Bad news every time

Despite the fact I can manage regardless of it, the news, with very few exceptions, has always gone the worst possible way over the last few years, although of course as most is based on secret political decisions as it all comes from the same shadow government behind the UN of course it should be no surprise.

Interest rates are proved to hurt the citizens, and have been kept at a record low for an indefinite period, although twice as many people who save lose compared to the borrowers. Every Euro member country has voted not to default, despite no possible sanctions as Iceland proved when they did as non-EU members. This implies the Greek and Cypriot politicians are gaining personally as they have both sacrificed their citizens' welfare to maintain the status of the EU.

UK immigration is expected to be increasing, despite a change in government, as nowadays unless you vote a new party in all the old ones work for the UN and only vary the intensity of the same policies to give the impression of being different. Ed Miliband is the only weak link, as if he leads the party to the next election he simply can't win as he's a twat. His apparent knowledge of anything connected in politics gives the impression he learnt his job from a combination of playground cat fights and UN sound bites he doesn't even understand. After spending the best part of a year campaigning online to stop Obama getting re-elected, he is beginning his attack on his country on Tuesday by implementing climate policies officially for the first time, bringing the greatest country in the world (yes, they are much better off than Britain economically) to its knees, and will see the equivalent of a great professer living with Alzheimer's. By the end of his term energy prices will double or triple, wages will grind to a halt, and manufacturing will be crossing the borders like Syrian refugees.

I can't get involved now. I remember the 70s when the only news I cared about were the power cuts, as the rest simply didn't affect me directly, besides staying in the EU which I knew would lead to a political loss to the Fourth Reich as has happened since. I see every decision go the wrong way, votes for greater EU integration lose so they run them again and people do actually change their votes (or something about the way they were counted?), and being what is described as politically aware, realise how our freedom and democracy is going by the week worldwide as each country legislate more and more into the realm of totalitarianism. With Obama putting climate laws in place then every straggler will be pressured into following them, while existing waverers will be pressured to follow America now they've made the most powerful country in the world low carbon, which is another way to describe an economy bled white like a wounded soldier. They won't get that money or prosperity back, they'll end up like Britain, cycling to work as they can't afford public transport, and killing thousands of poor people each winter who can't pay the heating costs. The house prices will go up and average wage go down, as green taxes eat into incomes and force the normal people out of the housing market, handing it over to the mafia who are immune, or collecting the taxes, who will launder their gains in massive properties they hardly ever visit, just as they did 20 years ago in London.

I've seen the world's second greatest country fall to pieces in the last 50 years already, the population has risen by millions and many don't speak English who have arrived, and have many more children to increase the proportions. Our roads have become cancerous with humps and restrictions, filling a car with petrol costs as much as a day's wage, we've lost grammar schools so only rich people can afford a decent education, exams and degrees have been lowered so half the people can now pass (a degree was fixed at around 5% under the 1962 Education Act) and hospitals let every foreign health tourist have their babies and kidney transplants free and collect the money from visitors using the car parks. Besides pointing it out to people who either know already or don't care what can anyone do? Of course I'll vote UKIP as they are the only open door out of this dire strait, as many others will. Personally I have heard the local libraries invite voluntary lecturers as they are very popular, so I may get the word across on a small scale that way, but actually worrying and caring about it is just a lesson not to. I must follow the lotus, live on the mud but not in it, and as some teachers say, when you turn your attention away from the slurry it goes away. Worth a try, looking at it doesn't help.

Dump the climate lunatics

Having read a few little words of advice today I think the direction is clear. I may know what is going on around the world where many do not, but I don't need it to be my problem. The only two benefits picking apart the conspiracies in the world has done for me is to teach me how to investigate and understand politics fully, and possibly use the material for my media career. But don't expect to teach a single thing to a single person as they have already made up their minds. Memes are deadly viruses. Al Gore says we must destroy the world's economy for our unborn grandchildren, and years later people quote him verbatim (I didn't of course) whenever you challenge the fact the climate is doing anything bad or odd at all. I don't use the A-Z of swear words when some twat (note, it's not being aimed at any individual) bleats the world is frying meme, I just explain why it isn't, and they swear at me:

Renew Comm'ty Power ‏@RenewCP 7h

@DavidAHoward Because its already affecting me and will destroy my children's future you selfish prick.

 

I get this every week, every month of every year, as once someone's brain is bleached (washing is a good thing and leaves everything as it should be) you can't get anything in. I'll carry on replying if people ask me, but won't bother volunteering anything, as these are the same boys who hung you out of a window or stole your lunch money at school. They are the grown up strong bodied but weak minded bullies, or weak bodied who won over strong bodied idiots to do the strong stuff for them. They are across the spectrum of mental weakness to mental illness in full blown paranoid delusions, of other's makings but fully matured and accepted.

 

So, the consequences of doing nothing mean:

 

My fuel bills will continue to rise, but I can afford them.

It will become harder to drive as more restrictions will be created.

Travelling will become more expensive, but I rarely travel.

The general economy will not be able to grow, but I can manage on the little I get.

 

Things will get worse for sure, and when we get the inevitable power cuts I will suffer, but can I stop them? No.

Test your intuition

This is a test we can all take. The only difference is to what degree we can relate to it, but the principle is universal and will expand once recognised. Anyone with a cat will also have witnessed this, they often either attach themselves to or avoid certain visitors, with nothing you can usually tell about why, but over months and years the regulars will always get the same response every time they arrive, with the cat going in one or the other direction.

In life, we feel the vibration of people and places, some more sensitive than others, but otherwise only a matter of degree. If someone or something is really wrong nearly everyone can feel it, and then just imagine extending that downwards almost indefinitely. Then extend that to situations, where everything on the surface appears to be fine but some people sense something's wrong, and given the opportunities will investigate and nearly always find reasons why they were right.

My background is based in law. That forces you to learn and provide evidence, and taught me to investigate and also, like the police also in the same area, sense when something's wrong before we have collected the evidence. All those apparently normal cars and drivers the old hands spot on TV when a small detail alerts them to the fact all may not be well. So I have the combination of the training, the sensitivity and the years of searching my leads since being equipped with the internet, although before then just the papers gave me enough to know I was on the right track on a number of news stories.

There are always scams going on, and they are, being based on nothing, only too easy to spot once used to it. The only difference today being the number and level being unprecedented, certainly in modern times. During the last war it's now almost certain many countries knew about the concentration camps but ignored them as had they done anything to try and liberate them it would mean they were exposed to attack and would ruin their long term strategies, so in effect they colluded with the Nazis no differently to the French and Norwegians who did a lot of their dirty work for them, partly as many agreed with their policies. What is the point of fighting a war if you allow its existing victims on your side to knowingly die  as well as the enemy? These sort of selective helping, or passive killing in this and other cases, are part of a greater pragmatism, based on having personal interests above those of the citizens you are working for.

I have studied these examples in such detail over the years, from a lifelong fascination, to gain both a practical understanding of how they operate and try and exploit the lack of intuition of others to maintain the smokescreen, and additionally mobilise the believers to attack those who can see through it. But if you simply teach people intuition without any logic or law, they can pick up the same bad vibes as others do and reject the people creating the illusions directly. To return to my own experience, I can spot a bad 'un almost instantly, seeing them steal and cheat from friends who couldn't see it, and could only become wise after the event, but at what a cost, and it won't protect them from the next one as all the direct knowledge does is show them a single example, not develop a latent ability.

