Opinions can never be facts however hard they try to make them

I will extend my theme of lack of choice on the liberal left of politics, after seeing a post by Jeff Foxworthy pointing out if a liberal doesn't like a TV programme they don't turn over but try and ban it.

swearing alert!

Gay marriage is a single example representing all. It is a matter of opinion. It is not, and can never be right or wrong, people either agree with it or not, like what music they prefer. You can as a technician say some music is better than others mathematically, or art either looks like what it claims to be more or less so, but gay marriage is pretty much a strawberries or bananas situation. But the left say it is right, and if you disagree with it you are wrong, and being on what they (not me) call the 'liberal' side then want the wrong opinion criminalised, like the growing number of activists who want climate change sceptics banned by law.

This is outright Nazism, Sovietism, Totalitarianism or every other ism which has destroyed countries in living memory, demonised Jews, women and any other group blamed for the ills of the world, often supported by God (as who can argue with God?) to remove it from the realm of either discussion or logical analysis. No doubt, as Marx observed (Karl, not Groucho), the antithesis (in the form of people like me who say wog, spastic and mongoloid because we know they are harmless but told not to) ought to grow and eventually wipe out the extreme left who attempt to squash the ability to have the other opinion from them. I was saying to a friend tonight how our multicultural Asians almost unanimously will not date British men, and the few who do are usually ostracised by their friends and family. We did not ask them to live here, they spent thousands moving half way across the world, and then look down on the culture of their host nation and do their best (not our best, it is their choice) to avoid the white man whenever they can, and at best not even learn their horrible language when even the white people working for the state have to either learn theirs or pay a fucking fortune for someone to turn up at a moment's notice and translate.

This is not simply an opinion, it is stating how things are by everyone's direct observations. Join a waiting room for medical or council purposes, you will barely hear English spoken, and even if they eventually learn it they will still tend to stick in their own communities and mix with the British as little as possible and shun anyone within their community who does. Besides observation the Asian colleagues I have tell me this happily as although some are exceptions they observe the same thing directly to tell outsiders like me they are seeing things correctly. The point here being if we dare to question Tony Blair's multicultural Hades were are simply called racist, and rather than even requiring banning the mentioning of it altogether they have already made racism a severe crime only limited by the efforts of the police to squeeze a case they witness into the definition. But if I dared to say this in front of the wrong people they'd take my words and submit a police report for saying immigrant communities do not mix, not because the natives will not tolerate them but because although they love our houses, jobs and health service they clearly are not that keen on the actual residents who were here already.

This is not about any issue in itself though, but they are used as examples of opinions which the left treat as facts which are therefore either correct (multiculturalism) or wrong (limiting immigration and maybe even particular groups specifically). The fact till maybe 15 years ago this always happened in virtually every country in the world and still does in the majority (would you like to try and buy a house and live in Saudi Arabia, America, Switzerland, Jersey, Libya or Iran?) has been conveniently totally forgotten by the beyond the left who treat unlimited immigration (including the criminals fleeing from the authorities) as a given. Well fuck them. The further they go in doing all they can to tell us what we can and can't believe the further I will go showing them up and fighting every single taboo they are creating to keep us down and out.

So although it's not about deliberately raising the issues and words they want banned by law, although the sheer freedom to say them ought to also motivate everyone of right mind to force the survival of them, but recognising the sheer incorrectness and further dangerousness of the trend to polarising opinions as right or wrong. It's totalitarian, nothing like left wing or liberal, but pure extreme fascism. Read this, learn the formulas, and don't let them pervert you.

The lunatics really are running the asylum

 I've worked out the specialists are so good in an incredibly narrow field they've either lost the ability, or more probably never had it to fit their small area of expertise into a large picture in any way, or see the significance of their own little twisted logic. I also suspect a good deal of autism is at play here, as it is a sign of a higher intelligence in many cases but very limited understanding where it all fits together. At top levels of science I wonder how many also suffer from a degree of it- Michael Mann and James Hansen, as well as Al Gore all show very clear signs of mental illness- personality disorder, megalomania, paranoia etc in varying degrees, and they are all in such incredible positions of power very few people would be aware it would be either possible or actual to have borderline psychotics running the world.

But looking the opposite way, how many balanced people would care about running the world, let alone try to? It has always been the preserve of the maniac, look at Idi Amin, Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, I could fill a page or two. Just because their countries are or were so piss poor the people couldn't overthrow them doesn't mean the same people don't rule in the west- they just cover it up far more as the people would kick them out otherwise.

