Until a few years ago diversity had a standard meaning and was then hijacked as the newspeak of the left to mean wherever you are you need to represent every single element of the society, and if not then make a law to bring them in from wherever you could. The only word which came to mind is why? Social engineering is only present in totalitarian societies. Slavery and actual discrimination is now banned as well, so the law protects everyone, and the rule of law means each applies to everyone equally.
Isn't that enough?
Apparently for the left, not at all. I won't even try and understand diversity from their side, as trying to view the world as a paranoiac, criminal or psychopath only tends to send you over that way and even if you can learn their strange ways doesn't mean you can do anything about it. Society should be organic and change naturally, and I see no merit or relevance in making sure your company represents society as a whole for the area, especially as that would also mean Indian shops and restaurants employing a representative number of black and white people as well as Asian. And housing and education and basically every aspect of society is meant to be diverse, so much so a spokesman for the left stated last year after a visit to Newcastle it was something like 'Aggressively White'. Excuse me, before the 60s every bloody place in Britain was 'Aggressively White', just as Peking (I prefer the names we can actually pronounce and spell so will continue to use them) is still 'Aggressively Chinese' and Lagos is 'Aggressively Black'. Of course, if you condemn a national area for actually having the dominant local race dominating it must apply universally.
To stray into their psychology just for a moment, all I can imagine is through the white man's guilt, these bedwetters feel so bad for the British Empire which was carried out two generations before most of them were born, they feel some deep-seated compulsion to make up for it (despite it civilising many savage societies who killed women and attacked innocent people in organised crime throughout their history, as well as India having probably the worst class system in world history) so do their best to destroy any success they see coming from what they see as an immoral gain at the expense of the coloured (I love using these words we'll soon be prosecuted for mentioning, but I do not mean 'black' but every other colour which is not white, so believe I am being totally accurate). Such motivations are entirely negative, so coming from a negative point of view, all following acts and results can only be negative. Base a theory on a false and destructive premise and you will create false and destructive policies. Force three different races to live and work together, and at best they'll avoid each other (my old college canteen had black and Asian tables as that was what they created themselves, and very few others would venture onto them) and at worst rip each other apart. When I was teaching it was a total mixture of races and religions, and the one thing guaranteed was they would take the mickey out of whichever races weren't there. And you tell a Chinese parent their daughter is going out with a black man, it's almost like lighting a firework.
So my entire point is diversity is a meaningless and irrelevant concept, the only guaranteed result is to destroy any society it is operated in. And in Britain much is now operated by law, and just below the law you try filling in a job application form and then having an interview in the public sector if you haven't learnt diversity policy inside out. You can be the best worker available and an absolute genius but if you can't answer their trick questions over what you should do if someone catches their turban in the lift or calls the office cat a Paki then the job you will not get. And if you refer to someone with cerebral palsy as a 'spastic' they'll stop you working for the state for the rest of your life, even if you're a doctor interviewing for a medical position, and quoting the textbooks (a spastic is a medical term however much the left have tried to wipe it from the dictionaries). It also assumes there is something extremely bad with a country which was originally white (they haven't applied it to any others, much to my own confusion, as if diversity is essential for US then it is essential for EVERYONE). This is dangerous, and only the other side of racial purity. Any ideological concept based purely on a political opinion and bearing no relation to reality is equally dangerous, and leads to the same totalitarian actions against the perceived enemy, followed by the vigilantism and divide and rule by getting neighbours to report others for crimes against diversity, just like reporting hidden Jews to the Nazis. There is absolutely no difference in reporting the Jews as reporting the employers who don't have anyone in a wheelchair, even if they are a professional football team.