So what I do is feel if something feels wrong. It's a very clear feeling, the same one everyone gets when they realise someone's concealed a weapon, or they tell you someone's died or the like, just before the actual event. So start with the familiar feeling you've just heard or seen something terrible, and then collect some pictures and names of people and news stories, and pass each one across your vision until you receive a clear shudder. Now if you can then check up and see that is indeed a nasty story or person then you have proved it works. And once you recognise it then use it and it will become clear, reliable and automatic.

The hard part is (and something I do not recommend to anyone) trying to share this information with others. The nature of intuition, something not reserved for bad stuff but often strongest as it's for survival, is designed as the highest level of knowledge, and once would have been directly accepted as such, but nowadays is not even recognised. So all I can ask is to recognise and use it, and then accept it from others (the way you discern of course is very simple, use your own intuition to tell if someone else is correct) and gradually more and more people will take it on as an accepted form of sensing.

So currently I and millions of others can tell certain individuals and policies are pure evil and wrong, but we can't quite prove it despite plenty of real evidence appearing over time to show we were indeed correct. But this inbuilt delay allows them to keep stealing and hurting people until they get exposed in the usual way. One can only hope that if people's intuition is greater, they will follow it and get more proactive work done to bust these disgraces rather than let them drift for decades or more by which time the damage is done and half the suspects are dead anyway.

Who benefits from global warming?

Someone just asked the standard question 'What possible benefit could anyone get for making up global warming'. Here is my answer:

Climatology was created for global warming, till then it was meteorology, with the climate being a sideline in geology or geography. Now everyone with a BSc is a climatologist, and share the billions in grants and huge amounts of publicity and policy making amongst each other.

Without the threat of global warming the extreme left and green movement would have remained forever on the lunatic fringe where they belong. Now they are mainstream.

Energy companies now receive billions in renewable subsidies, and the price of fossil fuel has shot up since governments have put restrictions on its production and distribution. Therefore they get money for nothing for wind farms that don't work, and more for their existing reserves. Win-win for all.

Assuming there was already a one world government plan in place, they need a reason or people will reject it. The UN now have in place a global carbon tax and global carbon currency which, like the Euro, will need full political integration to implement. Agenda 21, also created on the back of global warming, is accepted by over 200 countries, the first informal step to world government.

The entire third world are racing ahead economically while the west restrict carbon emissions and they can produce free of regulations.

I'm sure I could go on for ages but that's quite enough to cover the main areas.

Judge the science by its fruit

Wind turbines could be used as an indirect indication of the entire global warming belief movement, as unlike the complex climate with diverse methods of measurement, huge gaps in direct information and vast variations in figures for the same areas and periods depending which ones they used and how far they were 'adjusted', their entire performance, from setup costs to annual output, plus maintenance, electrical inputs and peripheral issues including permanent backup.

Power generation follows a few very simple rules, based on constant supply and reaction to demand. The supply can also exceed demand if not regulated, thus generating power which is wasted as not used immediately to run any electrical equipment. Staff and automatic machinery are employed round the clock to ensure this does not happen, and the power is wound down to match lower periods of demand. as a consequence, unless the fuel itself runs out or there is a technical failure, our lights (and life support machines) will stay on. It is as simple as that.

Now look at wind turbines. They generate power randomly, the wind is random. They only generate in a band of around 10-30mph, below is not sufficient to do so, and above will burn them out so they have to be stopped altogether. They generate when the wind chooses to blow, regardless of the demand, so when they produce power outside peak times it is wasted as no one is around to take it. The amounts they produce would never be capable of supplying anywhere on their own, and when they do work are limited to the conversion factor from movement to electricity. That means it is possible to calculate the total possible output, should the conversion factor be perfect at 1 (it is well below that and unlikely to rise much further), and as the wattage generated at full power is still far below the equivalent we use now, their ultimate potential even if running at maximum efficiency are limited by design.

So we have weak generators (as compared with current ones) which work as and when the wind provides the right band of speed. Which by sad coincidence is lower when it is the coldest and most required (much like solar powers don't work at night when most required). The power is often wasted and the power stations required as permanent backup also waste their power as unlike wind turbines they don't go on and off when stimulated, but take weeks to start up and must stay on permanently to be able to draw power when required. So while the wind turbines produce the power stations' power is wasted, and vice versa. You are using and paying for both now instead of simply using the one reliable one.

Then we learn wind turbines consume electricity, the blades need to face the wind so use electric motors, brakes when the wind is too fast, and powerful heaters when they freeze as they are damaged by ice. And if one goes wrong, the maintenance cost offshore for a man to go out on a helicopter and fix it eats up a huge amount of any power its ever produced in its lifetime. Not to mention the costs of wiring the new grid offshore and onshore, which is wasted the 20 or so years later when the turbines come to the end of their lifetimes (actually many wear out far sooner than that, there are miles of rusting examples in early adopter's locations such as California).

Therefore wind turbines:

Produce small random amounts of power
This power is often wasted
Power stations are required as backup and waste much of their power
They require electricity to run
They are limited by their construction to total potential generation per unit
Maintenance costs are phenomenal
Build and infrastructure costs are phenomenal and load the equation from day one before a profit can be considered to cover it in the future.
They are limited to random weak generation by their nature
They can never be used on their own
They actually produce far less per year than previously claimed by their brochures

So the fact it is possible to generate power from a windmill, but only when the wind blows within a certain range, does not mean it is sensible or practical. It is also possible to generate constant power from an orange or an onion, albeit only enough to power a small bulb, but if someone cared to run the figures it may produce as much that way than the equivalent amount spent on a wind turbine. But no one I am aware of has considered vegetable powered stations, (although they do now burn food for fuel, another atrocity made possible through the myth of global warming) so can only assume as the figures are so clear and exactly measurable, anything which can lead to the very existence of wind turbines has to be wrong.

Imagine an identical world, except for one thing, CO2 had not risen. Forget the temperature and ice melts etc, as without the rise in CO2 at most they would have made a passing observation we'd had a 30 year rise in temperature but nothing outstanding, and even if it was there was absolutely nothing we could do about it as climate is driven by nature. You get a few nuts in places like China and Russia (not by any coincidence totalitarian states) who carry out cloud seeding (it's unproven) and geoengineering (toxic and not proven), which are now being tested elsewhere, but again, minus the rise in CO2 few if any scientists would have worried about a fraction of a degree C so unlikely to have been an issue. As a result CO2 generation from fossil fuel would never have been considered as a problem as whatever the amount produced (it's only a few % of the total anyhow) it would clearly have been passing through as fast as it was going in. But one more thing would be known, if CO2 generation had not been raised as a problem, then nothing would ever have been suggested as a 'solution', ie wind turbines would not exist. They would not be 'in development', as there is no more development. Unlike even the almost equally pointless solar panels, they would not have the potential for slightly more powerful compounds and designs to get more out than before, as they use direct physical, rather than chemical, linkage. You turn the blades directly with whatever wind is blowing, and they convert it to power in the same way as any other electrical motor. Their limits have been known for decades, and you can't get more out than in less the other restrictions.

