had run out within minutes the whole town went dark, and as the old hospital backup generator, used during the power cuts of the 70s had been disconnected when the law was passed as it ran on dangerous diesel, every machine in the hospital suddenly ground to a halt, and within a couple of minutes the woman was dead, as were all the other patients on life support.
In an interview the following day the councillor said that 'Although of course I deeply regret the death of my mother, the cost benefit of lives saved now and in the future from climate change mean far fewer people will die overall from this policy than have died last night. As a result we will continue with our policy for the sake of the planet.'
How long will it take before each of these scenarios becomes reality?
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.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
World domination has come
I wonder how many people here have been blogging for nearly 7 years (it would have been longer had I know of this site earlier) without a gap- none of the people I read at the start even have blogs mainly let alone add to them, and most of the ones I've followed since haven't posted in months or years. I do find more at Facebook myself now as well as blogging on a small site where I know everyone as well as this, but it's in the archives and Sky-Hi Lee is still one of the only mentions of him on the web and gets regular hits, like my main site which was built to fill spaces where other data hadn't been posted anywhere else.
I am currently in the first stages of my latest spiritual work, but one I believe to be capable of delivery. I'll mention more if there's more to mention but the results seem to be fairly hard to question so far. In the material world I've been making long photo runs a few times a week now this year, and starting to run out of reasonable trips within my current capabilities. No doubt something else will turn up and as long as I've completed that mission will be quite happy as it is. The news outside is dismal, on the verge of a nuclear disaster in Japan, not if but when of course as it's a monster only safe while contained. And the bill do decommission our own in the UK came out today, many billions over decades to mop up any savings while they were working. Madness.
Otherwise we have Libya, where the whole Arab world operates in more or less the same way (as they are today) simply replacing one savage dictator and regime with another as that is their personal version of government and should be left to rot in their own filth. Many who do object to such regimes do not challenge them but escape and come here and similar places like Norway and Canada who revel in welcoming refugees from around the world regardless of quality and room available (precisely zero in the UK for one). Despite fraud cropping up in virtually every graph the global warming wars are ploughing ahead full speed- the EU will ban cars from cities now by 2050, confirming their total hatred of freedom and in fact turning Europe tomorrow into exactly the same as the Arab world today. Indeed, instead of trying to raise the Arabs up to our current level (as if it was possible) in fact we are falling towards theirs and the Chinese levels of totalitarian collectivism and god help all of us if they complete this mission.
I am currently in the first stages of my latest spiritual work, but one I believe to be capable of delivery. I'll mention more if there's more to mention but the results seem to be fairly hard to question so far. In the material world I've been making long photo runs a few times a week now this year, and starting to run out of reasonable trips within my current capabilities. No doubt something else will turn up and as long as I've completed that mission will be quite happy as it is. The news outside is dismal, on the verge of a nuclear disaster in Japan, not if but when of course as it's a monster only safe while contained. And the bill do decommission our own in the UK came out today, many billions over decades to mop up any savings while they were working. Madness.
Otherwise we have Libya, where the whole Arab world operates in more or less the same way (as they are today) simply replacing one savage dictator and regime with another as that is their personal version of government and should be left to rot in their own filth. Many who do object to such regimes do not challenge them but escape and come here and similar places like Norway and Canada who revel in welcoming refugees from around the world regardless of quality and room available (precisely zero in the UK for one). Despite fraud cropping up in virtually every graph the global warming wars are ploughing ahead full speed- the EU will ban cars from cities now by 2050, confirming their total hatred of freedom and in fact turning Europe tomorrow into exactly the same as the Arab world today. Indeed, instead of trying to raise the Arabs up to our current level (as if it was possible) in fact we are falling towards theirs and the Chinese levels of totalitarian collectivism and god help all of us if they complete this mission.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The world is a mess but we could fix it.
I am never going to question the value of the internet again. I came home last night and it was down, I spent the time I would have been on phoning India (ie over half an hour waiting for an answer) and if they sent the engineer today as arranged apparently can now fix many faults in the box outside and not even come in to see the result. The fact the operator checked the line for me today and said it was intermittent but if I can watch video to leave it as it is was good enough, I am able to get on with my life. The research alone I do would be almost impossible otherwise, before you add in the quizzing and social side. So a definite asset, any downside is no different from any other excess in life, nothing is designed to be overused, even your women...
So I think the question was using the internet both excessively and ahead of real life, which I always answer if I didn't have a real life first I'd have nothing to come back and report on the internet. It's my wife and family, which I either don't have or have intermittently depending which of the two I refer to. But neither are at home so hence the internet. It's similar to when people lived in communities and had family all around so didn't need professional counsellors, the role was always there but now requires strangers as most people don't have a proper community to support them now. And I suppose if it can change to the minus instantly it can turn back pretty quickly as well when the person arrives.
The trip to see the builders at my late grandma's was delayed another day so had it to myself unexpectedly today, I only managed a quick walk round the park before it got dark but then continued to catch up with phone calls and the like before anything came on TV to watch a lot later on.
I think it's about time Wikileaks released their UFO story, the rumours grow every day and as no one outside the group actually has a clue what the story is then the longer they wait the greater the chances they all have of being bumped of and having the information destroyed, let alone everyone wasting their time speculating. Meanwhile the latest claim that 2010 is the hottest year ever (they mean 1979 but as there are no laws to stop people lying per se then you have to check that independently) is shown to disagree with every other measurement, and prove how easy it is to create climate reports to order and not be challenged when discovered. The fact no one has been questioned on the latest revelations besides any other since the hockey stick and a possible case in New Zealand demonstrates far more that there is an agreement to keep the story going at all costs as otherwise people would be answering questions in enquiries around the world, with consequences once discovered for sure. But no, the authors are free to continue turning out what are now openly manipulated pictures, while their peers produce different unrelated versions as if this was the most normal thing on earth, while no one outside a tightly knit group of concerned citizens online gives a flying damn. As there is no law to snare these bastards with as yet (perversion of science isn't even a sacking offence if it attracts funding) then the fake climate graphs will continue to cause power cuts in the future, as well as massive travel restrictions and taxes we've never seen the like of.