As most people know, diversity is the second ugly sister of multiculturalism, the view all cultures are equal even if they maim and kill children and cover women in black sheets from head to toe. There is no right or wrong for the left, as long as it's another race or religion doing it. And no, they needn't be a minority as they will defend to the hilt whatever dire acts, normally considered serious crimes if carried out by the white natives, wherever they are carried out including their own original countries. That allows female genital mutilation, aborting girls and banning women from going to school as long as it's 'part of their culture', and they will fight for the death to allow polygamy and forced marriage when they live here as well. That is pretty well the essence of diversity, they want a thorough mixture of every possible element of the world right here and when completed presumably everywhere else. Returning to the mental motivations of these proponents, who currently appear to be the majority in Britain and only absent from a section of the Tory back benches and bishops, why anyone would genuinely want to debase a society once the greatest on the planet (in not just my opinion but millions of immigrants who stow away across many countries to get here every single day) which they also have to live in is a mystery to me, and attempting to understand it is not just impossible as it is not rational, but would send anyone that way as well, so don't even try it.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Discrimination, my arse
Listening to Woman's Hour on the BBC, I was amazed to hear the most educated women in the country whining and whinging on every single week about them not being able to succeed in every profession being discussed, exactly the same as when black people on the TV crime shows regularly say the police only stopped them (while speeding/no insurance/carrying drugs etc) 'because they're black'. Of course it only needed one instance of the weary policeman explaining he stopped the car at night and couldn't see who was driving it to prove nearly every single other example was equally bogus, and the secondary evidence being the huge majority of them were indeed guilty of offences.
Now we have laws against discrimination it's both very rare from the start, at least against women, and while police may enjoy nicking black men in the street for whatever reasons of their own, very few can or will be convicted as a consequence unless they have broken the law, which the figures show they frequently have, which I would suggest is the likeliest reason the police will stop them more than anyone else.
But these pathetic women, bearing in mind my mother qualified as Britain's youngest barrister in the 50s, and said her view of feminism was doing your best and getting on regardless, and continued to become a judge. One example may only be one, but it does set a precedent in an era where women earned less and landlords were allowed to select who they wanted by colour and race. Nowadays none of these things are allowed by law, although apparently many companies do pay women less but I would suggest this is between the staff, them and the unions to sort out assuming it actually is now illegal, and if not then work so it is if they are doing exactly the same work as men (unlike the tennis players who wanted the same prizes for three sets per round, bleeding cheek). But to hear these academics and professionals bleat on every week 'there aren't enough women in management/medicine/Nobel Prizes' or whatever the area that week is is sheer sour grapes. Of course I'm not saying there isn't any discrimination, but besides being illegal would account for so few either lack of women or black people having as many top jobs as white men as to be insignificant.
It is basically a sign of immaturity and a lack of worldliness which blames others for our lack of success in any way. It's no different really to a Jewish person like me claiming I didn't get a job because I was Jewish, even though I no longer have a Jewish name and even if they met me very few could even tell. But that hasn't stopped some Jewish people I know saying they were treated badly simply because they were Jewish although it was physically impossible to know. That adds an element of paranoia to the others, and between them cover virtually all accusations of bias, as if any woman goes to college and passes the exams they will become equal to everyone else with those exams, and only if they believe they will not will be at a disadvantage through their negative attitude, which then automatically puts them on the defensive, alienates people and then blames others for their lack of success.
Any self help manual will tell you the same things, do your best and the world will respond. And success does not discriminate, only your imagination is required to do that.
Now we have laws against discrimination it's both very rare from the start, at least against women, and while police may enjoy nicking black men in the street for whatever reasons of their own, very few can or will be convicted as a consequence unless they have broken the law, which the figures show they frequently have, which I would suggest is the likeliest reason the police will stop them more than anyone else.