Therefore, had CO2 not risen dramatically (despite no corresponding direct rise in temperature, the UN look at times around 2100, although that was in the 90s before the temperature stopped rising) there would have been no reason to consider non CO2 generating alternatives, and wind turbines would have remained in history as means to grind seeds for flour before electricity existed. Scientists do know exactly how much power they can generate (ie very little indeed), and trials for many years have shown the average range of useful wind generation is around 10% of their full capacity, wherever they are situated.

If you judge a tree by its fruit, the most low hanging fruit of all from global warming is the wind farms. Having described how they work (or technically 'don't work'), and the fact it is physically impossible to alter a single aspect of their construction and generation (for example you can't make the wind blow more often or at the correct range, or get more out than goes in), and much of the time they do produce power it isn't used, all scientists with the figures would mark it as a fail. Yet the world is covered by them, and it is physically impossible for them to make a profit, as the more you add the more it costs and can never be recovered.

Therefore, by looking at a single product (among many like it) of the global warming movement, the total lack of discretion the non-scientific advocates possess, to actually imagine the easily measurable outputs of wind farms is physically capable of producing usable power besides the rare times they run and are required, proves beyond all doubt they know nothing about any science, and are almost certainly as deluded about what they see as climate change as they are about the known and exact science of wind generation. A scientific theory which produces a known failure can only itself be a failure.

Well meaning but dangerous

Liberals/leftists have ideology based on immature emotions, which want to correct all the faults found in nature, such as survival of the fittest, which is the basis of everything living, personal wealth, which many believe must mean others have less (they don't, it means more has been created altogether), people are all equally intelligent given the same chances (why the same spread of IQ tests has been constant since they were created wherever and whenever you take them, including of identical twins who may also have been separated), and basically anything and everything they think's 'not fair', so do everything they can to beat back the tide and force nature to be different. In fact such attitudes are not just immature but extremely dangerous as the equivalent of taking a bunch of uneducated and unintelligent children and letting them rule an entire country. They become the most dangerous force in humanity, as they attack every form of personal liberty to engineer society to fit how they want it to be.

Their concept of equality is not used in its genuine sense, but prostituted to mean if anyone's doing better than you they must be cheating and to cut them down to size. This has discouraged success across the world where promoted as a value, and makes some kids feel bad when they do well at school and try not to answer too many questions as it makes them look better than the others (which of course they are). Then they try and use it to make dogs into cats and cats into dogs, as they say people are equal although everyone is actually different, and do all they can to force them to be the same when they never could be. They take every aspect of nature, which arranges everything from best to worst, and try and force it into the middle, nothing too low (impossible, it's already made that way) or too high (it would make the others feel inadequate), and basically use it as a weapon to destroy civilised society.

In reality politicians work for us, and the only way we would actually democratically elect a government to attempt large scale social engineering and economic redistribution were if enough people actually wanted it and believed it was possible. Then they'd get four or five years of the most extreme versions of taxation, positive discrimination, multiculturalism and diversity, minority rights (which usually means they have more rights than the majorities), gender neutrality, women encouraged to work and allow strangers to raise their children for them, and basically any and every area where the state can do something in a superior way to individual choice.

No doubt once enough of these policies were in place and the majority of the people lost and suffered as a consequence, it would be sufficient to see the Utopia melt away in front of their eyes and see what began as a wish to improve nature directly was the same as going into a garden and painting the flowers gold and silver. If people mess with nature they always get a mess.

Uncertainties around global warming

With rare exceptions, the press and politicians talk about global warming (ie the thing behind what they call climate change, as the warming's well, not that much) in certain terms. But read behind the headlines and the only few certainties, ie those based on actual events, indicate the opposite. I will present every element and people can make up their own minds. Remember, they aren't my figures, I've just taken the time to source them.

1) By far the biggest element (not normal to begun with the punchline, but it eclipses all the other details almost completely) is global warming has barely happened. The global warming the politicians are talking about is something they want to prevent, ie it hasn't actually happened, and using their own graphs, won't till around 2100. No scientific experiment exists which can't be observed to complete, in the 1990's when this graph was drawn it was physically impossible to know for anyone on the planet except a handful of newborn babies.

2) Before around 1995 current temperatures were depicted on a 10,000 year or so graph showing a cycle, with higher temperatures till 4000 years ago (they still are, which looks like stating the obvious), and then a peak 1000 and around 500 years ago, named the Roman and Medieval warm periods. In 1995 they vanished from new material although of course still existing in older books. At best, it shows their knowledge and ability to calculate past temperatures still leaves a lot to be desired. At worst (as evidenced by their hacked emails rather than inference) they simply altered them.

3) There are two previously little known but genuine cycles. The Milankovitch geological cycles which involve the wobble of the earth and variation in distance from the sun which have decadal and longer oscillations of ocean currents warming then cooling, and the solar cycles of sunspots and total radiation. Put the two together and the temperature graph looks very similar. Observation alone, step one of science, tells us all enough to move on to the next step, and they are a very close fit.

4) Red herrings are always an element in science, the stomach acid in ulcers or the coming ice age in the 70s. The element is something new and unknown happens, and scientists rush to try and explain it faster than their capacity to measure the causes. There is a hierarchy of climate measurements, from the simple and analogue of CO2, sea level and temperatures, to the less or almost impossible to currently measure glacier depth, cloud formation patterns, interaction between CO2 and atmospheric water vapour, and of course the literally hottest potato of all, world temperatures, past and present. They use a variety of methods, proxy for pre 1850, thermometer for 1850-1979, and a combination of thermometer and satellite since 1979. Sea levels are now also measured by satellites as well as bobs and land based gauges and oddly seem to read 2mm higher from the satellites than on the surface, which are clearly less able to double check at the scene, implying something is wrong there. Sew together the three eras of measurement, fill in the vast gaps where nothing's measured at all, and that gives you two figures, the accepted rough averages and the anomalies, which are the differences from an earlier point, intended to iron out the gaps and glitches.

But CO2 is not so hard to count although like the sea level it varies all day long from location to location so more of an anomaly than absolute figure. But it's officially up 50% from 1850-2013. Because, but only really since 1980 or so (oddly the same time satellites measured temperature) temperatures also went up rather sharply for 30 years or so, and as CO2 is supposed to add 1C per doubling at 260ppm then if it also evaporated the ocean, that water lodged at certain levels and didn't form more clouds it could amplify that amount manyfold, apparently (as it's never been observed in the real world before). But, had CO2 not been a red herring and remained stable, the consensus in the 70s was the fall since 1940 led most scientists to expect another ice age. Bear in mind CO2 had already risen sharply and steadily then, but the scientists still looked at the temperature first and literally appeared to assign no significance to the CO2 whatsoever. This is a logical indication of the CO2 indeed being a red herring as had they imagined its role as a deadly greenhouse gas (to quote president Obama, whose science degree is still in the post) they'd never have considered an ice age at all, especially as the added CO2 we were currently doing nothing to attempt to limit should have easily wiped out any natural cooling.