Of course with the Royal Family and X Factor (take away the titles and the personnel are almost interchangeable, except the Royal Family aren't known as singers) people don't want to be concerned with their governments' activities as long as the TV is on and the Royals haven't been deposed. If the alien claims proved correct I doubt many people would even care, but if their favourite celebrity is kicked out of Strictly they'll dress up in sackcloth and ashes and sit shivah for a week. With such priorities they will basically get away with everything they want as people worldwide barely seem to vary when all are free to share their views online (outside the communist bloc of course). The fact that we are heading the same totalitarian way, familiar to anyone who's studied politics, is no more real than a cartoon film to them, but will suddenly wake up the day their computer cannot power up as there won't be any power. And their granny dies of hypothermia. Then it's too late. We can't predict the climate as it's too complex, but politics give you previews and trailers so we know exactly what they've got saved up for us. In Australia, as the UK, people chose to vote for 'green' policies, which is more or less asking to destroy your society in under a decade. The greens are yesterday's socialist workers and worse, and will do their best to bring capitalism and civilisation down, with your help if you vote for them. There are alternatives, and the US is the first country in the world who have voted some of them in, so there is a crack in the armour but it has to be widened before we can kill the giant.
So I think the question was using the internet both excessively and ahead of real life, which I always answer if I didn't have a real life first I'd have nothing to come back and report on the internet. It's my wife and family, which I either don't have or have intermittently depending which of the two I refer to. But neither are at home so hence the internet. It's similar to when people lived in communities and had family all around so didn't need professional counsellors, the role was always there but now requires strangers as most people don't have a proper community to support them now. And I suppose if it can change to the minus instantly it can turn back pretty quickly as well when the person arrives.
The trip to see the builders at my late grandma's was delayed another day so had it to myself unexpectedly today, I only managed a quick walk round the park before it got dark but then continued to catch up with phone calls and the like before anything came on TV to watch a lot later on.
I think it's about time Wikileaks released their UFO story, the rumours grow every day and as no one outside the group actually has a clue what the story is then the longer they wait the greater the chances they all have of being bumped of and having the information destroyed, let alone everyone wasting their time speculating. Meanwhile the latest claim that 2010 is the hottest year ever (they mean 1979 but as there are no laws to stop people lying per se then you have to check that independently) is shown to disagree with every other measurement, and prove how easy it is to create climate reports to order and not be challenged when discovered. The fact no one has been questioned on the latest revelations besides any other since the hockey stick and a possible case in New Zealand demonstrates far more that there is an agreement to keep the story going at all costs as otherwise people would be answering questions in enquiries around the world, with consequences once discovered for sure. But no, the authors are free to continue turning out what are now openly manipulated pictures, while their peers produce different unrelated versions as if this was the most normal thing on earth, while no one outside a tightly knit group of concerned citizens online gives a flying damn. As there is no law to snare these bastards with as yet (perversion of science isn't even a sacking offence if it attracts funding) then the fake climate graphs will continue to cause power cuts in the future, as well as massive travel restrictions and taxes we've never seen the like of.
Of course with the Royal Family and X Factor (take away the titles and the personnel are almost interchangeable, except the Royal Family aren't known as singers) people don't want to be concerned with their governments' activities as long as the TV is on and the Royals haven't been deposed. If the alien claims proved correct I doubt many people would even care, but if their favourite celebrity is kicked out of Strictly they'll dress up in sackcloth and ashes and sit shivah for a week. With such priorities they will basically get away with everything they want as people worldwide barely seem to vary when all are free to share their views online (outside the communist bloc of course). The fact that we are heading the same totalitarian way, familiar to anyone who's studied politics, is no more real than a cartoon film to them, but will suddenly wake up the day their computer cannot power up as there won't be any power. And their granny dies of hypothermia. Then it's too late. We can't predict the climate as it's too complex, but politics give you previews and trailers so we know exactly what they've got saved up for us. In Australia, as the UK, people chose to vote for 'green' policies, which is more or less asking to destroy your society in under a decade. The greens are yesterday's socialist workers and worse, and will do their best to bring capitalism and civilisation down, with your help if you vote for them. There are alternatives, and the US is the first country in the world who have voted some of them in, so there is a crack in the armour but it has to be widened before we can kill the giant.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Creating something from nothing
There is a long history of get rich quick schemes sold to the masses. The first and most famous is the South Sea Bubble of 1720, where worthless bonds were sold to finance a huge national debt (any similarities spotted already?) which of co...urse ended in tears for all except the few beneficiaries.
Modern examples have been best demonstrated by Enron, who created a form of accounting which used turnover to represent apparent profit, by hiding debts and losses off-balance sheet. This made the company value appear to grow by 750% in four years, encouraging many new people to invest, before the scheme unravelled in 2001 when discovered to be fraudulent.
Bernie Madoff revived the also ancient Ponzi scheme, where a high rate of return is guaranteed with no questions asked, and the new investors are paid by following ones until they stop and the lower levels are never paid as no new money is coming in to keep the momentum going.
Blind short selling requires offering to provide an item at the end of the month you not only do not have, but unlike normal short selling, are unable to procure. This means if the price rises rather than falls and you are obliged to sell the item you will not be able to, which will open you to a civil action but not automatically a criminal one as this is not essentially illegal.
What is illegal but still common worldwide are the simple get rich quick pyramid schemes, simply based on paying the person ahead of you. As this multiplies the number of members on each level by itself to keep going it has a natural end point where it requires too many thousands of people to join, when it will collapse and everyone below the top few levels lose their money.
Traditionally value has to be based on commodities or added value via converting them to goods, or providing services. But man has always wanted to get rich easily and quickly regardless of any actual production, so new means of fleecing the public, legal or otherwise, will always be thought up and many will succeed before blowing out.
The end result of all though is identical, the money ends up with the few who run the scheme and their friends who join it at the start, while everyone else loses all or nearly all of their 'investments'.
Carbon Trading is the latest incarnation of the South Sea Bubble, where something is being sold that doesn't actually exist and in fact never can. The trades are in taxation, where they initially rely on countries issuing tougher and tougher laws meaning the tax they've already bought or sold will change in value thus making the winner a profit. This of course as well as being immoral has no actual bearing on the ostensible purpose of 'saving the climate' as they are not stopping carbon being burnt, but charging to do so. The traders are mainly normal traders rather than energy users, so in fact are not connected to industry at all but are simply parasites on it like lice or leeches.
In this incarnation the people are the patsys, as they are the ones forced to stump up the end profits by law whether they like it or not. This is either carried out by direct personal carbon limits, which as yet are only in the planning stage but very likely to be imposed in the UK as the paper is already written, or indirectly as all carbon credit costs of industry are simply passed on to the customers who again can choose between heating their houses or turning on lights or sitting in the cold and dark, ie not a choice at all. So governments have found yet another method to create something from nothing, which hits the poor the most as the less income you have the more as a proportion it will take. This is compounded by allowing to trade it and inflate profits for those who do gain, until the same end as befalls all false finance schemes, the investors go broke.