I reckon once people assume their leaders are madder the higher up they go on average it will all fit into place. Tony Blair always had the look of a mental patient, while Barack Obama has no link between his metaphorical head and heart, in fact if purely being metaphorical he simply has no heart. Once you have these things pointed out they become obvious. The signs are a lot clearer than fraud, simply as we are all human and can recognise others' traits as you can cover up theft very easily with help but can never hide your own madness very easily. Blair and Obama only manage as their teams of leaders (yes, the Bilderberg group and Club of Rome etc appoint leaders below them, heads of state are the first public level of government below the private levels) keep their actions heavily regulated, but if you look at their actual policies, such as allowing unlimited immigration into the UK (a few million in a decade and growing) and legislating CO2 as a pollutant although we'd all be dead without it these dangerous criminals have done exactly the same things as Idi Amin and Mugabe but have never had it tied in with their own personalities as officially they form part of a government rather than being individual dictators, which also takes the eye away from the individuals. But if Obama has his executive orders, what does that make him when he uses them? A dictator of course, what else could a unilateral action with no opportunity to challenge be?

Now if you got together an entire room or cabinet office of a mix of the rulers (hidden) and leaders (representatives of the rulers)  what would that make? The EU and UN of course. The EU is run by the European Commission, a small cabal of professional politicians, who originate law for the entire EU mainly in secret, which then goes to parliament not to be voted on but implemented. Those 'politicians' paid many times more than real national ones do nothing, literally. An MEP is paid to be the front business for the EU mafia, who run drugs and arms like the real ones, as well as mass theft through shadow banking and commodity price fixing etc but make the idiot people think it's a real parliament who make laws we can change when we vote new ones in. But if you call a discussion group a parliament but don't give them any actual power then the people can easily discover they are only a discussion group.

The UN are no different, except they include the rogue states like Libya and Saudi Arabia, who keep women at home and don't allow other religions to practice openly. Add god into the psychotic mix and you have suicide bombers and hijackers whose own life is irrelevant in exchange for killing the infidels. So only being a matter of degree we have nutters ruling most of the world and more so than any other time before as they are now working almost entirely as a single unit using Agenda 21 as the catalyst. And although I don't know enough about the woman to know if she's on the ball or not yet I will say that comparing her with the extremely similar and totally sane Ken Livingstone of London infamy she is as far gone as they get politically, in a way which could be shown as an example of the worst in every politician throughout history. Although her accusations of a possibly criminal past are only in the preliminary stages, proof of guilt is the last thing we'd ever get from a leader simply as you rarely make leader without making damn sure there are no loose ends (look at the lengths Obama went to by wiping the details of every member of his family from the records, yet no one's ever challenged it) what we already know she did is proof of mixing with the dogs, and you rarely mix with a pack of dogs if you're a pussycat. We've had a succession of utter rubbish running many countries in the last few decades- Clinton, Blair, Obama, Mugabe, Berlusconi, and no doubt many more I'd know little about elsewhere, but Julia Gillard is such an archetypal baddie it's amazing enough people (the Australians should be way more savvy than the wet Brits who prefer their tea and TV) haven't seen through her and kicked her out soon after she broke her first promise of 'no carbon tax', and now says she'd have done it even if not forced to by the Greens, just like Ken Livingstone would 'never extend the congestion charge zone' or 'only an idiot would get rid of Routemaster buses'.

Ken only ran a city, this bitch runs a massive country (in size anyway) with theoretically enough sensible voters to see right through her, and only with a massive backup from abroad could possibly survive in such a potentially hostile environment. Someone is clearly protecting her from the fire, and unless like all criminals (assuming she was) left a careless clue or two behind will at worst only suffer a defeat in the next election. I was actually amazed the Americans, previously the most politically aware country in the world, voted Obama back after beginning to destroy their entire way of life, but possibly that was because Romney was such a creepy arsehole even the force of his decent policies weren't enough to overcome his disgusting personality (I read plenty, and I was duly disgusted). But unlike Obama at least he HAS a personality. Or maybe the accusations (hold on, over 100% turnout and 100% unanimous support are real) of election fixing were the real reason. And that would need a greater cooperation than faking a moon landing, but unlike the moon landing is not only possible but rampant worldwide, so maybe the question should be 'If it is common in half the world, why NOT the USA?'. It has truly come to that, with countries now catching up with those we used to colonise and civilise in the opposite direction by all coming down to their level. Soon it won't make a blind bit of difference if Obama or Mugabe ran the US as within a couple of months Obama has already managed to do as much to destroy the country as Mugabe had in his first term. Just hark back to when he regularly raised the debt ceiling in his first term, now he has no need to court the voters he can really do what he wanted (remember the 'one term isn't enough to complete my work' quote?) and has even surprised me in the speed that has happened. The carbon tax is now on the cards as guaranteed by me before the election, notice it wasn't in his manifesto so people didn't have the chance for a clear choice either way, and is sending money to the Al Qaeda sponsored government of Egypt, who are not a country one would normally expect to have good relations with the west, so why is he so friendly to them?