Then the temperature rose (remember those cycles, the two crucial points are 30 and 60 years) and suddenly they noticed the CO2, forgot the ice age and even though the rise was again around 30 years before it petered out, the CO2 is rising steadily and has now become the focus of the industry rather than the perceived current effects, while the future effects have finally been knocked on the head as their 20 year old estimate from the 90s was about to drop off the lowest point of their error bars.

5) Sea levels: Unlike the world temperature, we can record local sea levels and compare them pretty reliably, as regardless of the tides and other variations, over an entire year a tide gauge plus any beaches are possible to record faithfully for centuries. There are no known coastal areas more than a few inches from a century ago, some have not risen at all while the official rise was 7 inches in the 20th century. As sea level needs land ice and thermal expansion in equal measures, both require a fairly specific temperature rise to melt the ice and expand the sea, and can then measure each to calculate the rise per amount melted. Even if the far higher satellite measurements are to be relied upon (although the land based methods have remained at 1mm a year regardless) it still isn't possible to break 12 inches this century at the current rate of rise, which is not significant.

6) The atmospheric changes from the added CO2 need to have it located in the relevant bands (which can be investigated online with little effort), along with any additional water vapour which is the actual culprit, as CO2 alone is simply not capable of more than 1C per doubling. The actual results were unknown until NASA's two satellites Grace and Aqua began getting results, showing CO2 was displacing water vapour where it would have been required, weakening the effect, and water vapour itself was not increasing either. Needless to say the press made nothing of it although being the first readings of their kind, and contradicting what they expected, you would have thought whatever their findings they would have been of great significance.

7) Unknowns: It is very hard to currently measure ice thickness beyond a small percentage below the surface, and know the behaviour of added water vapour in either forming humidity or clouds, which do the exact opposite of each other, yet the industry while openly admitting this lack of information, do not let it spoil their predictions despite being a vital part of the picture, for global warming actually the most essential as no water vapour, no humidity, no positive feedback and no global warming. Those are not the only ostensibly unknowns but the two wild cards, plus of course the already mentioned gaps in temperature stations (around 75%) and even the convention of only measuring CO2 at one location in Mauna Loa which seems a little optimistic to me as a lay person at least.

8) "For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

This was from NASA's own website in late April 2013. Did they just let something go they didn't want us to know?

9) Contrary studies: Despite its total exclusion by the collective media, the most comprehensive assessment of the collective temperature data was carried out in 2013 by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, one of the best scientific institutions in the world. They found no man made signature apparent. It even included the Berkeley BEST figures used to affirm Michael Mann's original hockey stick (all they did was repeat the same thing so of course it would) and found it made no difference.

“…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.”

“…our rejection of AGW is not absolute; it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint. However, this possibility is very small, and is not statistically significant at conventional levels.”

"In the past century, each of the two warm periods (1915–1945 and 1978–1998) and each of the two cool periods (1880–1915 and 1945–1977) resulted from cyclic changes of Pacific sea surface temperatures (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation). In 1999, the NE Pacific changed abruptly from its warm mode to its cool mode, bringing the 1978–1998 warming to a close. Projection of the pattern of cyclic warming and cooling over the past 500 years strongly suggests that the climate will continue to cool for the next several decades." Don Easterbrook

"Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. Changes in atmospheric CO2 are NOT tracking changes in human emissions"

Global and Planetary Change
Volume 100, January 2013, Pages 51–69

Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim

And from NASA itself a study by multiple contributors also this year found:
"One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere."
"One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.

There is also a growing series of studies confirming the rise in CO2 is after the temperature rises, which if correct (and each one is finding the same thing) means it can't be man made as well but released by the oceans as a result of rising temperature.

These studies are all from within the first four months of 2013, and given absolutely zero regard by the media, while those supporting the established view circle the globe within moments of release (sometimes before), and makes you wonder why?

10) Blatant errors: When you hear 70 million tons of Himalayan glacier are melting each year you expect it to be based on, well, measurements. When they finally did the measurements of the largest glaciers outside the polar regions they found they had lost precisely no ice at all. No apologies or questioning of the direct proof they had 'simply made it up', although clearly if they have clearly made something up once it may be typical where there are no actual measurements. And if you're going to make them up and make them the most extreme possible rather than moderate it also implies an agenda.
Saying others would melt by 2035, and then claim it was a misprint when it turned out to mean 2350 is something a student would never have got away with.
There are also a number of examples of both satellite and land based stations misreading so high, the US ones alone would be enough to account for the entire world temperature rise for that period. Unlike the massive adjustments I have pages of to show flat temperatures go uphill these were simple technical errors in place for years, and even once discovered they didn't correct the old material which used them despite doing it for the widely accepted Medieval Warm Period which wasn't claimed to be in error.
-----------------------------------------------
There are ten elements which even singly would cast doubt on other scientific measurements elsewhere, and if all ten are in place would make a reasonable person (the legal test) have at least reasonable doubts, if not reject it altogether on a balance of probabilities. Our entire world policy dictated by the UN and accepted by most countries to some extent is based solely on this infant and inexact branch of science. Prior to the 1970s when the Climate Research Unit was built at the University of East Anglia, funded in part by 'big oil' (Shell, BP and others) and activist groups such as Greenpeace, the area was called 'meteorology' and involved understanding weather patterns and their causes, with reference to history to predict current and short term future events. There was no reliance or requirement for reliance on climate data so the urgency to learn as much as possible as fast as possible, even without the benefit of satellites, was not required. Suddenly after James Hansen's presentation to US congress billions went into this area, suddenly every scientists became a climatologist and charities began working to collect money to deal with global warming. Of course we kept our other scientists, but looking at the sheer numbers of those issuing papers every single day which get considered by the UN demonstrates how many physics and geology graduates decided to specialise in what had become the biggest boom area since ducking witches.

To shift from an observational science no one depended on to one dictating world political policies, and extending the accepted 3-6 month maximum ability to see the future to a hundred years or more as if they'd suddenly built the equivalent of a hundred Hubble telescopes capable of refining their measurements in wide screen and high definition, which they did not. The very fact they suddenly discovered whatever proxy measurements they had used for a century or more had been adequate for the many thousands of years earlier, but overestimated the two warm periods since (while not affecting the earlier higher measurements 4-8000 years earlier) is a stroke of magic. Add together the entire spread of both uncertainties, total updates of an area of measurement (including backdating higher readings lower but not the other way round) meaning it was previously inadequate (including the rolling process of reducing the expected rise from a doubling of CO2 per decade or so, mainly as it is rising and the temperature barely is), plus with adjustments to raw data which virtually always make them higher rather than lower and we do not have a certainty about the present or even the past, let alone the future which twenty odd years later has been proved to be imagination.

That is the state of the science, would you rely on it if used for a medical procedure?

What is racism?

Racism is believing another race or races is inferior. Acting on this means direct discrimination, not taking them as tenants or staff, or paying them less. Extremes would be direct attacks, physical or verbal, and now in Britain all covered by discrimination laws.

Outside that not wanting immigration, thinking different cultures do not naturally mix, or any other preference to be with your own people is something inbuilt in all of us, as you see when looking at immigrant communities who tend to relocate a similar as possible replica of where they were to wherever they are should there be enough to do so. This extends to many locals and immigrants alike disapproving of relationships with the others, which could be considered racist as is based on a belief the other people are not good enough to associate with yours. But this attitude is equally shared between both the local people and the immigrants, if not more so by the immigrants who in some cases will ostracise or even kill the family member who mixes with the natives.