This will happen generally, by causing a gradual rise in inflation as the value of every currency affected inevitably falls as based on no added production, and specifically by people losing all their savings on energy costs. As such this has created and will create even more poverty as it continues ultimately a Dickensian situation of people on the streets, begging and sleeping in shanty towns while the organisers and distributors become richer with their money. This is not communism of fascism but a grand scale fraud, where those running it are quite aware of what is going on but too well organised so far to stop.
Using the 'paedophile' formula, where you make people fear not for their own lives but those of their children, the 'average Joe' has clearly been shown to accept any solution offered to 'save their grandchildren' from a hypothetical hellfire, one which none of us will ever see as set too far in the future, yet if any look back when temperatures are still what we'd consider normal, some will say it had to be because the carbon trading must have worked. As long as the masses, for that is who they are using and relying on, are less interested in facts than fear they will win, and the only thing that can be predicted for the end of the century if carbon trading is continued then the average person will be living in shanty towns like anywhere in the third world today.
Modern examples have been best demonstrated by Enron, who created a form of accounting which used turnover to represent apparent profit, by hiding debts and losses off-balance sheet. This made the company value appear to grow by 750% in four years, encouraging many new people to invest, before the scheme unravelled in 2001 when discovered to be fraudulent.
Bernie Madoff revived the also ancient Ponzi scheme, where a high rate of return is guaranteed with no questions asked, and the new investors are paid by following ones until they stop and the lower levels are never paid as no new money is coming in to keep the momentum going.
Blind short selling requires offering to provide an item at the end of the month you not only do not have, but unlike normal short selling, are unable to procure. This means if the price rises rather than falls and you are obliged to sell the item you will not be able to, which will open you to a civil action but not automatically a criminal one as this is not essentially illegal.
What is illegal but still common worldwide are the simple get rich quick pyramid schemes, simply based on paying the person ahead of you. As this multiplies the number of members on each level by itself to keep going it has a natural end point where it requires too many thousands of people to join, when it will collapse and everyone below the top few levels lose their money.
Traditionally value has to be based on commodities or added value via converting them to goods, or providing services. But man has always wanted to get rich easily and quickly regardless of any actual production, so new means of fleecing the public, legal or otherwise, will always be thought up and many will succeed before blowing out.
The end result of all though is identical, the money ends up with the few who run the scheme and their friends who join it at the start, while everyone else loses all or nearly all of their 'investments'.
Carbon Trading is the latest incarnation of the South Sea Bubble, where something is being sold that doesn't actually exist and in fact never can. The trades are in taxation, where they initially rely on countries issuing tougher and tougher laws meaning the tax they've already bought or sold will change in value thus making the winner a profit. This of course as well as being immoral has no actual bearing on the ostensible purpose of 'saving the climate' as they are not stopping carbon being burnt, but charging to do so. The traders are mainly normal traders rather than energy users, so in fact are not connected to industry at all but are simply parasites on it like lice or leeches.
In this incarnation the people are the patsys, as they are the ones forced to stump up the end profits by law whether they like it or not. This is either carried out by direct personal carbon limits, which as yet are only in the planning stage but very likely to be imposed in the UK as the paper is already written, or indirectly as all carbon credit costs of industry are simply passed on to the customers who again can choose between heating their houses or turning on lights or sitting in the cold and dark, ie not a choice at all. So governments have found yet another method to create something from nothing, which hits the poor the most as the less income you have the more as a proportion it will take. This is compounded by allowing to trade it and inflate profits for those who do gain, until the same end as befalls all false finance schemes, the investors go broke.
This will happen generally, by causing a gradual rise in inflation as the value of every currency affected inevitably falls as based on no added production, and specifically by people losing all their savings on energy costs. As such this has created and will create even more poverty as it continues ultimately a Dickensian situation of people on the streets, begging and sleeping in shanty towns while the organisers and distributors become richer with their money. This is not communism of fascism but a grand scale fraud, where those running it are quite aware of what is going on but too well organised so far to stop.
Using the 'paedophile' formula, where you make people fear not for their own lives but those of their children, the 'average Joe' has clearly been shown to accept any solution offered to 'save their grandchildren' from a hypothetical hellfire, one which none of us will ever see as set too far in the future, yet if any look back when temperatures are still what we'd consider normal, some will say it had to be because the carbon trading must have worked. As long as the masses, for that is who they are using and relying on, are less interested in facts than fear they will win, and the only thing that can be predicted for the end of the century if carbon trading is continued then the average person will be living in shanty towns like anywhere in the third world today.
Monday, September 13, 2010
How they do the warming trick
I think I'm getting there. The official figures say double CO2 from around 300ppm to 600ppm and you'll get a 1'C rise, then subject to positive feedback which could be as high as 6.5' at the top estimate. On paper the first figure would work as is the same as filling a greenhouse with CO2 and doubling it, and then extending that to the atmosphere. They even added that every other factor is irrelevant as the CO2 automatically raises the temperature by an exact base figure per amount increase.
This is a pretty clear equation even I have trouble disputing. But as I could see from such a simple (and purely hypothetical mental wank by statisticians and climatologists) formula so much more had been assumed I had to look into it further. Not being qualified in any area beyond O level, although I took (and passed) one maths/stats unit at degree level, I was no better at deciphering the following studies than anyone else, but had to try.
What I found may well explain how they can start (as the devil does) with 90% truth and then hide a lie in it. They have to have a base of fact or there's nothing to get confidence, and then when everyone is convinced they can extend the good stuff to cover basically whatever they like. This is done in two very clever ways, adjusting data and reducing uncertainty. I can't see that a graph is created from smoothing, selecting or rebasing but statisticians can. Some have even gone to the effort of pointing it out to help people like me who can't do it. Three so far have explained how the hockey stick, the holy grail of Al Gore and the IPCC, is created by all such methods, and universally ignored by anyone in charge for obvious reasons.
The hockey stick is created from three sets of data. Proxy data until 1860, adding thermometers till 1979 and then mainly satellite. The IPCC even admit the earliest data was partial and needed to be filled in (how do they manage that then?) meaning the error margin was far wider, but narrows up by the sharp rise in 1980. So they explain the coexistence of such methods, but however you look at it there's still this almost vertical line at the end. So uncertainty can no longer be used as a way to rebut it as according to the red satellite part it simply isn't uncertain and that is all higher than the last millenium.
But get a degree in maths and it all looks different, as they rebased it. I'll admit here I don't know what that means, except that they start the mean at a point away from the beginning, in this case around where it begins to rise. Further they have adjusted or smoothed the data in this and nearly every other graph of ice and sea levels as well as temperature to make it look exactly the same way, with ice falling (although the raw data which is available shows otherwise) and sea level rising (although many measurements show it is now virtually static). It seems that they can (and do) adjust every graph they create without question as besides their own no one can tell. Therefore the emails at CRU admitting they refuse (and continue to do so) to release the raw data behind the hockey stick means without raw data you can't do the before and after and see how they got it to change.