But these pathetic women, bearing in mind my mother qualified as Britain's youngest barrister in the 50s, and said her view of feminism was doing your best and getting on regardless, and continued to become a judge. One example may only be one, but it does set a precedent in an era where women earned less and landlords were allowed to select who they wanted by colour and race. Nowadays none of these things are allowed by law, although apparently many companies do pay women less but I would suggest this is between the staff, them and the unions to sort out assuming it actually is now illegal, and if not then work so it is if they are doing exactly the same work as men (unlike the tennis players who wanted the same prizes for three sets per round, bleeding cheek). But to hear these academics and professionals bleat on every week 'there aren't enough women in management/medicine/Nobel Prizes' or whatever the area that week is is sheer sour grapes. Of course I'm not saying there isn't any discrimination, but besides being illegal would account for so few either lack of women or black people having as many top jobs as white men as to be insignificant.
It is basically a sign of immaturity and a lack of worldliness which blames others for our lack of success in any way. It's no different really to a Jewish person like me claiming I didn't get a job because I was Jewish, even though I no longer have a Jewish name and even if they met me very few could even tell. But that hasn't stopped some Jewish people I know saying they were treated badly simply because they were Jewish although it was physically impossible to know. That adds an element of paranoia to the others, and between them cover virtually all accusations of bias, as if any woman goes to college and passes the exams they will become equal to everyone else with those exams, and only if they believe they will not will be at a disadvantage through their negative attitude, which then automatically puts them on the defensive, alienates people and then blames others for their lack of success.
Any self help manual will tell you the same things, do your best and the world will respond. And success does not discriminate, only your imagination is required to do that.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Black and white
Nothing to do with Paul McCartney and his piano, but the observation much of what I write is seen in terms of black and white rather than shades of grey. To me this is a left field accusation, as if I'm talking about what I know well enough to write about it, I either know it sufficiently or not, so shades of grey only conveys one thing, uncertainty or vagueness.
Now I read and hear these style of arguments in the written and spoken media every day, and to counter my position will use James Delingpole's 'Dogshit in yogurt' scenario. Rather than do your best to keep dogshit and yogurt separate, those using shades of grey will interminably (as there is and can never be a right answer when black and white have been removed) discuss how much dogshit should be in yogurt, with camps of 'as much as you like', 'as little as possible' etc, but the end result actually being identical, ie dogshit in your yogurt. Black.
So extend that to knowns and possibly knowns, what in the list is black and white or not?
Cancer
The Mafia
Britain being in the EU
Climate change/global warming
Taxing the rich more than others
etc etc.
I did not decide to specialise in any particular subject or area besides my actual job as a therapist, all other academic pursuits were imposed on me by the demand to pass a degree after three A levels. Between them all I learnt slightly more than most as I changed subjects for a year each time, thus including a year of A level science and degree level accounting on top of law and humanities.
The eventual outcome of 'individual pursuit', ie leaving college at 31 and finally being free to learn unrestricted by exam requirements, and the result was I learnt to decipher the difference (and level of) between shades of grey (uncertainty or personal opinion) and black and white (eg cancer is not a matter of degree, ie how much cancer do you want in your body?' is not a valid question.
This means I put every single item through the monochrome machine and it comes out the other end with a shade and reason for it. That was almost entirely through my legal training and years of application as a teacher, and will add here that in teaching you only use shades of grey to moderate students' essays, and not what you teach. 'It may be a good thing to punish thieves' was and never will be part of a legal lesson, although I do recall seeing a few in the media trying to argue it.
Examples are listed here, and each topic I can assign a number from 0-10 as to greys or black and white, based on the available evidence.
Wind turbines- Rating 10: My evidence is easily available, absolutely impossible to misread or measure badly, so given the opportunity and patience you can do a simple budgetary account of their output v input costs, and it is around break-even to negative, based on average wind speeds and durations and fixed and variable costs. The bottom line is they perform no function whatsoever. How can you have grey when they waste resources 100%?
Quantitative Easing: This has a few reasons, known by those who carry it out (governments) otherwise why would they do it? These are:
1) Keep interest rates low:
These (using basic accounting methods) benefit some people at the expense of others. Low interest rates guarantee twice as many individuals lose than gain, as the savings on mortgages are half the losses on savings. But the government and banks borrow at these levels so save money themselves.