Calling people racist who do not discriminate against other races, or believe they are inferior is slander. I'm sure most people who do it know the difference perfectly well, but prefer to demean their perceived enemy of a civilised society who disagree with their policies of diversity and multiculturalism, which includes cultures coming from countries with no sewage system or have such tight communities many will never even learn English as everything they need comes from within their own groups. You can easily import as many willing economic migrants from places earning a tenth as much as here, if they can find work at all, and move from shanty towns to council and subsidised housing, but they won't mix with you except on the fringes, no more than you would if you went to one of theirs in similar numbers.

Tribalism and national and local cultures are an essential part of history and humanity. Trying to claim it is all empty and meaningless is clearly an insult to humanity, so they need to use insults to try and implement it.

Why global warming matters

I have finally realised why global warming is such a vital issue to today's world. Without it the green and leftist movements would be a fringe element considered extreme by mainstream society and in my view rightly so.

Add a belief industry and civilisation are going to destroy the planet, and suddenly all the crazy things they wanted- de-development, going back to nature, reducing first world power etc are now the exact policies offered to solve this 'problem'.

Now the world's mainstream are making it harder and harder to run factories, mine for fuel and even heat your homes. It is taxing both companies and individuals at rates previously unthinkable outside wartime (a 33% tax on British energy for example), making many industries leave the EU through massive carbon taxes, and generally making many areas of personal life previously untouched by government rules subject to new legislation, even to the point of forced recycling where I live, under Agenda 21s local application through ICLEI which my council were one of the first to adopt. Travel is being restricted, with old cars being banned in Paris and old commercial vehicles banned in London, as part of a planned EU ban on all cars in cities.

Does anyone think without the threat of global warming a single one of these policies would have happened? The voters would have kicked any party out going half as far and no other would have dared to follow. Would it have occurred to Barack Obama to ban new oil exploration and pipelines, or the UN to consider banning oil drilling in Africa after lobbying by WWF and Greenpeace? None of this would even have been thought of without a single element, ie the threat of man made global warming. Take that away and the rest would fall away like a dream on waking. That is why I work hours a day, probably for nothing, to explain and expose this dire situation.

Global warming meme

A random just posted this on Facebook which represents the entire basis the believers of global warming believe, based on authority, false premises and paranoia. They are the confirmed 'useful idiots' doing the work for Soros, Rockefeller et al who do know the truth, and are corralling millions of weak minded innocents worldwide to do their dirty work for them as they trust authority 100% and as a result will not listen to a single word from anyone else who can see through them if not better qualified than their source.

""Debating whether climate change is real and caused by increasing greenhouse gasses produced and released by human activity (which it is), is a waste of valuable time to be taking real action to do something about it. It's like standing in a burning building denying the reality when you could get out and get a hose.

You can all slap each others backs and joke about it to buttress up your own self doubts and insecurities about your denialism. After all...you know...95-98% of educated and experienced scientists are probably wrong right? And you, your right wing media sources, carbon lobbyists and the industries they represent, the junk scientists they hire have got to be the experts.
And if you believe that I've got some prime coastal property in the Albany, NY area to sell you cause the coast is where it will be eventually in the world their selling you suckers.
Or maybe it's a global wide wealth distribution conspiracy on the part of evil, godless socialist/communist/atheists. Then they'll take your gun away too.... riiiighht."

As an ex teacher, this contains every possible non sequitur and borrowed meme present in a new student and an example for future pupils of all the basic academic failings in such. Appeals to authority, non-sequiturs, false premises, unsubstantiated claims and repeated lies are simply passed from person to person like fleas until half the world is infected, and without either one of their own being exposed or exposing the entire thing as crap, we would have to wait half a decade or more for the lack of temperature rise to prove them wrong, which would be the only other way to undo it. But the world cannot wait so long with all the harm currently being done in the name of a fairytale.

More quotes from the left

twitter is really buzzing, I may need a third blog to save all these: BBC Question time always brings the yoghurt knitters out of the woodwork.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Paisley Jr and other bigots should be afraid to 'express their views'. If you're racist, homophobic, sexist.. you should stay silent

Why is there only 1 woman on the panel? Aren't there any women in NI? #bbcqt

And that shrinking but shrill minority who cling to homophobic beliefs will not be affected in the slightest by #equalmarriage #bbcqt #LGBT

 such a traditionally troubled group. Also, why are lesbians so absent from the marriage debate? Where's their panel presence? #bbcqt

I finally realized deniers are only bullies. All they have is bullying and fear. Neither will respond to logic. >>>>>>

>>>>>WTF? Tell them, we already have changed the weather. Anti-science law makers are not credible.

My resolution for June: Communicating climate change into terms anyone will understand.

And we do nothing about climate change because of price, and destroy rainforests for corporations to make billions off oil.

The antagonism towards LGBT people is tied up with misogyny because both are based on the hatred of women/femininity.

The armchair racists and islamaphobes are out in full force on twitter and Facebook! Hope they stay there!

Doctors showed little interest in #lesbianism and sometimes questioned its existence.

I  am so excited for the day when there are no labels like "gay" and "bisexual" and when you can just love who you love #equality #samelove

There are more states that allow marrying your cousin than that allow gay marriage. Let that sink in. #equality

david cameron's like a dad who tries to buy yr love cause he's been such a dick yr whole life cept using marriage equality instead of cash

That was interesting. If I wasn't 100% sure before I am now. #UKIP & the majority of its members are sad, deluded, narrow-minded fools.

Re Woolwich murder

When is the Caucasian community going to address the radicalisation of young men via the EDL and the BNP?

still avoiding the issue of disaffected individuals & foreign policy, whilst targeting the easier demonisation of preachers of hate

actually all terrorist attacks in uk have related to uk foreign policy by perpetrators. acknowledged by uk intel

edl born out of bnp and MiG football thugs. funded as it happenes by extremist pro zionist and christian fundamentalists

--------------------------------------------------
It never takes them long to blame the Jews, some even use the actual word but the code's not that far from the word itself.

Quotes from the left

I have been coming across so many left wing tweets which normally wouldn't have got past the comedy level I've decided to collect them here. My comments in brackets.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Farage is all about class snobbery you just can't see

You won't get freedom from a xenophobic party - a fine line between xenophobia & racism.

and what ideas have U-Kippers got except xenophobia? They're the "anti-" party

Where do you think BNP have gone? Disappeared? Or just joined the party that most represents their views? #u-kippers

(Global warming): The science is in. There's nothing constructive in denying it. We need to talk about what to do.

it's a waste of time debating with blind faithers,UKIP no different to TeaParty in US
-----------------
Fighting hate speech against women on Facebook. Overdue and vital campaign

(Response):Not sure what to make of this. I'm going to put it down as an interesting thing which I'm not sure about.

 I'm unfollowing you since you are the kind of person who can't see why this is an important and vital campaign.
---------------------------
My view is 5Live in general is part of BBC tory agenda not you individually. Why BBC so silent on NHS sale?

I hope its a fantasy! I really don't think sane people would vote UKIP/Farage into any real position of power.