But someone else has been caught out, New Zealand's national climate people have got a hockey stick of their own, and when raw data was put in the angle dropped by about 75%. This is currently under trial and the results should follow soon. But it's a wonderful example and if proven to have cheated then ought to represent how the tricks are always done. Like the magicians who are exposed on TV, once you know it's no longer clever or an illusion, it's just someone fiddling the data.
So I think now people are finding ways to figure out how so many graphs rise in 1980 and most peak right now (highly in dispute) then if you remove the adjustments they ought to fall back by the same amount. So they start with good physics (the truth) and hide a lie in it (the adjustment).
Part two is known and a lot easier for anyone to follow. The levels of uncertainty are so great that it may be beyond a measurable significance whatever the IPCC say. Michael Shermer of the Skeptic magazine shows how they underestimated their uncertainty by about a factor of 10, making any predictions meaningless (as they all are in an open system). Star movements are fairly fixed so predictable for millions of years, but climate movements are not predictable beyond a rough cyclic framework. But if doubling CO2 raises base levels by 1'C then you can factor in feedback mechanisms to see how that will increase. What? Can you really? As man has never pumped extra CO2 in the atmosphere there's no history there at all. Nothing to go on. So we have the present (0.7'C rise in 150 years, quite typical coming out of a cold spell) and the future ( between 0.5-6.5'C by 2100).
This has become like the Lord's Prayer to warmists, as if thy kingdom come, thy warm be done. But it assumes the IPCC can actually predict climate boundaries within a reliable measure. Where's their track record for this? They haven't got one- it's never been done. But who thinks about that when thinking about the first psalm 'We've got to protect our unborn grandchildren'. That's fear and primal survival. Forget maths, stats and any other science, this is raw fear data. Pure emotion with no space left for any thought or science at all.
There are more and more detectives unravelling the tricks built into graphs worldwide, and besides Michael Shermer the logic behind the uncertainty is for anyone who looks to see. You can see the New Zealand trick here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/new-zealands-niwa-sued-over-climate-data-adjustments/
The hockey stick summary is here, linked to a book-length PDF
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26603
Thanks to James Delingpole for those two.
Here's the analysis of the uncertainty.
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html
Crime relies on being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Fraud always involves an element of truth, if well made enough will hide the lies until at least after the money is long gone, sometimes forever. How anyone can read these articles alone and not have some doubt is truly a test of their mental power.
This is a pretty clear equation even I have trouble disputing. But as I could see from such a simple (and purely hypothetical mental wank by statisticians and climatologists) formula so much more had been assumed I had to look into it further. Not being qualified in any area beyond O level, although I took (and passed) one maths/stats unit at degree level, I was no better at deciphering the following studies than anyone else, but had to try.
What I found may well explain how they can start (as the devil does) with 90% truth and then hide a lie in it. They have to have a base of fact or there's nothing to get confidence, and then when everyone is convinced they can extend the good stuff to cover basically whatever they like. This is done in two very clever ways, adjusting data and reducing uncertainty. I can't see that a graph is created from smoothing, selecting or rebasing but statisticians can. Some have even gone to the effort of pointing it out to help people like me who can't do it. Three so far have explained how the hockey stick, the holy grail of Al Gore and the IPCC, is created by all such methods, and universally ignored by anyone in charge for obvious reasons.
The hockey stick is created from three sets of data. Proxy data until 1860, adding thermometers till 1979 and then mainly satellite. The IPCC even admit the earliest data was partial and needed to be filled in (how do they manage that then?) meaning the error margin was far wider, but narrows up by the sharp rise in 1980. So they explain the coexistence of such methods, but however you look at it there's still this almost vertical line at the end. So uncertainty can no longer be used as a way to rebut it as according to the red satellite part it simply isn't uncertain and that is all higher than the last millenium.
But get a degree in maths and it all looks different, as they rebased it. I'll admit here I don't know what that means, except that they start the mean at a point away from the beginning, in this case around where it begins to rise. Further they have adjusted or smoothed the data in this and nearly every other graph of ice and sea levels as well as temperature to make it look exactly the same way, with ice falling (although the raw data which is available shows otherwise) and sea level rising (although many measurements show it is now virtually static). It seems that they can (and do) adjust every graph they create without question as besides their own no one can tell. Therefore the emails at CRU admitting they refuse (and continue to do so) to release the raw data behind the hockey stick means without raw data you can't do the before and after and see how they got it to change.
But someone else has been caught out, New Zealand's national climate people have got a hockey stick of their own, and when raw data was put in the angle dropped by about 75%. This is currently under trial and the results should follow soon. But it's a wonderful example and if proven to have cheated then ought to represent how the tricks are always done. Like the magicians who are exposed on TV, once you know it's no longer clever or an illusion, it's just someone fiddling the data.
So I think now people are finding ways to figure out how so many graphs rise in 1980 and most peak right now (highly in dispute) then if you remove the adjustments they ought to fall back by the same amount. So they start with good physics (the truth) and hide a lie in it (the adjustment).
Part two is known and a lot easier for anyone to follow. The levels of uncertainty are so great that it may be beyond a measurable significance whatever the IPCC say. Michael Shermer of the Skeptic magazine shows how they underestimated their uncertainty by about a factor of 10, making any predictions meaningless (as they all are in an open system). Star movements are fairly fixed so predictable for millions of years, but climate movements are not predictable beyond a rough cyclic framework. But if doubling CO2 raises base levels by 1'C then you can factor in feedback mechanisms to see how that will increase. What? Can you really? As man has never pumped extra CO2 in the atmosphere there's no history there at all. Nothing to go on. So we have the present (0.7'C rise in 150 years, quite typical coming out of a cold spell) and the future ( between 0.5-6.5'C by 2100).
This has become like the Lord's Prayer to warmists, as if thy kingdom come, thy warm be done. But it assumes the IPCC can actually predict climate boundaries within a reliable measure. Where's their track record for this? They haven't got one- it's never been done. But who thinks about that when thinking about the first psalm 'We've got to protect our unborn grandchildren'. That's fear and primal survival. Forget maths, stats and any other science, this is raw fear data. Pure emotion with no space left for any thought or science at all.
There are more and more detectives unravelling the tricks built into graphs worldwide, and besides Michael Shermer the logic behind the uncertainty is for anyone who looks to see. You can see the New Zealand trick here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/new-zealands-niwa-sued-over-climate-data-adjustments/
The hockey stick summary is here, linked to a book-length PDF
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26603
Thanks to James Delingpole for those two.