Political correctness dissected

I think I have managed to analyse what political correctness has done and how and why they must never be allowed to do what they are doing. Political correctness attempts to restrict the use of words, ideas and opinions, and what I have worked out is they have taken various different things and then treated them all as if they are the same. These are:

Facts
Opinions
Insults
Lies

Insults: Now we already have more than enough laws to stop either incitement to a crime, so any direct statements to cause any sort of harm were never under question as already known to be both wrong and illegal. Normal people in a free country would stop right there. Insults are offensive but do not actually directly cause or incite others to cause harm. Nonetheless if you or I called someone a bloody wog even outside their presence we'd be behind bars a lot faster than any burglar or mugger. There is a school of thought which would claim banning insults makes society a better place but does it stop people thinking such things or just saying them in public? In the Falkland Islands the soldiers called the natives 'Bennies' and when that was stopped called them 'Stills'. When asked why, it was because 'They were still Bennies'. So banning the use of the word doesn't change the attitude behind them, and if you ban one bad word people will either use another or just say it in private. The playground took a set of medical and technical words such as spastic, imbecile, mongol, backward, retarded, handicapped and cripple from hospital and social work unit to the black book of sacking offences, despite the words all having strict dictionary definitions and communicating often an exact meaning required by medical and associated professionals. Ban the words, defile the language and replace them with others firstly people don't understand 'educationally challenged?' 'differently abled', and within a decade have then replaced the last lot and need a new set ad infinitum.

Opinions: Beyond words we have facts and opinions. If you begin with opinions (as how, one would ask, can you ban mentioning any facts?), they are divided in two very clear parts. One is personal preference, not based on a single fact so impossible for any to be right or wrong. This spreads from taste, such as music, food and art, to political and social preferences, where some may be happy living in multicultural Brent where you struggle to hear a single English speaker in the street, while others would feel they had been suddenly swept to the departure lounge at Delhi or Lagos airport and thoroughly uncomfortable. As immigration is one favourite hot potato, this is as good an example as any to start with. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' about who we prefer to share our lives with, and if people could actually choose whether to live in a multicultural area or not then it would never become a problem, but as multicultural tends to follow people rather than lead, it is an issue. But to then claim one is actually the only correct way to be, as if it was a fact, you have become totalitarian. I agree banning foreigners from any areas like in apartheid is also totalitarian, but so is allowing uncontrolled immigration because the government have decided it is right. In reality neither is right and neither can be right as the cultural mix of a town is something people either prefer or not, and always will be, just as some people prefer their local food and others prefer something more exotic. Who is someone else in power to tell them only one is right for food or the people who created it?

So my point is, with political correctness, they have taken a growing set of left wing opinions, and said they are right, the only correct ones, and therefore there is no alternative opinion as they have elevated their chosen opinions to the status of facts, and then on top protected them with the status of insults or worse to ban the chance of a challenge. Now once you begin restricting people's personal preferences, and then banning or criminalising their expression, you have become fascists. Forget what people call themselves, if they (like the aptly named 'National Socialists' before them) act like fascists then they are simply parading as left wing freedom fighters and doing the exact opposite. The only freedoms they want are for themselves to rule with an iron hand and for their chosen allies, currently Muslims (anyone know why?), environmentalists and certain criminals such as foreign terrorists and families who mutilate or kill their children ('it's their culture' they say, to justify female genital mutilation, honour killing and aborting female fetuses). Now banning the word 'backward' or 'mongol' which were used by doctors, teachers and social workers right up to the 70s doesn't protect a single person. But justifying the worst known behaviours around the world, including covering the faces of women, or stopping them from driving or going to school as they do in Iran and Saudi Arabia is not only never shunned but rampantly protected from criticism as 'they are only doing what is right for them'.

So political correctness has now shifted from fascism to actually sidestepping the law against incitement to hurt others. After all, if you protect criminals you are promoting their actions by default. But back to my main point, which defuses PC entirely once you realise what it does, is cross the line into personal preference and tells people what they can and cannot think and say. Disagree with gay marriage and you're homophobic? (believe me, no one's scared of gay people, so that's another word they invented wrongly) Maybe you actually believe marriage means the union of a man and a woman, so anything else can't be? That's a technical point, even if you have no problem with men or women forming a lifetime legal bond, it just isn't marriage. But say that and they'll sack you (as it's not yet a crime to prosecute but anyone with the power to fire will do so if you do), meaning a totally innocent act has resulted in a direct hardship with little or no chance of compensation.