This is what happens under Tory govts. They know the cost of everything & value of nothing. No compassion.

Where there's a will .. As we know, austerity in 2013 is an ideology-driven excuse for cutting State & keeping wages low

I'm proud to be part of @uklabour today and proud that we're one step closer to #equalmarriage in Britain.

Imagine if you will Farage led group of MPs & their position on Equal Marriage. Only Labour can be trusted & has will to see it through.

Tories on #newsnight at each others' throats over same-sex marriage while the non-homophobic population care far more about economic issues

Here's something positive. The science deniers will b dead soon & then maybe we can reverse what they've done.

(no, you'll be dead as well, stupid)

BBC News - Climate change 'spurred modern human behaviour'

(yes, mass hysteria)

Meg Hawkins ‏@MEGatronn___ 19m

If you don't believe in climate change you are an idiot

 

(this bright spark deserved a name check)

 

TheSnewtyOne ‏@Isissosnewty 23m

I'm not feeling to good... Climate change always messes me up man

 

Soph. ‏@SophieDenty 27m

Cba to revise the evidence for climate change topic so I'm sleeping with 'the inconvenient truth' DVD on in the background

 

Some members of Congress still won't listen to the scientific consensus on #climate change. Call these deniers out:

 

The Telegraph ‏@Telegraph 7m Britain’s enemies want to destroy not just our lives but our values – and that is something they will never do http://soa.li/Y8eC50C 

 Ross Jackson ‏@laurens_man 6m @Telegraph wouldn't be surprised if this was orchestrated by #ukip or #bnp to incite anger and mass defection to their cause.. FML

(re Woolwich Muslim terrorists beheading innocent soldier)

I'm actually disgusted watching the #nolanshow tonight. There are no logical arguments against equal marriage

SO ANGRY #equalmarriage it's not a perversion of marriage you sick fuck!

equalmarriage @StephenNolan !!! Not 'gay' marriage!

What I don't understand about #equalmarriage is why it has anything to do with straight people?!

Because if equality is genuinely your concern you would have backed the equal marriage bill.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
orlando100388 If you wear a #Helpforheroes T-Shirt people be in fear of your life because #davidcameron is far too busy with gay marriage to protect you--------->

---------> @orlando100388 @JOJEHARVEY We call it equal marriage over here. But you're 2 hard hearted.The only protection we need is from people like u.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~

 

i honestly dont know a single person that likes what the EDL are or stand for (you must get out more)

 

Muslims is trending on Twitter... Let's hope that this isn't the death of multiculturalism in Britain, but the racist #EDL culture.

 

 

Fixing the country- direct means.

Sometimes when people moan and whinge about how things are they are asked what they'd put in its place and can't answer, well I can.

I believe we are all designed to want the same things, so only disagree on how to get them. That aside here is my view of a country (I can't tell anywhere else what to do) as it would be under my control.

Government would be a safety net only, to keep up with existing law to protect the people, deal with foreign challenges and arrangements, and look after those unable to look after themselves. Otherwise people can look after their own business perfectly well without state interference. Laws would be designed to stop any group having an advantage over another, landlord/tenant owner/worker etc, as technically everything has to be played fair, and today's world is almost the opposite with small groups controlling almost everything. Therefore the majority of effort would go into infiltrating and countering organised fraud among banks, scientists (50% of papers are currently withdrawn for fraud, see www.retractionwatch.com) and any other currently powerful group taking advantage of ordinary people. This includes the current policy of reducing the grades needed to pass exams and make sure everything is marked the same way it was before and a degree is only possible to pass for the top 5% or it loses its entire value and employers just ask for the equivalent of what they had before they were debased.

I would then dismantle all economic advantages of banks and property businesses etc, who exploit their positions to fix interest rates and house prices way off their free market levels. I would nationalise public services, as you can't have a market where there is no competition and all the gas and phone calls use the same gas and pipes as do the railways and lines. All it does is add in the shareholders profit to something which should break even as for everyone equally.

The collusion would then be dismantled internationally, cutting all ties with the corrupt EU, who after all are only a conglomeration of the fourth Reich and the Mafia, just as Hitler and Mussolini who failed to do the same thing by military means at the previous attempt to dominate Europe as they now do. It would be impossible for politicians and academics to own businesses or work for any connected with their own work areas, so all the MPs with directorships of renewable companies would be sacked if working on those areas in their political areas, as would scientists. Whistleblowers would gain state protection and rewards and incentives similar to any for major crimes to encourage it as part of the culture. Anyone found threatening one would be subject to severe punishment.

The people would get to vote on all major changes in advance, with two powers, both to endorse government proposals and present their own. All reasonable ideas could be put to a vote, but a basic constitution would be required to stop any being raised to restrict the freedoms inbuilt by the other parts of the system already. For example, any attempt to gain power over another group would be void, so bankers could not for instance set interest rates as they do now, or be allowed to speculate with investor's money as it was never theirs to play with in the first place and never would be if I had the chance to guarantee it. I would bring back a backing for currency, whether gold or silver or similar, and use the treasury to aim to stop and even reduce inflation, discouraging borrowing for all but housing and reduce house prices as a direct consequence. People would then be put off buying for profit and more houses would be released to the general public who would then be able to afford them again. No mortgage would be legal for more than 4X annual income, like before the 70s, and no one could borrow more than 80% of the total price to guarantee minimum liquidity.

Criminals would lose their human rights as soon as they committed a crime. Any force would be allowed to tackle burglars and muggers, and if one got shot in the head then maybe more would be put off in future. We would have total control of both borders and immigrants who break the rules once they get here. If anyone does not respect the freedom of their new country and breaks the law they are off. Abusing the generosity of their host country is a great insult and will be treated as such. The country would soon lose its reputation as a soft touch and deter new criminals from arriving as they know they won't last five minutes. Criminal records would be checked for every applicant to weed out as many as possible in advance.

Fuel and energy would be kept as cheap as possible, as it's something we all need equally, so why make profit from it especially for taxes, as it simply reduces the economy and money circulating it by removing it at source in advance. This would allow greater spending and collections from indirect sales taxes on luxuries which unlike food and water are optional. All pointless road restrictions, ironically called 'calming' but do exactly the opposite, would become illegal and all dangerous humps and chicanes would be removed, and banned from future use. No driver has ever benefitted from damaging their car or avoiding head on accidents by inches, and will also take any pedestrians with them if swerving to miss a man made hazard which now cover Britain's roads like aggressive cancer.

So, we will end up with a society where no group has an advantage over another, everyone has access to a basic standard of living with the cheapest possible housing, no trouble heating and travelling, and room for everyone. Taxes will be kept to a very minimum, especially income tax, as this keeps more money free and circulating and there is no reason to avoid paying what you can afford to. Crime will become less tempting, both as foreign criminals will be kept away and the standard of living would rise to mean many people could survive without stealing for food or survival. Without the need to make profits for transport people could travel to work further and more easily, and visit friends and family more easily wherever they lived. Of course all road tolls would not just be removed but incorporated into the constitution to outlaw indefinitely. They only penalise the poor as the rich just incorporate them into their budget while the poor simply have to avoid them.