Here's the analysis of the uncertainty.
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html
Crime relies on being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Fraud always involves an element of truth, if well made enough will hide the lies until at least after the money is long gone, sometimes forever. How anyone can read these articles alone and not have some doubt is truly a test of their mental power.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Tuesday catch up.
I think I'm free now- the doctor, optician and barber aren't a big deal and at my leisure to call (barber first). No plans either but past worrying as I'm free and will make the most of it. While the Americans are crapping themselves over gay marriage and mosques on Facebook I realise what a shame it is people worry about harmless and irrelevant things that don't affect them while there are so many genuine issues to care about. They are confused and I could explain why but they won't hear until they are prepared to listen, which may be when hell freezes over.
As the Big Brother final's on all night my phone calls will have to wait another day, and spent today getting my strimmer back and finding how to make it work again and getting air in the car tyres, what used to be free anywhere and now spend more on petrol finding a free source that also works. I then cut all the front garden and will finish the hedge when I've done this here. After the roofer removed all but the few green tiles from my garage when I said he could have a few the ones removed from next door are now in a heap and coming my way as they are having the roof extended. The divorced woman opposite now has a whole side facing me rotted away and the whole side of the roof is being supported on nothing. She's just spent all her cash buying out her ex husband so doubt she can afford the roof repair, and if it collapses she'll be looking at ten times the amount. None of my business besides the fact I can see it all the time. The supporting beam is sagging more and more and now a foot gap between it and the roof where the edge tiles are now slipping off as a result. My guttering and boards already rotted and were replaced a few years ago before they got that bad so had the same ordeal already.
I wonder now if there are any jobs I haven't done, as when it's quiet I worry I may have missed something important I should be doing as well, but can't think of any. I have just got back another email saying my global warming enquiry was being dealt with, so not forgotten and currently setting up tables of data from the few scientists who get it to show the believers. Nothing less can work as I've discovered. And whatever the science the climate skeptics are all the nicest most sensible people I've come across while most of the believers are left wing, scatty, emotional and judgemental. It seems to follow the personalities, as the 'solutions' to supposed climate issues are purely based on cash extraction and curbing of freedoms, something the left have always been keen on. I've never trusted them all my life as taking people's money they earned legitimately seems the basis of a diseased ideology. Jealousy, resentment and judgement, resulting in the loss of freedom and individuality is something no one want, but the left want to impose it on others without realising if they actually lived in Cuba or North Korea they'd hate it as much as the right. After all, the leaders don't live the way the people do anyway so those imposing the system on the innocent are always outside it as they are using all that money extracted from them in the first place. The global warmists are trying to impose this worldwide and I am one person doing all I can to stop them.
As the Big Brother final's on all night my phone calls will have to wait another day, and spent today getting my strimmer back and finding how to make it work again and getting air in the car tyres, what used to be free anywhere and now spend more on petrol finding a free source that also works. I then cut all the front garden and will finish the hedge when I've done this here. After the roofer removed all but the few green tiles from my garage when I said he could have a few the ones removed from next door are now in a heap and coming my way as they are having the roof extended. The divorced woman opposite now has a whole side facing me rotted away and the whole side of the roof is being supported on nothing. She's just spent all her cash buying out her ex husband so doubt she can afford the roof repair, and if it collapses she'll be looking at ten times the amount. None of my business besides the fact I can see it all the time. The supporting beam is sagging more and more and now a foot gap between it and the roof where the edge tiles are now slipping off as a result. My guttering and boards already rotted and were replaced a few years ago before they got that bad so had the same ordeal already.
I wonder now if there are any jobs I haven't done, as when it's quiet I worry I may have missed something important I should be doing as well, but can't think of any. I have just got back another email saying my global warming enquiry was being dealt with, so not forgotten and currently setting up tables of data from the few scientists who get it to show the believers. Nothing less can work as I've discovered. And whatever the science the climate skeptics are all the nicest most sensible people I've come across while most of the believers are left wing, scatty, emotional and judgemental. It seems to follow the personalities, as the 'solutions' to supposed climate issues are purely based on cash extraction and curbing of freedoms, something the left have always been keen on. I've never trusted them all my life as taking people's money they earned legitimately seems the basis of a diseased ideology. Jealousy, resentment and judgement, resulting in the loss of freedom and individuality is something no one want, but the left want to impose it on others without realising if they actually lived in Cuba or North Korea they'd hate it as much as the right. After all, the leaders don't live the way the people do anyway so those imposing the system on the innocent are always outside it as they are using all that money extracted from them in the first place. The global warmists are trying to impose this worldwide and I am one person doing all I can to stop them.
Monday, August 02, 2010
Last week's summary
There are only two possibilities, either I am being guided towards my ambitions and more or not. The latest event implies all is well as my article appears to have been approved for a mainstream publication. More when confirmed and is due in two months if all goes well. Last week went OK, work and the service and saw lots of friends and relatives afterwards at the tea. I've done more or less sod all since then (not that I need to) besides a few vital business calls and my first game of tennis for a couple of years, I must get the direction back again now as half the shots went randomly.
No plans at all really now although usually find things to do sooner or later. More videos to be made, Streetviewing till all roads have been checked and usual little jobs that have to be done including doctor and optician appointments to be made. The parallel aim is for the personal growth and guidance to not be so painful. I am still suffering from time to time (as we all do) but the goal of Buddhism/yoga is to transcend it and that is my primary goal now. My research on global warming has now reached the point where I've discovered nothing but positive or negative spin on the same data, ie they haven't a clue so can make it look as bad or harmless as they want as long as people don't check the raw figures which are nearly all online.
The IPCC who collate all the information make it very clear there are endless possible results from global warming, but uncertain and impossible to pin on mankind. They include many advantages as well which the media universally ignore, but the bottom line is whatever happens the same old weather will happen in different places just as it always has. There can't be anything else and the more time passes the more they discover and admit cooling is almost as likely now as warming, and if so they can only pack up and go home once global warming comes to an end, whatever the cause. Even though the IPCC report itself concludes the effects will barely be measurable or harmful. Most followers don't bother to check the IPCC reports but rely on the politicians, which is like relying on estate agents to do your survey. All the reports are published in full online and just the fraction I've read are far more like my own conclusions than anything from Greenpeace who used to be a fairly decent bunch and are now the Socialist Workers/Revolutionary party in Green. Green on the outside, all red on the inside. This is a three way war, the left are spreading the word while the thieves are creating it, and the innocent are fighting it. The left have also shown themselves up as the creepy envious morons they truly are, happy to destroy our civilisation that took hundreds of years to create as they hate the well off.
