Saturday, 30 November 2013

Law and science

It's not often I have anything worth writing in my own field of law as it's all been done already (besides the thesis proposal I never got to write) but with all this rule breaking over global warming people need to know the legal process of criminal trial, and why it is so vital never to convict an innocent person and how it is designed to best avoid it.

Obviously the worst possible result of a criminal case going wrong is convicting the wrong person, as well as the sentence they will have the criminal record, and in the worst case scenario death. So British (not Roman) law was designed to avoid this happening, by firstly allowing a full testimony from both sides, prosecution and defence, and trial by decision beyond reasonable doubt. That means (as in the Scottish verdict of 'not proven') including where the jury believe they did do it, but there is not enough evidence. It is not the end of the world to let any criminal off, and most are never convicted of the majority of their crimes anyway, so missing some after trial rather than before it barely adds to the figures. In fact new criminals tend to be put off by a trial, and not do it anyway (as deterrence is the major reason for trial as it makes society safer) so it worked regardless. Career criminals just do it again and usually get convicted sooner or later.

Of course below crimes there are many other black marks on our characters from the laws of society- failing exams, sacking for misconduct, defamatory statements etc, which all have civil proceedings to remedy. And the major rule they all use is only the defence can cheat. That is because if the prosecution uses clever tricks they all know you can easily convict many innocent people, but if the defence use them to confuse the jury all that happens is someone goes free who may or may not be guilty, but the crime has been done already so you can't undo it either way.

Science uses equally tough rules normally. Imagine a drug going to the market without full testing. Or stress tests not being carried out on bridges. People will suffer and die from science making assumptions, short cuts and the like commonly used in other less dangerous areas. Normally this is an accepted foundation of all scientific practice, yet in the late 80s, before anything had even happened, some nonentity convinced the US presidential committee of the time because of rising CO2 the earth would warm dangerously in about 2100. Within a few years most governments tried and convicted mankind and we have been punished ever since. Meanwhile as CO2 has risen 50% since 1850 the temperature has risen around 0.8C. The excuse used by the UN and all below them running their rules is the 'precautionary principle'. Insurance companies use this based on actuarial calculations from wonks who have spent seven years in college (and still get it horribly wrong), but those mistakes only lose money, often for themselves. Reducing fossil fuel and every single benefit that arises from it is like reducing oxygen because you believe it warms the planet, and forcing people to breathe less. Heating your home less is exactly the same, death just takes longer.

My point being science does not normally stray from its tight legal type path, as major decisions flow from it and can cause serious consequences if rushed. You would never produce any other findings over a century before the results could even be known, with the caveat it's better to save it possibly happening by a 'remedy' which hurts absolutely everyone, except those investing money in it. They still have to pay more for everything, as fossil fuel propels all the means of transport for their goods and their own holiday flights and petrol. Yes, they get a bundle in the short term, but with inflation racing ahead as a consequence, and cars set to be banned in all European cities maybe they'll want to get somewhere in the future and won't be able to due to their own rules. Not to mention geoengineering, which will dump metal sulphates on their families as well as ours but they still promote.

You would never punish or charge anyone for something with a slim likelihood you could never discover anyway, where the present losses were all known while the benefits never could be, as you can't prove a negative. If it doesn't get warmer in 2100 the policies worked, if it does they need to be doubled to stop it. That's a catch 22 situation and akin to paying the Mafia every month so your business isn't burnt down. A year later they tell you it was so successful they're doubling the premium as they did such a good job.

Don't be run by the Mafia, work it out first.

Friday, 29 November 2013

I can see it coming!

Imagine you are on holiday, the bus picks you up from Eastbourne to go back to your hotel, and all the other passengers are coming back from a stag do and totally pissed, some laughing, some fighting and some sleeping. The driver leaves town and turns off towards the coast road, but on the way to the hotels takes a right and you realise they've gone off the main road and are heading towards Beachy Head, the suicide spot. You shout to the others and they don't know what you're on about and just say things like they love you, or who you looking at etc, so you ask the driver why he's left the road and he says 'Hey man, enjoy the trip', and turns out he's on LSD, as you see Beachy Head getting closer and closer, till the point the driver shouts 'Hey man, I can fly', and off he goes.

Now you would assume had the passengers been sober and the driver not on drugs had anyone taken the wrong turning towards a cliff they would be so pleased to be rescued before the event you may even have earned a medal, but this was a unique situation where anything you could do was impossible to help.