2) Keep the currency low
I won't go into pages here, but devaluing your currency makes savings worth less than they were, and shifts cash into commodities, as they have innate value, like gold, food and oil.
This
3) Causes inflation: Governments know this, but don't mind as inflation reduces debt by a similar amount, the government are in debt, so it means the amount they owe is worth less than it was without adding a single thing to the GDP. That is fiddling with numbers, and in the real world referred to as 'False Accounting', and is illegal. It is also currency and market manipulation, which in the real world is referred to as 'Serious Fraud'.
Rating 9 (as some people do benefit).
EU membership:
There are solid knowns, as the profit and loss account (we lose, trust me), and then opinion pieces, such as 'Who do we want making our laws, our elected politicians or foreigners with no means of regulating through democracy?
Rating 8 (as some involves political choice, which can never be black or white).
Cancer I'll let you rate this one.
Mafia Membership- Rating 9 (as it benefits the small minority in the mafia at everyone else's expense)
Gay Marriage 0 on its existence, as how can anyone else have an opinion what other people do which only affects them, and marriage is only a cultural artifice with no physical basis in reality, but 9 as far as whether the word 'marriage' is used to nominate it, as marriage is a union between a man and a woman once you choose to accept it as part of your own culture.
I hope these give enough examples to demonstrate the Howard patent pending topic rating system. Therefore if a topic has a rating above 8 or so it becomes a 'known', and anyone then arguing as if it's a 3 or 4 canfuck off be sure they haven't really thought it through or done their homework as the only ways you can treat a fact as an opinion is when you don't know enough to pass the exam.
Now I read and hear these style of arguments in the written and spoken media every day, and to counter my position will use James Delingpole's 'Dogshit in yogurt' scenario. Rather than do your best to keep dogshit and yogurt separate, those using shades of grey will interminably (as there is and can never be a right answer when black and white have been removed) discuss how much dogshit should be in yogurt, with camps of 'as much as you like', 'as little as possible' etc, but the end result actually being identical, ie dogshit in your yogurt. Black.
So extend that to knowns and possibly knowns, what in the list is black and white or not?
Cancer
The Mafia
Britain being in the EU
Climate change/global warming
Taxing the rich more than others
etc etc.
I did not decide to specialise in any particular subject or area besides my actual job as a therapist, all other academic pursuits were imposed on me by the demand to pass a degree after three A levels. Between them all I learnt slightly more than most as I changed subjects for a year each time, thus including a year of A level science and degree level accounting on top of law and humanities.
The eventual outcome of 'individual pursuit', ie leaving college at 31 and finally being free to learn unrestricted by exam requirements, and the result was I learnt to decipher the difference (and level of) between shades of grey (uncertainty or personal opinion) and black and white (eg cancer is not a matter of degree, ie how much cancer do you want in your body?' is not a valid question.
This means I put every single item through the monochrome machine and it comes out the other end with a shade and reason for it. That was almost entirely through my legal training and years of application as a teacher, and will add here that in teaching you only use shades of grey to moderate students' essays, and not what you teach. 'It may be a good thing to punish thieves' was and never will be part of a legal lesson, although I do recall seeing a few in the media trying to argue it.
Examples are listed here, and each topic I can assign a number from 0-10 as to greys or black and white, based on the available evidence.
Wind turbines- Rating 10: My evidence is easily available, absolutely impossible to misread or measure badly, so given the opportunity and patience you can do a simple budgetary account of their output v input costs, and it is around break-even to negative, based on average wind speeds and durations and fixed and variable costs. The bottom line is they perform no function whatsoever. How can you have grey when they waste resources 100%?
Quantitative Easing: This has a few reasons, known by those who carry it out (governments) otherwise why would they do it? These are:
1) Keep interest rates low:
These (using basic accounting methods) benefit some people at the expense of others. Low interest rates guarantee twice as many individuals lose than gain, as the savings on mortgages are half the losses on savings. But the government and banks borrow at these levels so save money themselves.