So global warming has been the best tool to use to bring about the fall of capitalism, so of course they've all jumped on it as although it doesn't really exist it's their most effective way to finally bring down society because they think it can. It could have been any other scare story affecting the world with a potential solution, this just fit the criteria better than any other. Anyone with a brain knows they're doing it, just as we know carbon taxes are theft, but unless those without brains stop voting the left in worldwide we're buggered. That's the real warning as our money's being distributed the same as it has been in Zimbabwe and Soviet Russia. Anyone who wants to see a low carbon economy just use Zimbabwe as your model, that's how we'll all be if they win the war against civilisation.
No plans at all really now although usually find things to do sooner or later. More videos to be made, Streetviewing till all roads have been checked and usual little jobs that have to be done including doctor and optician appointments to be made. The parallel aim is for the personal growth and guidance to not be so painful. I am still suffering from time to time (as we all do) but the goal of Buddhism/yoga is to transcend it and that is my primary goal now. My research on global warming has now reached the point where I've discovered nothing but positive or negative spin on the same data, ie they haven't a clue so can make it look as bad or harmless as they want as long as people don't check the raw figures which are nearly all online.
The IPCC who collate all the information make it very clear there are endless possible results from global warming, but uncertain and impossible to pin on mankind. They include many advantages as well which the media universally ignore, but the bottom line is whatever happens the same old weather will happen in different places just as it always has. There can't be anything else and the more time passes the more they discover and admit cooling is almost as likely now as warming, and if so they can only pack up and go home once global warming comes to an end, whatever the cause. Even though the IPCC report itself concludes the effects will barely be measurable or harmful. Most followers don't bother to check the IPCC reports but rely on the politicians, which is like relying on estate agents to do your survey. All the reports are published in full online and just the fraction I've read are far more like my own conclusions than anything from Greenpeace who used to be a fairly decent bunch and are now the Socialist Workers/Revolutionary party in Green. Green on the outside, all red on the inside. This is a three way war, the left are spreading the word while the thieves are creating it, and the innocent are fighting it. The left have also shown themselves up as the creepy envious morons they truly are, happy to destroy our civilisation that took hundreds of years to create as they hate the well off.
So global warming has been the best tool to use to bring about the fall of capitalism, so of course they've all jumped on it as although it doesn't really exist it's their most effective way to finally bring down society because they think it can. It could have been any other scare story affecting the world with a potential solution, this just fit the criteria better than any other. Anyone with a brain knows they're doing it, just as we know carbon taxes are theft, but unless those without brains stop voting the left in worldwide we're buggered. That's the real warning as our money's being distributed the same as it has been in Zimbabwe and Soviet Russia. Anyone who wants to see a low carbon economy just use Zimbabwe as your model, that's how we'll all be if they win the war against civilisation.
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
Friday, June 18, 2010
Back despite non events
Besides an incredibly efficient trip to the dentist (quick, no injection, no pain) not a lot's happened since last time but if I start then something should still happen here. A lot to do at grandma's house tomorrow so no other plans besides that, but it has to be done. It's on the market now but no offers yet. But I'll always appreciate the freedom after 2 weeks waiting for dental appointments, the hygienist follows but nothing worrying there. Of course I'd still like more but hopefully more content with all there actually is.
I've been relaxing on twitter for a week or so taking the total piss out of the climate change mob. The total dross they link as if it's from the new New Testament by Jesus Gore himself is like watching the lunatics in Victorian asylums. I even start to believe it after a while, like hospital visitors do in psychiatric wards, but like them, it wears off soon after I leave. The clairvoyant drivel they spout, where thousands of academics paid for by you and me spend a few days in a hotel somewhere in a tourist spot guessing what may happen so they can get governments to do more (actually it's 'steal' more) to stop it happening, tells me every time why I do all I can to wake these total witless babies up. They don't think at all. Stop and look at the data. You can't see ahead in an open system, it may get you the weather over a few days (not in the UK though) as it's travelling in a fairly predictable direction, but that's the best they can do. Sea level predictions, despite being a few inches a century since Jesus lived, hook in all the poor sods who don't realise the only measurement that counts is today's compared with the past. If that's the same as it always has been then forget what they tell you as they don't have the ability to know, it's outside our scope.
But I've picked up a handful of followers there this week and a few compliments so not all wasted effort, and it's fun. I'm not trying to be rude or hurt anyone, it's similar to the army trying to defuse a ticking bomb, but with humour. They want to blow up civilised society to stop the climate blowing up civilised society, except the difference being they can do it and have already done a bloody good job. Apart from China there's no legislation on population, and none I know banning building on flood plains. If you built on a minefield and then moaned when a mine went off everyone would turn their backs and walk away, yet when whole cities are built in the mouths of river deltas and the like it's our job to subsidise them if they go under. That's not a fair deal is it? And not being a scientist I'm not going to learn the science they are using to guess the effects of a little more CO2 as it's degree level, but the difference between the equations they do present and common sense allow me to take them apart after the event. I do want a scientist to help me but they don't grow on trees.
So to follow the 2,500 scientists sent to throw dice to imagine future sea levels long after we're all dead, I'll think of a few plans of my own. I'm looking down every road within 40 miles in case more old signs turn up, writing articles from time to time, have three official forms to fill in over the next week or two, and meditating more again which may even have caused me to feel a lot calmer recently. I'll book up the check up now I'm free so I can get another supply of tablets, an eye test which I doubt will provide anything new but at least is free. I used to have a few pairs of frames but since I need £100+ lenses it's just the essentials. I had a plastic frame option as I prefer them but since they broke they're all metal now but very good ones. The photochromics are in a gold pair I got for £10 plus lenses, as I can still find frame bargains but can't afford the extra pairs of lenses to fill them now. If there's anything else I can't think of it, besides a football friendly or two next month when the pre season starts. Now I'll see what everyone else has written, I've got to get used to looking here now as well.
I've been relaxing on twitter for a week or so taking the total piss out of the climate change mob. The total dross they link as if it's from the new New Testament by Jesus Gore himself is like watching the lunatics in Victorian asylums. I even start to believe it after a while, like hospital visitors do in psychiatric wards, but like them, it wears off soon after I leave. The clairvoyant drivel they spout, where thousands of academics paid for by you and me spend a few days in a hotel somewhere in a tourist spot guessing what may happen so they can get governments to do more (actually it's 'steal' more) to stop it happening, tells me every time why I do all I can to wake these total witless babies up. They don't think at all. Stop and look at the data. You can't see ahead in an open system, it may get you the weather over a few days (not in the UK though) as it's travelling in a fairly predictable direction, but that's the best they can do. Sea level predictions, despite being a few inches a century since Jesus lived, hook in all the poor sods who don't realise the only measurement that counts is today's compared with the past. If that's the same as it always has been then forget what they tell you as they don't have the ability to know, it's outside our scope.