Back to 2006. I used to get a few letters every week offering me credit card, not just the bog standard but also some gold ones, and then more offering me a higher limit than before even though I'd never accepted one or used one before.  It clearly wasn't just me getting all these offers, they had dropped their restrictions and for reasons of their own wanted everyone to get into serious debt regardless of their individual circumstances. And the biggest debt of all, the mortgage, had gone the same way. The old rule of a deposit plus 3X annual income had gone out the window, and people could get over 10 times or simply lie about their earnings in a 'self certification mortgage' (imagine doing that for a job- 'Yes, I passed my medical/architect's/surgeon's exam'), and get whatever they wanted, and forget the deposit, and why not have another 25% on top for home improvements, you can manage it! Banks finished the job by themselves lending not the rule of seven, lending no more than seven times the total they had deposited (I learnt they only lent a seventh of the total in case more people wanted to withdraw money, but that was in the old days), and gone way over 40.

Clearly the hundred years or more the old rules had been in place had been for a very good reason, and those reasons could and would never change as people who borrow money tend to be because they don't have it, especially for non-property loans where they didn't really need it to buy a house but because they wanted something else now rather than save for it. Having deregulated these rules away the governments had (to me at least) opened up the lawless wild west of lending and knowing most people not borrowing for a house do so because they want something they don't really need and can't afford, the risks were obvious. Around that time a stockbroker warned the government of the same thing, apart from the economist Vince Cable, the only known example. He got sacked.

Two years later the debts failed and the entire system almost crashed, but was paid by our tax money which caused a recession which has lasted ever since. It never had to happen, if you broke the rules banking had used since day one because they were clearly required, there would have been no recession, all the banks would still be here, and the economy would be stable. They ignored the obvious risks and suffered the guaranteed consequences.

That is just a big and representative example. The example being (as proved by Gordon Brown, another economist and prime minister of the day, who said he didn't see it coming) the consensus is not always right, and certainly never means the majority know best. I saw the same for global warming well over a decade ago, they ignore the faults in that which are at least as great as the debt crisis, and as it takes a century or so to play out rather than a few years the damage will go on indefinitely, destroying the economy of generations before they finally decide there is no warming 'but it was worth the risk in case there had been', as they cycle harder to keep the lights on as they have no power stations left.

There is a massive lesson in there, one of the greatest you will ever learn. If even one person speaks out and may be ignored, if they are proved to be right at least they have said so and you will remember them. And the consensus (including the experts) were wrong. All of them.

Thursday, 28 November 2013

Facts, opinions, beliefs and choices

I expect this has been done by Greek philosophers onwards, but still each new generation needs it presented anew or they get terribly lost.

Facts do not change whatever you think about them, the only challenge is obtaining enough evidence to determine they are facts. When, like innate intelligence or global warming there simply is not enough evidence to be certain people take what there is and draw their own conclusions from them. These are technically not opinions but beliefs based on an expression of ignorance. The formula here is 'If I knew exactly the information I am referring to, would there be any doubt as to the conclusion?', if not then it's probably best to simply admit you don't know enough and neither does anyone else, and wait till they do. If there is almost enough evidence, whether from direct experience, science or both then you can pretty well be sure what you believe is genuine so only now a tenuous fact.

Opinions and tastes are not based on facts as they are personal. An opinion can be whether you prefer living in the town or country, or with a diverse mixture or just your own type of people. There is no right answer as it is totally based on a preference, and one which can change from time to time over ones life. This means the rabid leftists who attempt to force multiculturalism on everyone in their area as they have chosen it for their own preference (or more accurately what they wish on others as many involved in such plans tend to live in very white wealthy suburbs) and not as they claim because it is the right way to live. Only tyrants do that and we do not want to live in a tyranny unless we develop Stockholm Syndrome (fact). Other opinions include economic socialism or capitalism, where many people benefit and lose from both so not cut and dried, or whether to share more of your earnings with society or keep it for yourself. There is no right answer, which is why each election in a democracy goes with the majority view as neither holds the monopoly on any. The same could go for abortion, the age of consent, the amount of immigration we have, all based on personal opinion as whichever side you support there is an argument against the other. However, if they could find genes for IQ and test the owners of them within five points nearly every time regardless of their social background and upbringing it would remove the intelligence argument from the ignorant realm of opinion, as there definitely is a right answer, into the knowns of certainty and no longer open to question unless they are mentally challenged. The same goes for global warming, had there been a reasonable term to decide for certain we are warming the planet dangerously then we would have a chance to know, but its very nature means that point is set around 2100 so forget it. The next generation will know for sure but unless a reader lives till over 90 then it won't be possible to answer for certain. But know they will, and whichever the outcome our wild speculations today will definitely be seen as ridiculous, fact.