2) Keep the currency low
I won't go into pages here, but devaluing your currency makes savings worth less than they were, and shifts cash into commodities, as they have innate value, like gold, food and oil.
This
3) Causes inflation: Governments know this, but don't mind as inflation reduces debt by a similar amount, the government are in debt, so it means the amount they owe is worth less than it was without adding a single thing to the GDP. That is fiddling with numbers, and in the real world referred to as 'False Accounting', and is illegal. It is also currency and market manipulation, which in the real world is referred to as 'Serious Fraud'.
Rating 9 (as some people do benefit).
EU membership:
There are solid knowns, as the profit and loss account (we lose, trust me), and then opinion pieces, such as 'Who do we want making our laws, our elected politicians or foreigners with no means of regulating through democracy?
Rating 8 (as some involves political choice, which can never be black or white).
Cancer I'll let you rate this one.
Mafia Membership- Rating 9 (as it benefits the small minority in the mafia at everyone else's expense)
Gay Marriage 0 on its existence, as how can anyone else have an opinion what other people do which only affects them, and marriage is only a cultural artifice with no physical basis in reality, but 9 as far as whether the word 'marriage' is used to nominate it, as marriage is a union between a man and a woman once you choose to accept it as part of your own culture.
I hope these give enough examples to demonstrate the Howard patent pending topic rating system. Therefore if a topic has a rating above 8 or so it becomes a 'known', and anyone then arguing as if it's a 3 or 4 can
Monday, February 11, 2013
Thursday, February 07, 2013
How to rescue Britain
Our government want to raise all taxes by 3% to protect public services, guaranteeing a long term recession and making it impossible for the Tories to be re elected as they caused it. There are alternatives available (some already in use in many countries such as Iceland, Latvia and Estonia) but as they would cause loss to the bankers will not be implemented by any of the three parties in parliament who are all run by the same leaders (otherwise why would they all be in favour of the EU, quantitative easing and the Kyoto Protocol? A normal democracy is made up of parties who differ on major issues). So if our government was honest and independent even if they only added a few it would solve enough of our problems in time for the next election and get a Tory landslide (or any other party who implemented them, but we've currently got the coalition).
1) Allow interest rates to rise to the market level
2) Flat rate income tax around 20%- studies show well off return to the country, stop avoiding tax, and poor people far better off.
3) Renationalise public services. They are monopolies so by their nature outside capitalism.
4) Leave the EU and with it the Kyoto Agreement.
5) Stop quantitative easing and allow the market and currency to float naturally.
6) Ban bailing out of banks, change law to compensate savers and not bankers if they go bust.
7) Stop the use of savings for market making.
8 ) Bring back the gold standard or equivalent fixed currency standard.
9) Subsidise public transport fares, Britain has the highest fares in the world and prevents people commuting to jobs they could otherwise find.
10) Stop faffing around with nonsense like gay marriage and invading third world countries who will kill themselves and each other whatever we do, so why kill our own men there as well?
11) Close the door on immigration and make it exclusive rather than inclusive as it was before Tony Blair and is in virtually every other country in the world.
1) Allow interest rates to rise to the market level
2) Flat rate income tax around 20%- studies show well off return to the country, stop avoiding tax, and poor people far better off.
3) Renationalise public services. They are monopolies so by their nature outside capitalism.
4) Leave the EU and with it the Kyoto Agreement.
5) Stop quantitative easing and allow the market and currency to float naturally.
6) Ban bailing out of banks, change law to compensate savers and not bankers if they go bust.
7) Stop the use of savings for market making.
8 ) Bring back the gold standard or equivalent fixed currency standard.
9) Subsidise public transport fares, Britain has the highest fares in the world and prevents people commuting to jobs they could otherwise find.
10) Stop faffing around with nonsense like gay marriage and invading third world countries who will kill themselves and each other whatever we do, so why kill our own men there as well?