But I've picked up a handful of followers there this week and a few compliments so not all wasted effort, and it's fun. I'm not trying to be rude or hurt anyone, it's similar to the army trying to defuse a ticking bomb, but with humour. They want to blow up civilised society to stop the climate blowing up civilised society, except the difference being they can do it and have already done a bloody good job. Apart from China there's no legislation on population, and none I know banning building on flood plains. If you built on a minefield and then moaned when a mine went off everyone would turn their backs and walk away, yet when whole cities are built in the mouths of river deltas and the like it's our job to subsidise them if they go under. That's not a fair deal is it? And not being a scientist I'm not going to learn the science they are using to guess the effects of a little more CO2 as it's degree level, but the difference between the equations they do present and common sense allow me to take them apart after the event. I do want a scientist to help me but they don't grow on trees.
So to follow the 2,500 scientists sent to throw dice to imagine future sea levels long after we're all dead, I'll think of a few plans of my own. I'm looking down every road within 40 miles in case more old signs turn up, writing articles from time to time, have three official forms to fill in over the next week or two, and meditating more again which may even have caused me to feel a lot calmer recently. I'll book up the check up now I'm free so I can get another supply of tablets, an eye test which I doubt will provide anything new but at least is free. I used to have a few pairs of frames but since I need £100+ lenses it's just the essentials. I had a plastic frame option as I prefer them but since they broke they're all metal now but very good ones. The photochromics are in a gold pair I got for £10 plus lenses, as I can still find frame bargains but can't afford the extra pairs of lenses to fill them now. If there's anything else I can't think of it, besides a football friendly or two next month when the pre season starts. Now I'll see what everyone else has written, I've got to get used to looking here now as well.
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, April 05, 2010
New UK carbon taxes: My response
I read what must be one of the least publicised laws in the media yesterday, that a whole new bunch of carbon taxes have arrived aiming to get Britain's emissions down 80% by 2050. This surprised even me as technically the goal is impossible, and even if was possible would involve riding donkeys everywhere. If anything can wreck the recovery from recession this is guaranteed to. The most tragic thing is presumably the business affected by it seem to be taking it like dead sheep and appear to both be unknown of its arrival and totally uninterested in challenging it. In that case I suggest they work through the ten plagues of Egypt and see how long it takes before they complain and whether they manage to stop them before they get to killing the first born sons.
On a wider scale I see in front of me what appears to be mass hypnosis. Those immune stand around watching the others like teetotallers at an Irish wedding (excuse anyone I've offended there but you soon get used to it here), while apparently sensible people witter on about carbon footprints and sustainability despite having sod all figures to base it on. Oh, they did until the IPCC gradually admitted each one was wrong. Sorry Al, your slip is showing. And half your backside by now as well. Even when their cash is haemorrhaging away at an incredible rate, not mysteriously like a bent accountant would do it, but up front and in black and white on bills and petrol and they still laugh it off as if it really doesn't matter says mental illness to me. Temporary maybe but mental definitely.
Every element of delusional behaviour is evident here, not as in schizophrenia but as in religious mania. All cults operate by telling you only they have the answers and everyone else can't be trusted. They teach global warming in schools as if it's evolution, physics, astronomy and every other hard science including a few controversial bits. So every new generation of kids assumes the teachers are telling the truth, just as Palestinian children are told Jews are pigs and Christians are dogs. Parents and teachers know everything until you get to a certain age and ours have been twisted into little Al Gore robots spouting AGW bollocks just as if we'd entered Stepford.
The question is despite many of us looking on from the outside and despite our best efforts to wake the dead, will they come round or kill us all economically long before the decades required to find out the temperatures did not rise noticeably and it was all what I just said it was? Some people see me as personally insulting them here, but why that is is way off the reality, as the data I learnt years ago is now not just online but seeping into the mass media. All they seem to do is assassinate the characters of the scientists (like the whole University of Illinois and the Vice President of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael) and totally avoid looking at the figures they give. And with the figures given by the rest of the IPCC (so what did happen to Yuri Izrael as his words went unheeded in 2007?) one by one (we're about up to double figures now and just the ones they've conceded are wrong) their figures are proving to be no more than angel hair and fairy dust as well. Or steaming poop if you want to be less polite about it. So why do they still worship at the altar of steaming poop and leave their handbags and safes open so the IPCC operants can enter them at will as well? All answers gratefully accepted.
On a wider scale I see in front of me what appears to be mass hypnosis. Those immune stand around watching the others like teetotallers at an Irish wedding (excuse anyone I've offended there but you soon get used to it here), while apparently sensible people witter on about carbon footprints and sustainability despite having sod all figures to base it on. Oh, they did until the IPCC gradually admitted each one was wrong. Sorry Al, your slip is showing. And half your backside by now as well. Even when their cash is haemorrhaging away at an incredible rate, not mysteriously like a bent accountant would do it, but up front and in black and white on bills and petrol and they still laugh it off as if it really doesn't matter says mental illness to me. Temporary maybe but mental definitely.
Every element of delusional behaviour is evident here, not as in schizophrenia but as in religious mania. All cults operate by telling you only they have the answers and everyone else can't be trusted. They teach global warming in schools as if it's evolution, physics, astronomy and every other hard science including a few controversial bits. So every new generation of kids assumes the teachers are telling the truth, just as Palestinian children are told Jews are pigs and Christians are dogs. Parents and teachers know everything until you get to a certain age and ours have been twisted into little Al Gore robots spouting AGW bollocks just as if we'd entered Stepford.
The question is despite many of us looking on from the outside and despite our best efforts to wake the dead, will they come round or kill us all economically long before the decades required to find out the temperatures did not rise noticeably and it was all what I just said it was? Some people see me as personally insulting them here, but why that is is way off the reality, as the data I learnt years ago is now not just online but seeping into the mass media. All they seem to do is assassinate the characters of the scientists (like the whole University of Illinois and the Vice President of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael) and totally avoid looking at the figures they give. And with the figures given by the rest of the IPCC (so what did happen to Yuri Izrael as his words went unheeded in 2007?) one by one (we're about up to double figures now and just the ones they've conceded are wrong) their figures are proving to be no more than angel hair and fairy dust as well. Or steaming poop if you want to be less polite about it. So why do they still worship at the altar of steaming poop and leave their handbags and safes open so the IPCC operants can enter them at will as well? All answers gratefully accepted.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
A second holocaust?
In the 1930s one man was responsible for persuading millions of people the Jews were responsible for most of the ills in the world, and succeeded in removing 6 million before the allies finally stopped them, although it has been said many allied forces knew all about it and did nothing, making them no different from the French collaborators.