The reason for this, I propose, is the other side of the not-known coin is affirming there is not yet enough evidence to be sure. That would be a fact for the present as it is always up to a scientist to overcome the null hypothesis, in that there must be a genuine case before you can act on it. I say there isn't, and it's my view based not on the amount of evidence for it, but the lack of evidence for it. This means because firstly the argument itself is not anywhere near cohesive enough and is many decades from witnessing, plus the vast number of scientists who disagree I just listed elsewhere, it is not nearly sufficient evidence to act on, identical to a not guilty verdict in a trial, which is the closest thing a criminal case has without a guilty plea. Luckily science does not have criminals who hide their evidence, as the earth creates its own and although many try very hard to twist it will always prevail in the end.

Taste is a version of opinion. Our food tastes are innate, we either like something or not, which also changes over time. We don't and can't think about it to change. Decoration is similar, but much wider, we may love or hate certain styles, but accept most in between. Music, art, everything like it, is a matter of personal taste, you can usually assess quality (music can be mathematically regular while art can be representative technically at least), but not what you'd want in your house compared to another. You can therefore say a book or TV programme etc was crap, but would need a hundred people or more agreeing as a great majority before they stopped making the series. But even then the quality of an abstract painting or sculpture, or dire TV comedy can never be totally pinned down as a few people will always think they are marvellous, and as each opinion of taste is equally valid then you can't shift them to a factual basis unless every single person agreed, and even then it would never be permanent for future opinions.

The reason I am writing this is so many people confuse facts for opinions and vice versa. I suspect the major field this happens in is the not knowns, so because there is some smoke but no fire, it is very easy to have an 'opinion' each way, so it is really a belief, like that in God, which is only until and unless we ever actually know, just as we can only really know what happens after death when it happens and not waste time speculating beforehand as we are physically prevented from having enough evidence. This is because a genuine opinion, as in Labour or Conservative, pro-life or pro-choice etc can never have a right answer however much you learn about it, as there are winners and losers on both choices, for intelligence and global warming if they could talk they would tell us now, but while we don't know, any more than we do about life after death or aliens visiting earth, all we have is an amount of evidence. As the amount grows the likely answer becomes closer, and there is always a point before the conclusion you can see it coming so pretty easy to work out. But till then people take the small or medium amount of evidence there is, draw their conclusions, and rip the shit out of each other as it's currently impossible to know for sure either way so why the hell bother arguing until we do?

So, we have facts, opinions, tastes, and beliefs. They may look similar without your glasses from a distance, and may have a few areas where they almost overlap, but each is a separate being which cannot be made to be confused with the others, as this only leads to both total confusion, argument, disorder and ultimate chaos, while destroying the basis for knowledge in petty squabbles based on sheer lack of knowledge.

Climate consensus list

As the crooks claim there is a 97% consensus among scientists man is causing global warming, there must be an awful lot qualified to judge as over the years I've come across at least a hundred at the highest levels, equal to all the others you hear regularly in the media, who disagree. If they represent 3% then there must be tens of thousands who agree. But technically if a theory not yet demonstrated (the 2C rise is not officially expected till around 2100 when none of us will be here to know either way) has even a few peers who disagree there is too much doubt to act on it (which most of the developed world had been doing for decades already). But this is more than a few. And how can you be trying to destroy the science when their own peers listed below disagree with them as actual scientists? If there is that much disagreement how on earth can they or anyone be so sure they are already right despite absolutely no amplification of the bare minimum temperature rise from added CO2 so far?

This is not written for any technical knowledge, just a handy reference list of known dissenters, all qualified to do so, most with PhDs. Just search any of the names and see their work directly.

Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Jr and Snr, Ferenc Miskolczi, Richard Lindzen, Stanton Friedman, Philip Stott, Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, Lucka Kajfesz-Bogotaj, Michael Beenstock, Piers Corbyn, Nils-Axel Morner, Vincent Gray, Hal Lewis, John Christy, Tim Ball, Richard Courtney,  Willem de Lange, Chris de Freitas,  Lee Gerhard, Kenneth Green, Yuri Izrael, Steven Japar, Madhav Khandekar, Chris Landsea, Harry Lins, Patrick Michaels, Murray Salby, Jan Pretel, Paul Reiter, Tom Segalstad, Fred Singer, Hajo Smit, Tom Tripp, David Wojick, Miklos Zagoni, Eduardo Zorita, William Gray, David Bellamy, Johnny Ball, Leonard Weinstein, Robert B Laughlin, Christopher J Kobus, Anatoly Levitin, Geraldo Luís Lino,  Mary Mumper, William C. Gilbert,  Hans Jelbring, Burt Rutan, Patrick Moore (ex-Greenpeace), John Reid, Antonis Christofides, Nikos Mamassis, Pavel Makarevich, Hilton Ratcliffe, James Lovelock (Gaia theory, recanted), Peter Taylor, Denis Rancourt, Don Easterbrook, Robert Austin, Freeman Dyson, Garth Paltridge, Hendrik Tennekes, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Khabibullo Abdusamatov,  David Douglass, Ian Clark, William Kininmonth, William Happer, David Legates, Tad Murty, Tim Patterson, Ian Plimer, Henrik Svensmark, Jan Veizer, Claude Allegre, Robert C Balling, Petr Chylek, David Deming, Ivar Giaever, Antonio Zichichi, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Indur Goklany, Tom Nelson, Steven Goddard, Lubos Motl, Bob Carter, Sherwood Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Hugh Ellsaesser, David Deming, Richard Tol,Joe D'Aleo, Joe Bastardi, Joseph Postma, Noor van Andel.