If asked I'm sure I can fill in any other areas people choose to know. This includes nuclear weapons, which if seen in a film without them existing in reality would be considered as dangerous and pointless as they always have been, so they would go for a start. Interfering in civil wars would be no better than interfering in one's own citizens' lives, unless there was a clear outside invader and we were asked for help these are no one elses' business. Countries who regularly have civil wars have never stopped through intervention, it's just a matter of which tribe or family runs the local Mafia and will be till they get their shit together, which may never happen but is not other people's problem. That would save any resources for actual defence, ie not attacking other countries as we don't like what they happen to be doing, like Korea and Vietnam, or Iraq. As Britain hasn't been invaded since 1066 I'd say we'd end up saving many billions with that policy alone.

To summarise:

Low taxes
Nationalised services
Cheap fuel and energy
No advantage to any group above others, and large efforts made to maintain this in all areas.
Unrestricted travel
Limited immigration and repatriation for criminals
No warfare outside our own borders, or nuclear weapons
No domination by outside forces through any international agreements
Restrictions on mortgage borrowing
Market manipulation to have an entire department to outlaw and detect
Policies made and decided directly by citizens within a basic constitution
Constitution outlawing any rules to impose additional burdens on citizens
State protection and support for whistleblowers
Honest levels of educational attainment without adjusting any marks upwards
A fixed base for currency
Guaranteed welfare for the sick and unemployed
No protection for criminals carrying out their acts
No personal interests allowed for positions of power in those areas.
Borrowing made virtually impossible and obsolete except for mortgages
The most taxes would be on sales of luxuries which are both optional and affect the richest, unlike fuel at present which has some of the highest levels and hurts the poor the most.
Banks could not gamble with depositor's money, in fact many such derivatives and futures would be banned altogether as they create absolutely nothing but just move the same money around endlessly.


These partly address known issues in today's society I have identified, and basic principles which protect all countries from corruption if applied completely. I have seen many in both situations so know from direct experience the difference from what they have been like in the past. Remember the days when only one partner had to work to afford a house? How can it be better now when in many cases they cost too much for even a couple both working? Remember when the queues were shorter in hospitals and waiting rooms, and roads and pavements were half empty outside city centres? Remember when roads were flat and wide and two cars could pass each other without swerving to avoid council bollards? And regardless of the service, which can be addressed separately, when gas and electricity prices were cut as soon as a certain profit had been reached by law?

I remember all these, and no doubt everyone who either does or would like to would benefit from them again, and it can easily all be done tomorrow if people wanted it.

Why do I do it?

Having had valid comments about the extreme nature of some of my comments, it occurred to me to explain the reasoning behind why I say what I say.

It is divided between observation of where people simply get it wrong and I've seen through it, so need to put things straight in my own small way, and my opinions based on what seems right and natural.

As currently the pendulum has swung left, and for big government and large scale intervention and social engineering, the first point is whose right is it to tell others how to live if it isn't hurting them? They call it equality, but the first principle of equality after every life (including animals) is equal, is no person has the right to impose their wishes on others. Those who govern are employees, and if they get it wrong we get rid of them. Of course where that isn't possible individuals simply take over, but no one would say that was a good thing except their friends and families, we only know this one short visit to life on earth and do not need big headed autocrats putting unnecessary obstacles in any of our paths, much like Camden council's roadblocks in the 70s which have now been copied across Britain, making everyone's journeys harder unanimously. All these rules are nonsense, society simply doesn't have a right to impose its morals on others. Of course the fall of empires in history raised this long ago, so realised while the people generally will not last long under the rule of arbitrary other people, mainly then the aristocracy, they needed something higher, (much like today's global warming), so raised life to a level above humanity (despite having foundations of nothing at all) and if people were pushed into handing over their money and rights it was to a higher form of life, the highest possible, god.

Now more people are gradually dropping their belief for humanism, that only works on the margins, and the rulers need more subtle ways to impose their wishes on who are in all ways their equals (what right does the British royal family have to order us around, or the hereditary peers?). Of course the Parliament Act stopped that centuries ago for that very reason, recognising no one born to a particular family has the right to rule on that basis, but it only meant new ways kept being developed for those who weren't content with their own freedom, but feel they must impose it on others the way they want it.

So when I catalogued the areas which were being used to impose opinions on innocent people, and steal their money and rights, I pointed them out. And as a natural rebel, if anyone makes a rule to stop something harmless or even tasteless but harmless I will do it even more. A comedian was on the radio aplogising for an old programme about spastics, although it was and still is a medical term. Children (and many adults) will by human nature use the words for the disabled as insults, just as with body parts, so call it something else and they will just use them sooner or later. The name is irrelevant, as the British soldiers did when they were told to stop calling the Falklanders Bennys, they called them Stills, as they were Still Bennys. Banning words doesn't change human nature.

Family structure has always been a hot potato since the feminism of the 60s onwards. Back then women were either career women at the top, housewives in the middle, and workers at the bottom, as houses were so cheap the man could usually pay all the bills himself, while the women looked after the children and may work part time if they felt like it. They could have worked full time as no one actually forced them not to, but they chose not to. It was, to use a word the left would love to ban as well, natural. Animals are not told who must look after their children, but it's all arranged worldwide whichever animals we are talking about, some have the whole pack sharing the work, but most it's the mother, look at cats for the best example. So using ethology, extending animal behaviour to human (these lessons always become useful eventually) if animals have a natural family unit, then we can assume as animals so do we.

Multiculturalism is demonstrated worldwide in unimposed ghettoes, little pockets of Somalia, Poland or wherever else has enough new arrivals in an area, and all they do naturally is reproduce the Punjab or Shanghai in their own areas, the longer they remain the more traditional the area becomes as Chinatown or Southall. Then you reach the point where the new culture dominates the area so much the native people feel uncomfortable walking along the street or entering a shop where no one is speaking English, and whether or not genuine feel heads are turning just like when a stranger walks into a Cornish pub.

This simply isn't a political issue, it's almost entirely an economic one. As there is a currency slope between the highest and the lowest, within any country the economic hierarchy is based generally on dividing the limited GDP among the total population, either to a small elite and vast populace in poverty, or a democratic spread. Each country can work to improve the GDP to increase the total pot, but if you just let them commute to the best place and work there freely you'll naturally get the poorest who have the means all move together to the best places to work and live, with the extra bonus of sending money back to the old country to remove any benefits of the host country where it has been earned.

I haven't done a survey, but would expect given the chance the great majority of immigrants would love to return home if they had the same opportunities there, as we are all attached to our roots to some degree. Why on earth would anyone want to integrate, especially first generation? And if religious, the second generation get into great deals of trouble when they do begin to mix with the locals and either have to give in and get back in line or fall out with their families. These pitfalls are almost guaranteed, and can never totally go away, as when the few long term migrants do return home they don't fit in there either as many people see how they've changed and don't fully accept them as they are now.

Economic equality/redistribution is pretty much theft, based on my first principle, no one has the right to tell us how to live our lives if no one else is hurt. People in a single country are all in the same boat more or less, as if a free country the poor can all become rich. They won't but they could. Besides the money needed to run a country, any more than that is sheer theft. Where do you draw a line of 'too much money'? I can only describe people who wish to remove the honestly earned wealth of others for society as being no different from what they just did to the Cypriots, just a sophisticated form of burglary.