The second type of opinions are different, as not based on preference but lack of facts. If you don't know something instead of saying so, most people know a little and fill in the gaps, forming an opinion as a result. Therefore science has various studies on intelligence, genetics, racial characteristics to varying degrees, but besides the basics most people don't know these, and base their views on personal experience and anecdotes. This is not criminal behaviour but ignorance, and the treatment is discovery and education. Simply fighting, arguing and banning disagreement altogether doesn't teach anyone anything, it just stops them saying anything and ultimately stops them learning as if you don't ask you won't find out.

Facts: These can be partially or almost totally known. Global warming, for example, claims to be 'settled', but on further study discover a) the majority is set in predictions for the distant future and b) the present situation has as many studies showing one set of results as the other. Now they only accept one side and anyone disagreeing has been compared to paedophiles, nazis, baby killers and one Austrian professor recently called for the death sentence for anyone speaking out against it. In fact the only Nazism going on here is by the activists, as if you do as Mengele and Goebbels did and politicise science, saying only 'Aryan' science was correct, you are behaving exactly like a Nazi, that simple. Can you imagine a politician or pressure group like Greenpeace before saying 'If you believe there is life outside the solar system you should face the death sentence?'. What's the difference? Neither is known directly, both rely on shreds of evidence to be extrapolated and fill in huge gaps with lack of direct measurement or knowledge of the past and future, and then a general theory be made up until or unless there is enough to know beyond reasonable doubt. Whichever example you prefer, there is no previous scientific proposition where the proponents wanted to ban scientists (or anyone following them) from showing evidence to the contrary. Of course science can't do that as it can always learn more.

Intelligence is another much older bete noir of the left. Those far enough gone believe we don't have an IQ, everyone could be an Einstein given the correct conditions, which actually crosses the next line from opinions to lies, as of course there is well over a hundred years of randomised tests showing twins and close family members score the same when separated as identical twins, and different when together as fraternal twins. Identical twins are genetically the same person, and enough studies have proved their IQs and virtually every other personality trait (now being further affirmed in DNA analysis) are virtually the same, even when divided at birth and brought up in different countries and economies. If similar results could be shown for racial characteristics in even one area it would be scientific proof (repeatable and reliable) but they don't like 'the wrong facts', so even when they have been long backed up by science, they try and ban the mention of them. If a black person commits a crime, they don't want it being mentioned as such, even if on the run as a rapist. Concealing the race of a criminal or group of criminals does nothing except protect and encourage them, something the PC lot seem to love to see, as if allowing immigration already wasn't enough, they want to let them do whatever they did to flee their own countries if they were being chased by the authorities there already for doing the same things. But those are just the consequences, probably inevitable, of the practice itself of hiding and avoiding any facts which do not fit their ideology.

Examples:

Words: spastic backward retarded crippled handicapped
Opinions: Economic equality- gay marriage- immigration/multiracial/cultural society
Facts :(whether or not known for certain now they would be if we had enough knowledge to prove). IQ level, environmental influence on IQ, do races vary in IQ, are some races better at certain technical skills regardless of environment (eg orientals at maths), racial identity of criminals and racial profiling.

So in conclusion, we have:

Some opinions are wrong.
Some facts must be wrong as they are not nice.
Bad acts are good if 'cultural' but good words are bad if they say they are 'offensive'.
Debating a closed issue is not permitted on any single one of these.

Ideally breaching all such acts should be punished, some with greater penalties than those against the person and property.

I'm sure those running the show will be quite disappointed someone has spent the time to work out exactly what they are doing, offering others the opportunity to understand their actual methods as opposed to their stated aims of equality and freedom. As always, if someone calls themselves 'Freedom Fighters' and express their aims by killing innocent citizens, it is not up to them to name themselves anything but others to do so. So I am hoping anyone reading this will understand if they call themselves 'Bambi', 'Maurice', 'Politically Correct' or 'Correct' they can only ever be fascists, as restricting personal speech which is not promoting harm to others, and personal opinion, while also restricting the study and dissemination of scientific facts which do not agree with their ideology is only ever present in the worst possible examples of fascism (even if Mao chose to call his something else). Don't look at what these people call themselves, look at what they do and work it out yourselves.