Today we see the whole of mankind at blame, by arguably a single person, and not taken up by one set of powers but the UN and most governments worldwide. Mankind has been found guilty of polluting the planet and rather than killing them, which is very last century or third world, is punishing them in every other way they can think of, mainly financial.
Do we want silence from all those who suspect the truth, or pains in the backside like me reminding people every week or more that there is a scandal going on that can only be stopped by a single thing, the truth. Unless you learn and spread the true figures which are freely available, you are no less guilty than the British government for pretending the concentration camps were a surprise when their troops found them days before the end of the war, when most had died or would soon die of starvation, rather than listen to the intelligence and risk alerting the enemy to their presence in the areas. Their big picture, much like the current one, ignored the suffering of the people for victory, even if millions of people suffered or in that case died as a result.
People are dying here as well, indirectly but by diversion of funds for clean water projects and malaria eradication, to be followed by people freezing to death from not being able to pay for the increased energy prices, or power rationing in many countries. In the end the toll could be as great but impossible to point the finger directly, which is how they can keep on and think they're not being noticed. Well I notice them, and many others do as well, and only by passing this on can we stop the scandal becoming permanent. They've already stolen billions of our money and unless people do the same research I did years ago, now greatly updated, will they realise the truth and hopefully share it as I continue to do.
Today we see the whole of mankind at blame, by arguably a single person, and not taken up by one set of powers but the UN and most governments worldwide. Mankind has been found guilty of polluting the planet and rather than killing them, which is very last century or third world, is punishing them in every other way they can think of, mainly financial.
Do we want silence from all those who suspect the truth, or pains in the backside like me reminding people every week or more that there is a scandal going on that can only be stopped by a single thing, the truth. Unless you learn and spread the true figures which are freely available, you are no less guilty than the British government for pretending the concentration camps were a surprise when their troops found them days before the end of the war, when most had died or would soon die of starvation, rather than listen to the intelligence and risk alerting the enemy to their presence in the areas. Their big picture, much like the current one, ignored the suffering of the people for victory, even if millions of people suffered or in that case died as a result.
People are dying here as well, indirectly but by diversion of funds for clean water projects and malaria eradication, to be followed by people freezing to death from not being able to pay for the increased energy prices, or power rationing in many countries. In the end the toll could be as great but impossible to point the finger directly, which is how they can keep on and think they're not being noticed. Well I notice them, and many others do as well, and only by passing this on can we stop the scandal becoming permanent. They've already stolen billions of our money and unless people do the same research I did years ago, now greatly updated, will they realise the truth and hopefully share it as I continue to do.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Mummy, they're crying carbon again!
To be honest I'm well pissed off having to spend so much time having to report all this only to be abused by people whose religion is being attacked. Now if Islam was involved with it as well I'd really be in trouble for having a go. But if they keep spraying us with their foul manure on every possible opportunity I must be here to try and wash it away.
Just in case anyone's missing my global warming announcements I don't want to disappoint anyone so will update the situation there. Firstly the technical terms. No, climate change is not something different. George W has been blamed for swapping terminology 'not to frighten the public' (global warming's frightening? What's happened to people suddenly?) but is only an abbreviation of the official term 'Climate change due to global warming". If you think about it without that element there would be bugger all left, and that's being polite (for me anyway). The present broadcasts are the scientists and spin doctors (hold on, where's the line now?) killing themselves trying to wriggle out of the fact they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar with their pants on fire and cooking the books. In fact there are both no cliches not applicable left on telling untruths, and a ripe situation to write many more. Telling temperature tales, twisting the mercury, pulling our thermometers, crying carbon, fiddling the freeze, shuffling the emails, dealing from the bottom of the graph, and possible there's an infinite number (to imitate their own reporting enthusiasm) more. For pity's sake give up and let us spend our own money again!
It is going to be a long and hard battle. Vested interests don't give up without fighting till the end. At least one of the kings, Phil Jones, has watered down the acid with his latest interview, although largely ignored by all the believers and leaders alike. But each piece removed from their mountain will gradually erode it to a small pile of ash which will blow away in the non-temperature induced wind. But despite the fact truth has no place in their campaign (only in as far as it's used to hide the lies anyway) it is now reaching the general public after being online for years and will be harder and harder to maintain each piece of the jigsaw when it's found to be made with invisible ink and dissolving paper. Eventually when applied to each claim there'll be nothing left to defend or pretend.
PS, if faced with the typical tosh about pollution then try this. Ask whether life needs CO2 to exist. Yes it does. Then when does an essential amount become a pollutant? Er...
And what about 95% of the greenhouse effect, water vapour. How much would that need to increase before it becomes a pollutant?
We are dealing with total ignorance here and can easily be cured with facts and figures but who wants to listen?
Just in case anyone's missing my global warming announcements I don't want to disappoint anyone so will update the situation there. Firstly the technical terms. No, climate change is not something different. George W has been blamed for swapping terminology 'not to frighten the public' (global warming's frightening? What's happened to people suddenly?) but is only an abbreviation of the official term 'Climate change due to global warming". If you think about it without that element there would be bugger all left, and that's being polite (for me anyway). The present broadcasts are the scientists and spin doctors (hold on, where's the line now?) killing themselves trying to wriggle out of the fact they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar with their pants on fire and cooking the books. In fact there are both no cliches not applicable left on telling untruths, and a ripe situation to write many more. Telling temperature tales, twisting the mercury, pulling our thermometers, crying carbon, fiddling the freeze, shuffling the emails, dealing from the bottom of the graph, and possible there's an infinite number (to imitate their own reporting enthusiasm) more. For pity's sake give up and let us spend our own money again!
It is going to be a long and hard battle. Vested interests don't give up without fighting till the end. At least one of the kings, Phil Jones, has watered down the acid with his latest interview, although largely ignored by all the believers and leaders alike. But each piece removed from their mountain will gradually erode it to a small pile of ash which will blow away in the non-temperature induced wind. But despite the fact truth has no place in their campaign (only in as far as it's used to hide the lies anyway) it is now reaching the general public after being online for years and will be harder and harder to maintain each piece of the jigsaw when it's found to be made with invisible ink and dissolving paper. Eventually when applied to each claim there'll be nothing left to defend or pretend.
PS, if faced with the typical tosh about pollution then try this. Ask whether life needs CO2 to exist. Yes it does. Then when does an essential amount become a pollutant? Er...
And what about 95% of the greenhouse effect, water vapour. How much would that need to increase before it becomes a pollutant?
We are dealing with total ignorance here and can easily be cured with facts and figures but who wants to listen?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