11) Close the door on immigration and make it exclusive rather than inclusive as it was before Tony Blair and is in virtually every other country in the world.
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Law v science- fight!
My parents and I are legally qualified, they are barristers while I dropped out after my degree to become a therapist. But the legal training forces you to justify every single point you make and prepare your entire evidence before you proceed.
All three of us independently saw straight through the entire façade of global warming, simply because they put shaky material out before it is certain, and treat it as if it is a given. In law you'd either get disbarred if you did this at that level and frequency, or lose your clients a great deal of money and their freedom in some cases. Each new study or article talking about something 'possibly happening at an unspecified time or after our deaths' makes us cringe equally, while the greatest crime of all which science and scientific method warns against on day one (as it does in law and sociology, my minor subject) is extending from the particular to the general, induction.
Therefore finding a small glacier is melting or the Arctic ice is smaller this year than it was for 20 years is a piece of evidence. Over time (a scale far longer than politicians or the media, who these scientists are working for and feeding, are prepared to wait) you can put these items together until you reach a reasonable conclusion, one in criminal law (for mankind is on trial here) requiring a level of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt', and then can genuinely claim the world is dangerously warming. Till then we have theories, local and short term incidents, and computer models.
Now had the temperature already risen a dangerous amount and caused dangerous weather then of course we would be in trouble. Whether it was our fault would require a different study, directly eliminating every single driver of weather since day one before the 1970 cutoff point when CO2 reached levels high enough claimed to influence the temperature significantly (it still hasn't but don't worry about that) and if entirely dismissed the decadal oscillations and solar changes which have been almost the only drivers of climate in favour of added CO2 as well then the case has been won.
Look at that scenario and compare it with reality:
Temperature has been measured differently, and while the highest hockey stick by Michael Mann used by the UN to legislate shows a massive (OK, infinitesimal) rise of 0.7C in 150 years, while CO2 rose 50%, but others show a lower rise, and most but not all have been adjusted to rise (despite the urban heat island effect where most ground stations are raise the temperature by around the measured amount) and there is no exact consensus of the rise but only 0.7C as the possible maximum.
Studies combining solar activity (cosmic rays and sunspots) and the decadal oscillations caused by the earth's wobble track the temperature line very closely, while the 45' rise of CO2 is fairly linear. This is solid evidence, in the present and clearly measurable in comparison with sampled and averaged world temperatures, post-processed to fill the gaps and altered to within an inch of its life.
It is absolutely clear that if presented genuinely, the 'reasonable man' (the legal test) would not see any solid case for warming, let alone the secondary charge of being 'man made'. The scientists are not paid by results but by quantity produced, if they don't publish a certain amount they don't get paid and may lose their jobs. So produce they do, and let the rest of us deal with what junk or otherwise they do produce. Before global warming and science had not been political since the claim the earth was the centre of the universe the majority of science was decent and useful, with a small rump of the sort of junk studies the papers love and publish people who name their dogs certain things are more likely to be struck by lightning than those who go to Majorca on holiday, but they were the edge of decency and quite separate from curing diseases and making cars go further on a tank of fuel.
But global warming turned the neutral man, that is one neither particularly bad nor good, into a monster. The leaders, who realised the potential and created studies guaranteeing their field would be provided with cash for decades, were the ones who were probably bad to start with, while the majority as always were the colluders who simply rode the wave of dubious science to keep their own jobs and positions. But every single one has at least one degree, usually two or three. They were taught science (not law), and scientific (but not legal) method, and ought to be fully equipped to separate wheat from chaff. But clearly not. When the cards are laid out, lawyers in general can easily see the dog's breakfast of utter nonsense, contradictory claims, alterations, non-sequiturs, incomplete experiments etc, everything which would get a student sent down but once qualified can't lose their degrees so have no reason to hold to such standards if being paid to put them aside.