Current review

Having sat here over an hour waiting for a call to go out (clearly not coming, I was happy to stay in) it was time for a general report again for a change. It does seem the principle the truth will out is beginning to take place, with the greatest analysis of climate data of all finding pretty much nothing (Hebrew University last week, no known media reports), although the infinitesimally less important Met Office revision of their decadal prediction of temperature being revised down with a new computer (I suggest the sale at Staples if they want a really good one) being all over the world, even the BBC! This is a step in the right direction, but reporting the major study would have been vastly more useful. I've callled and tweeted local radio all afternoon (they were discussing it) to no avail but won't give up, in over 10 years this is the best piece of research to come out and won't stop till people know about it.

Generally I am still working through all sorts of tests and theories around life, learning the odd new lesson along the way. If I have been given a mission (if so then we all have, and it's just a matter of noticing) then I'll carry it out and hope there is more of a reward at the end of it than knowing more useless information than I did before. There's no point having a journey if you end up where you started. Meanwhile my internet life has used the global warming war (their words, not mine) to learn about psychology and politics, as the vast majority of debate on it is personal and political, the data is ignored at the expense of a feeling either of personal superiority or abject terror for those weak minded enough to actually believe it. Regardless of the fact no catastrophe has ever been predicted in history, by scientists or anyone else, when the fear kicks in any brains that were present head towards the arse.

My first lesson was not to be patronising to these empty minded wankers. Of course the lesson now means I say that about them rather than to them, and we are only affected when the proportion is great enough to drive world policy and opinion, which sadly is well over the line currently. But in actual engagement keep to the facts and do your best not to introduce any personal superiority regardless of how much you are aware of. That is a challenge close to not showing a woman you like them as when they do they won't want you. The upside is my own certainty of my position as I've had the time and interest to research in the background long enough before going public to know enough to have the confidence to take on all comers. It's expanded my own mind if nothing else and as always the problem was not the knowledge side but the presentation.

Otherwise the spiritual quest ploughs on interminably. My angel project is a few months old, and apart from the relative smoothness of my activities with a few exceptions no requested prizes or results have materialised so far. I suppose the climate study is the closest but that's got a long way to go before anything actually results from it. No actual women, meditation results or much more than usual, but can't give up as it's the only direction to go in with a chance of improvements. It keeps me busy if nothing else.

Media preferences exposed

This could go in my fraud blog, but as a work in progress rather than a lesson of any type is fine to go in here.

In the last two years, in amongst the speculative and inductive studies repeated endlessly by all known media, two massive studies surfaced, one well over a year ago by none less than part of the Japanese government, whose sole satellite measuring CO2 worldwide had released its findings, and unlike the expectations showed the more populated an area was generally the more CO2 it absorbed, while emissions came from deserts and forests. Now the mechanisms behind this can be left to the scientists, but the findings were so drastic you'd think the media ought to have mentioned them as they pretty well changed the game. 18 months later there is a sole report tucked away online if you look hard enough. Otherwise the Japanese Ibuki satellite findings remain a very badly publicised elephant. If David Copperfield can hide the Statue of Liberty the papers can hide an elephant like this very easily.

Now this week possibly the best news of 2013 and maybe even the 21st century altogether was released. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem put together the largest known collection of parameters and found little or no evidence of man made warming. The world isn't going to burn or the oceans boil, it's not happening. Music to the ears of every single citizen of the world, as even if you don't believe it if it was happening everyone would have been affected. But it isn't. OK, this was only yesterday, but although a few websites have picked this one up if it's not in the papers by Monday it never will be.

Now this is interesting, as last year when the Berkeley University BEST study reran the Michael Mann hockey stick using solely temperature records (the same ones I think) amazingly they came up with the same results, and within a femtosecond The Guardian and BBC were giving it more welly than a royal wedding. Add to that a final paragraph added (paraphrasing) 'But there is a possibility this may be due to natural causes such as the multidecadal oscillation'. The major difference between law and science (or journalism) is the attention to detail. Lawyers write such long contracts as every word (let alone paragraph) counts. Therefore by missing a paragraph anyone reading would use to neutralise the remainder of the article (like the Wayne's World style addition of 'Not' after a claim) the media have added subterfuge to irrelevance. Just like a chancellor announcing new giveaways in the budget he actually gave away months earlier (standard PR methods), using someone else's material to run an equation and find the same result they did is simply putting garbage in and getting it out again. But merit or not, the media picked this up like a naked photo of Al Gore (or would they?) and cut the ugly foreskin off which would have otherwise ruined the picture.

So we have a far greater piece of evidence here by combining the three phenomena (four if you include the partial reporting of BEST).

A physical measurement demonstrates populated countries do not emit CO2
A study (possibly the largest of its kind) concludes there is no anthropogenic sign of warming
A team recheck someone else's data and find it is what it was, except it may not be.