But the bottom line underlying all my beliefs is freedom. If something creates an obstacle for freedom in any way, then without an extremely good reason, vital in fact, it should never happen. I see them and call them for what they are. Artificial, totalitarian and entirely unnecessary. I was always aware of these, and fought at school to stop anything I saw as unfair as that was my nature. Since then I've had long enough to identify all the specific areas, and the internet allows me to point them out. And in the style of any rebel, if they've tried to block a word or attitude, I will use it all the more. Not because I want to offend anyone, but because everyone should be free to, and I am.

So those are the motives behind my bad behaviour. I want to release everyone for the same freedom, and to discover we all want the same thing, but just believe there are a million ways of getting it. But most of those are wrong, if they restrict freedoms for no good reason or purpose. Of course if everyone had everyone else's money they'd be better off, but the others who lost it wouldn't. Unless private property is outlawed altogether, something requiring the highest level of totalitarian imposition, the default is your property belongs to you without a damn good reason to share it. That's life, nature and freedom.

Speculation 2013

The no news of 2013 so far. News is similar to fruit, it grows and only falls when ripe, but with the media the difference is they imagine the fruit before it's even budding and go ahead and report before it has even been conceived.

Therefore the vast majority of their reports haven't actually happened, and never will, as Jesus says, withering on the vine. But it never stops people taking as if they already have, and if not are almost bound to. Except the only actual news events in my life and history didn't get followed from their roots and branches to maturity, they just happened suddenly with no expectations or warnings. But the media continue to thrive on nothing, the events they want people to expect which they already know are probably impossible.

2013s are particularly rampant, probably because the only actual news we have is some mad ragheads ripping each other apart in the Middle East, no sorry, we don't have any actual news at all as that's a constant.

 The breakup of the Euro was actually becoming debunked by a few serious commentators, but not before every single country bailed out had been tipped for default, even though there is no mechanism in place to allow one. The built in safety net within the Euro actually informally guarantees a default would be impossible so there is no valid reason to expect one.

This month's special in the US is will Obama be impeached. Why exactly? Because there has been corruption in authority and some ambassadors were killed by terrorists as he didn't protect them? That's business as usual, if that caused impeachment anywhere else half the world would change their leaders every week, and the standards are barely higher in the US any more. And before anyone says 'Nixon', he wasn't impeached, he resigned. Clinton passed his test after doing far more than Obama's been caught doing so far, and that's about it. If anyone's getting impeached we'd know about it.

Will Britain leave the EU? Possibly, but not by a referendum which will never happen, only by UKIP winning a majority. Till then it's business as always.

Global warming. As I said in my previous entry, it isn't even warming any more, while CO2 is at a record level. It can't happen.

France, Spain and Italy are too big to afford a bailout. Well, no one would know till the time, but how could they really collapse?

Italy and Greece will not form a government and be forced to default. That was earlier speculation and proven wrong already.

I'm sure there are more I've missed but you get the formula. They see a situation, imagine the worst possible scenario and push it as the likely outcome which never happens. I'm fed up with it. If there's nothing happening worth reporting then find something else to talk about.

Climate war

This is war, no doubts. The current response to the lack of warming has been to invent new laws of physics to fit them, and raise the predictions for sea level rise, although that isn't happening either.

Normally such actions would only be appropriate in a film, and the audience could all see exactly what was happening. This time the audience are the outsiders, ones who can't see how anyone can believe this crap, while the actors are the masses, the dull and duller of mind who simply accept something as they are told by someone with authority and the figures themselves don't actually register, only their 'effect'.

Can this continue forever? I have no idea. This has never happened before, except in religions. They at least all unanimously agree we must take the concept of God on trust as he doesn't do performances. You have to have faith or you can't have religion. But the climate does do performances, there is no element of faith, unless you switch from what we call 'the real world' to the fantasy geek world of computer gaming, or 'models' as they have been called if the subject is based on the climate. There you write your own laws of physics to suit the game, and this game is hot. If the heat then doesn't arrive you move it somewhere else, this time the deep ocean, where only the binary patterns can see this heat but as the announcement is made by people of authority we must have faith in them and their models, plus none in our own direct observations.

Of course I get frustrated. I never believed more than a few percent of the world were so fucking dim, and now I find below 100 IQ really means that, double digit, half the world, plus a large slice of the slightly above average. If we entered a new ice age they would all wake up, but apart from the genuine death and destruction that would cause it wouldn't happen for millennia. In our lifetimes however what is left to happen for them to realise you can't hide heat in the ocean and not the atmosphere. This theory was cobbled together in weeks to counter the reality that CO2 rises and temperature does not. And of course everyone who was watching their world collapse as their fears and hopes of changing society were slowly being dashed as the inevitable lack of climate response was gradually eroding their ideals. But it never takes long for the 'dog ate my homework' theories to be knocked up, this one being no easier to believe, except from time to time dogs do actually eat homework, but not when you don't have a dog.

So imagine. After 150 or so years of cyclical temperature rises from CO2 (hypothetically), suddenly this heat says 'Hey, let's try the sea, I'm bored with the air and feel like a swim'.

What a fucking liberty.

Guidance report

The guidance in my life recently has been quite amazing. It's present role is to both get me things I couldn't on my own, and show me (and everyone else) it is. And logically it should be for everything else now as well.

Currently a very rare (one I haven't got) road sign turned up in Braintree in March, which has another on the way, and since then I've been working nearly every weekday I would have gone and too tired to go the last two Thursdays when it became possible. So what I did was to use my weekends south of the river to go to Kent as it has more than elsewhere, and began with one in Sissinghurst as having missed the others was worth the distance for a virtual certainty (you never know for sure as they are removed sooner or later). On the way back I found an incredibly rare one I'd never have got otherwise, and as I couldn't get to Essex the following week kept Streetviewing till I found another in Tunbridge Wells. I left my large scale map behind so had to rely on the little roads in the book coming back, as I try and go back a different way to get photos on two sets of roads, turned right at the village I was meant to, and right in front of me was another direction sign, although I'd checked them all for miles around this wasn't near a main junction so had missed it. Had I remembered the map I'd have taken the next road and never known about it.

The following week I kept Streetviewing, nothing new except a mystery warning sign on a stripy pole where I'd been already near Maidstone, so asked around and got no answers and decided to check it just in case, as there were two in Chatham which wasn't too far away if it was cack. It turned out not to even be old or a warning sign, they'd added stripes on a new pole and put a neighbourhood watch sign on it, but had I got word from the locals that week it was I wouldn't have bothered to go, and got nothing. That means instead of getting two signs in Essex and calling it a day, I've got six more and still the two left there. That is a major profit.

Now of course the next level is to both see the guidance everywhere else, and be guided to all my other ambitions. Without a single step being present (around five per visit) I wouldn't have got half of them. When that's not only happened a few times clearly in the past, and then three weeks running it can't really be seen as much else, especially as it's happening all the time to many people around me now as well who call me almost in shock with their own experiences. But to me now it's all become normal, I don't see it as odd, and just science as we don't yet know it.

I have a lot more to add on similar areas, suffice to say I have seen enough now to get what I'd call the big picture, and once someone does then it's valid to comment as if one does. That took me all this time but seems to have completed now.