A lawyer (including an academic one, as we all have to process the same material as students as practitioners) can assess a good and a poor case almost immediately, just as a detective can. It is mainly through training and being exposed to a series of statements from witnesses and defendants, especially in a jury trial where both sides are so convincing if you listen to one you'll usually accept them as correct, until you hear the other and put them together. Global warming has two sides, I have just presented them, and to me the case for the defence is so strong the judge wouldn't even allow it to come to trial but dismiss the case and jury. Now we are well over 20 years down the road of predictions made originally in the 80s and 90s and can see the rise in temperature is nowhere near even the lowest of the predictions, it means the sensitivity to added CO2 in the form of positive feedback from increased humidity cannot exist. If it had we'd have evaporated enough water from the oceans to cause a rise beyond the bare amount for added CO2 with none at all. The one thing which has risen is CO2 (despite phenomenal taxes to attempt to slow it down) and the temperature per year stubbornly ignores all attempts to derail it from its 30 year positive/negative cycle.
On a personal note I hope one by one new people will notice the current state of climate data and gradually realise you can't have global warming without the warming element, something the politicians have as yet failed to grasp, mainly as besides the cashflow element which drives it above and beyond the others, they are still talking way ahead in the future and dismissing the present as if the future is all that will count. Give that to a judge, a jury or a teacher and the result will be the same, a big fat FAIL.
Jewish rap
David Howard's Jewish Rappaport
Come on everybody, come on everybody, come on everybody and
do the shpritz!
I'm a good frum boy, I'm a haimisher Yid
I'm here to tell you I'm the kosher kid.
I may be white and I may be a Jew,
but I can rap and I'm here to show you.
Let's rap to the Cohen, rap to the Cohen, rap to the Cohen
beat, oy vay!
Don't look at me like I'm a shmo
I'm the man as you'll soon know
I'm not that rough and I'm not that shabby
and if you diss me I'll tell my rabbi.
I'm a shloch oy vay, I'm a shloch oy vay, baruch baruch atah
adonai.
I served my time learning rap from the rov
I passed my test and they said 'mazel tov!'
I told my booba and I told my ma,
they said 'go David, you will be a star!
hava hava hava nagila, hava hava hava nagila!
So I hit the streets and I crashed the scene
I covered every yard of Golders Green
I rapped in Hendon and I rapped in Mill Hill
I haven't rapped in Kenton but I certainly will.
Yossi, Yossi, Yossi, hey! All the people shout 'oy vay!'
I'd like a job where I can stay
with a lively crowd to make my day.
I haven't made a profit but I haven't made a loss.
The only job I got was a gig at Brent Cross.
Make me an offer, make me an offer, make me an offer I can't
understand.
I'm Morris Portnoy the kosher kid
some people still call me a Yid,
I don't care 'cos it is true
There's nothing wrong with being a Jew
I like to get my food from Blooms
chandeliers adorn my rooms
I fly to Tel Aviv and Spain
and watch the Spurs at White Hart Lane
My wife gets borscht and beets at Yarden's
We go to shul at Kinloss
Gardens
I've got a tub and I've got a sauna
I left my heart at Henly's Corner
I thumb my nose at yellow lines
traffic lights and warning signs
Let the goyim use the code
there's ain't no rules on Finchley Road
We like to hang out at the gym
Our kids all go to Habonim
They go to camp and they go to cheder
and ask four questions at the seder.
Golders Green and Hendon Central
Taking pills 'cos they say we're mental
Onyx taps with golden fixtures
Going out and dating shiksas
Osem Goshen lockshen mayim
The Land
of Canaan
Esther Moishe Ruben, Dov,
you finish your barmitzvah and they shout 'mazel tov!'
Don't be afraid your identity is showing
be proud to be a Levy or a Cohen
Even though they think we're British
we speak in English but we think in Yiddish
We like to relax, we're always chillin'
we say our prayers when we lay our tefillin
the bible says we are the chosen
our greatest poet's Michael Rosen.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
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.
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?
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?
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, January 06, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, December 17, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