Which gets the coverage?

And the main question is actually 'Why?'.

When people work out the why, then they will no longer rely on the media to tell them such vital material, but do their own investigation now we have it all available on the internet. If newspapers want to become redundant, this is the quickest way to make it happen.

There will always be people who don't believe words alone so here are the links:
Ibuki Satellite
Full climate analysis

Believe me, you won't need my help for the BEST material, but it was included in the second study and made absolutely zero impact. That's called 'discrediting' I think in science, or superseding at the least.

2013 report already!

David's 2013 blog:

My visitors have now left and catching up on the second life online as usual. Odd and interesting things are happening already, ie more than usual. In life we are all equally given the freedom of our own opinions, and unless someone's go against me directly then it's their business not mine. Opinions being where it is a choice like food or music or books, not on facts where some people choose to guess one way or another where either no one really knows, or worse still they do yet they choose to stick with the idea they prefer as the reality freaks them out. Like whether intelligence is innate or not. There's enough evidence for that to fill a library, but those on the left who believe we're all a blank slate all with the potential to become Einstein if given the right environment and we are all equal will ignore it as they prefer their opinion of the world.
Anyway, you like a person first and their opinions are simply part of who they are. I've met loads of people who share my ideas and are absolutely nothing like me and not worth hanging out with at all, like the women on dating sites who are perfect on paper. As his parents are in touch with me I wonder what the outcome will be, as it's not so easy to cut and run when there are still connections.

After I predicted Obama would avoid the fiscal cliff by minutes yesterday he delivered as I virtually guaranteed, not because I use a crystal ball but because these things are planned in advance and staged to mould public opinion. So it wasn't really a prediction as based on a decision made long ago I just worked out as I know how politics operates behind the scenes. Unlike the Greek non-default this was announced so close to the event (rather than non-event) no one had the time to forget and had it in writing clearly enough to remember. I hope it will make a few people think how politics isn't a random set of actions but an engineered choreographed sham which gives the impression of two sides working for the common good but really one side working for their own good. You need examples, I have now offered two.

Along with the bad and the ugly, here's the good. It's also bad and ugly, but the outcome is good. I just discovered a major political pressure group (no time to look up the name) run by scientists (what, did someone say 'What's politics got to do with science?') claimed the acidification of the oceans by 2050 would make coral die out. Coral is over 400 million years old, and the CO2 levels then were in the 1000s of parts per million, so they have both exposed themselves as idiots, and then when they continued the claim (it was first made in 2009) after someone pointed out it was impossible, as liars. I have never made claims about nefarious activities before I knew they were enough to convince a jury, as that is my own training, rather than science. Like the Crown Prosecution Service really. If people want someone caught red handed before they will believe any wrongdoing then here it is, QED.

Climate summary for global warming 2012

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To summarise: Using approved UN figures

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

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

I will keep editing this until it is completed.

Simple rules for living

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wolves in sheep's clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 21st century IQ test

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

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

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

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

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

Channeling the universe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening the box

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

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

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

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

How I got dragged into global warming

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Mann holds the seeds of his own destruction

One theme going through my life are the seeds of possible future events. Normally they all fall on stony ground but for the second time this month a study has countered Michael Mann's tree ring data, this time a whole pile of genuine peer reviewers who all say what we've said since the details were discovered, they make other scientists look bad as well and want them withdrawn. If something's dead wrong you don't need to be qualified to do so, and it should have happened ages ago as this garbage has not just been floating around for many years but is the sole policy driving the world's political actions via his hockey stick diagram. Without that the whole bogus affair wouldn't have got off the launch pad, but is now orbiting Pluto it's travelled so far.

So if termites are eating away his very foundation, the very lynchpin of world propaganda and rhetoric, despite being discredited by Steve Mackintyre, who took years deciphering it despite not having the original injuncted codes. If they ever get out, only by Mann himself suing people for libel and being forced to disclose his own defence (currently two are pending) the expectation is it would finish his career, technically open him to prosecution and pretty well finish off the whole machine. How long can you keep an illusion going when seven year old children all over the world are saying the temperature isn't going up like he said? The figures are all available at the entry of a search term (nowadays I don't even need to click the mouse), and I've found the believers work from events while the realists work from the data. You induce from events and you deduce from figures, and they have lost the plot. How long will it be before the peers are fed up with the bad publicity making them all look the same? Not so long now apparently?

Full story

This is one example of a potential precedent where a single event can derail an entire mission. The same way as had a country left the Euro the Bilderberg Group would not be omnipotent, but they never did. The climate scammers are far less organised and protected, and can easily become derailed as everyone can see what they're doing but so far not had the weight or numbers to do anything about it. But these guys are having a very good go.

One world government? We already have one.

As someone said yesterday, the Rockefeller led Bildergers and Club of Rome etc have made the agendas sent up to the UN and back via Agenda 21. PC and green are the new Nazism, as between them they restrict freedom of speech and divide society into greens and murderers (like the Jews in Germany). Scapegoating carbon emitters (ie every single human being, it's impossible not to) and promoting and protecting extremism is a worldwide policy, which is why every single western government except the Czech Republic follows the same policies regardless of party leading. Keynesian economics, devaluing currencies and forcing down interest rates siphons money from the people and savers back to the banks and governments (who else borrows at base rate?) and keeps everyone focused on survival so too poor and busy earning to stop and look at anything else.

It can't last forever as one by one people notice, and then you have a revolution. The internet speed the process up hundreds of times.

So, to summarise, if policies are decided in international regular meetings (Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, The Council on Foreign Relations, The Club of Isles and others like them) then their members will be levered into top positions worldwide, and employed, like Obama, to carry out their agendas and not yours as voters. This only happens while people are unaware of it. Some people are noticing whoever is in power the policies seem incredibly similar, and over here until Tony Blair got in Labour and Conservative were two utterly different philosophies, as you'd want and expect. Someone who was invited to Bilderberg only as a back bench MP, not a current or past leader of politics or industry was not the norm, John Smith died suddenly, Blair took over and revolutionised his own party and then Britain as a result. Since then his 'Third way' has been followed by both his own Labour Party, combining policies from left and right to attempt to please everyone, but by all others both here and worldwide. So political correctness- restricting criticism based on race or Islam (the other religions seem unaffected), changing words for the disabled, positive discrimination for minorities and women, not mentioning the race of criminals in the media, unlimited immigration, low interest rates and currency values, massive government debt and spending, and an increasing trend to federalism rather than national policies can all be read in the published material of the Club of Rome (all free and online) and Feasta, the group who advise the UN on Agenda 21, creating a world government and currency and energy rationing. That is not possible without a reason, so as admitted and mentioned many times (quite deliberately, people rarely remember before at least the third time, on my sister fraud site) man made global warming was the perfect reason (they said it many times, not me, check Margaret Mead's quote way back in 1974).

So we have a formula for a Nazi style scapegoating world state run on full totalitarian regulations 'to save the planet' (worthy sacrifice for people not born till we're dead). Paris is the first to operate new EU rules to ban cars, starting with the older ones, and planned in every capital in totality. I also read yesterday (before I could check the details) the next plan is to restrict movement in and out of cities, so the old communist plan is apparently going to return to those who escaped it after the war.

Knowledge is power. Every country either has an existing free party from the UN agenda or can form one. We have UKIP, growing rapidly for the obvious reason of being the only alternative, so when enough people learn this more will vote for the new parties (as all the old are run by the same people anyway) and they will be gone. That is the new form of revolution, a democratic one. They work for us. If they want to do us over and you know it you kick them out. They can't wreck our lives if they're not in power, and whatever else has happened we still give them that, so can take it away.

Don't mess with our lives

Politicians are elected to look after the areas which need national attention we cannot organise ourselves. As such they work for us, and only have the ability to interfere in our social and moral affairs as the voters are so weak minded they believe they cannot rely on individuals to do it for themselves, despite the criminal law protecting them from any harm already. Until the voters are convinced moral and social issues are outside the scope of a free country's government we will continue to be oppressed by corrupt and psychopathic leaders who rarely follow any of the rules themselves they impose on us. It's a very slow process of education but when we get there everyone will wonder how we managed before we did.

Once the laws are written to protect the people from harm, they only need occasional updating. Otherwise governments run national affairs such as transport and utilities (oh, they don't do that now do they?), and dealing with the rest of the world. They have no rights (besides the ones we have given them) to decide what is right morally or socially, that is up to every single individual to choose for themselves (as the laws stop them taking any views too far) and not anyone else. Until then we will never live in a free country, and will mark our evolution from superstitious primitive people to enlightened.

Mysterious ways

If the angels are still or were ever working with me, they are also doing it via tough lessons. This is the end, the PhD top level of dealing with shit. Like you've graduated to the full JCB excavator and given the highest pile of elephant's dos and told to go and clear it before you qualify. Fuck that for a lark. So my angels apparently (if you or I even believe in them) think by making me go to the dentist for a crown and cope with it better than before in order to make me stronger is their idea of help I refer the readers to my previous expletive. So my tooth breaks on Tuesday right in the middle of the US election results, and with an interminable time to repair I am supposed to improve myself by 'dealing with it'.

This raises the next point, I'm impressed it's not just my madness (it can't as two people I know got me into it themselves) but once I'd mentioned angels many other extremely normal people also said they worked with them and trusted them implicitly. Now god and angels are no different really, in fact angels could be considered God's switchboard rather than separate lower entities. And equally unknowable, so why are they so widely accepted as real? The major difference is unlike god angels are obliged to follow our requests, no discretion, as that is their only role in existence. But to believe in them someone scientifically at least ought to have spent a very long time keeping a journal and only deciding something was true after they had delivered consistently. The synchronicities in my life and those around me shows something is controlling it, although it was only quite recently they started working in my benefit in the one area at least, having been random till then just to show me they were real. My system is simply a standard evidential enquiry, whatever claims are made I run them through it and have certainly added some positive conclusions to synchronicity, telepathy and clairvoyance as I have seen them happen. I've never seen more than two people manage psychokinesis, or similar manipulations of matter, so that is on the pending file, as however unlikely it seems using the mind to interact with atomic bonds is not outside quantum physics, so tells me it's just a matter of raising the power high enough to make a visible change.

But the general belief in angels appears to be to most before any event. Not like the people who have died and seen heaven and even god, they know, even if they can't take us there. And unless we ask them for help they can't, unless we're about to die before our time. I'm asking now officially as advised, and before my tooth broke there were no great gains but no losses. And don't start imagining angels have limits, you can either bring about miracles or not, materialising a penny or a million pounds is no different to each other as both are miracles whatever appears from nowhere. So we can't just expect little changes or reasonable ones, but full blown miracles. Beyond our imaginations. In fact normally I always keep records and checks, but none of my previous requests had been organised in any way, and now are. I was told this was how to do it, and look back and see if they really have done things or not compared with the results in response. Now from experience I know if I get something better than what I've lost it'll take over my attention, so obviously I'll know if that has happened, so the angels can be told exactly what it takes to sort thing out. You have to be specific, and The Secret (as opposed to traditional angel working) says you should feel the request has already been carried out or it won't work. But that's not angel work, that's doing it ourselves, angels shouldn't need us to become masters or we wouldn't actually need them.

Many religious people say testing god is blasphemy, but really we were designed to test everything, imagine animals dying from eating the wrong food growing on trees as they couldn't test it first. They smell or taste right, so we know whether they can be eaten in most cases, except may Big Macs... Anyway, science is based on testing, and testing spiritual claims is identical to me, imagine meeting a man online who made similar claims to god and taking it on trust without checking for yourself. And people want us to do the same thing for the supposed most powerful force in existence without doing what we could to investigate its existence? God doesn't give enquiring minds if not to be used for everything.

Government officials under investigation

While I'm on the subject I'm listing all the current politicians and their staff who are on the cusp of lawsuits and their progress I can think of. Please help me add to the list of any others you may have come across:

Michael Mann: IPCC lead contributor, creator of the official IPCC hockey stick world temperature diagram. Currently involved in two libel suits, one in the US and one in Canada. However both have requested disclosure of his secret methods to create the hockey stick, and is currently deciding whether to give them or pull out of the cases. Either way he loses.

Julia Gillard: Currently is fighting claims of financial fraud from her previous legal career. There is no solid evidence for a case but the more she denies any wrongdoing more details are coming out. Could go either way.

Chris Huhne: UK energy minister, his charge may only be perverting the course of justice over a speeding fine, but can we trust anyone if convicted of not generally running their lives that way? I wouldn't.

Rebecca Brooks: News of the World editor, up for bribing police or somesuch charges over the phone hacking in her paper. Main point is she couldn't have done it alone, it would have needed police cooperation at a very high level so if she goes down many others will follow.

Yorkshire Police: 23 years after the event, they have been exposed altering evidence. No prosecutions are pending so far but the alleged (or admitted?) crimes are a very high level of fraud and break most rules of the profession. Like Brooks, the conspiracy is bad enough, but if the orders are proved to have come from the top as claimed, then what will it say about our police?

Libor fixing: Barclay's admitted fixing interest rates for many years, and supposedly not just with the consent of the Bank of England but under their orders to suppress the market rate and reduce the rate the banks themselves borrowed at. Insiders trace the orders to the very top, and despite breaking the 1968 Theft Act of obtaining financial services by deception, the government claim it was not a criminal act. That alone would require a separate act of parliament removing interest rate fixing from the act. No such clause is known.