That amounts to about a hundred, if that's 3% then there must be at least three thousand peers who disagree with them. Are there that many in the world?

I will add some more when I get the chance.

If I'd believed in global warming, just as I did in the 90s before the political fallout, and had read the quotes attached to these names I just have for the second time or more, I'd have given up there and then. Each one time after time, repeats they know it is absolute nonsense as it goes against every scientific principle they were taught and they want nothing to do with it. As the entire foundation of global warming is still set in a distant future of decades to a century or more it is nothing more than a supposition, contradicted by the known present facts the temperature is rising nowhere near fast enough to complete the potential claimed result, in fact nowhere near it. Put those two elements together and my own conclusion is were if the media gave equal publicity to the quotes and studies I have just looked through as the usual suspects we only hear over and over again (far fewer than named above) most people would have the same 'You've been had' moment as I did some years after the story first surfaced when nothing they said would happen did have, so I decided to do my own research.

All those names mean either one or the other side is wrong, or if not neither knows enough to be certain, meaning by not beating the null hypothesis of presenting a new theory with sufficient evidence, the theory is not yet ready, or technically, void. There is no other logical or scientific conclusion possible.

One of the emperors of warning himself, Mike Hulme, admitted this himself in June 2010 about the alleged consensus: “That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.”

That is direct from the horse's mouth, why listen to John Cook on Skeptical Science who is paid to spread manure and barely qualified?

For more details and quotes start here.
And continue here.

Beating the cheats: Greenpeace

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

Not another destruction of Greenpeace, but an example from them of how this principle operates, and how you can stop it working for you:

"What's more, there is growing evidence that melting in Greenland and the Arctic is accelerating. With current warming, it is highly likely that Greenland may melt irreversibly – contributing 7 meters to sea level rise."

Greenpeace website

Ice caps have a very specific amount of ice in them, the Antarctic cannot melt as it is around -37C on average, and we can't undo that much. Greenland, however, is the only other substantial land ice mass, and that contains 7 metres of sea level rise should it melt. Putting their claim into context, the sea rose 7 inches in the 20th century (consequences known, negligible), and is currently rising at the same rate, as Greenpeace note: "...but in the next hundred years the rate of sea level rise could increase dramatically."

Even they couldn't claim more than 'could increase' as despite their previous sentence "Over the last hundred years, sea levels rose ten times faster than their 2000-year average, " they are saying the sea usually rises around half an inch a century. Even if that was true (it isn't), it still can't change a 7 inch rise to a 7 metre rise unless our temperature rises ten times or so. I'm not going to do all the equations of how much it needs to rise to do so or I'd be here all week, but can extrapolate yourselves from the smaller figures everyone appears to agree with, including Greenpeace: "The IPCC puts predictions of 21st century sea level rise at 9 to 88 cm (3.5-34.6 inches)."

This corresponds to a temperature rise of 1-6C, so a quick calculation tells us Greenland would indeed need maybe two to three times more than the maximum amount of rise even the UN's highest estimate presents. Of course, then they back pedal by saying it could take centuries, but people have already been taken in by then, and compress the time in their minds as if 700 or more years can be real to them as 7 years. Their minds are already lost to reality. But the genuine dishonesty is the 7 metre figure in centuries is based on the very highest 6C rise, which would then have to continue consistently for centuries before it finally happened. How exactly could this happen?

The figures: The current temperature rise is around 0.05C a decade since 1850 while 0.1C since 1970. However looking within the second figure that was between 1970 and 2000, while it has virtually stopped in the decade since. The 30 year cycles are the key in climate, and the simplest ones to observe. The major decadal oscillations are a 30 year sine wave as are the main solar cycles. Put them together and they fit the last 150 years pretty well compared to the CO2 which is linear, while the temperatures rise and fall as they always have.

If you stick with the highest recorded decadal rise and continue then by 2100 (we'll all be dead, but it is only a thought experiment) the temperature will have risen by 1.6C, well below the crucial 2C where the climate is expected to be overall worse than before that point. Using past and current sea level rises the projected rise would be another 7 inches, as last century. Unlike the temperature sea levels are far more stable, so despite fluctuations in temperature the sea level evens them out, and takes much longer to react to only long term variations. Therefore despite it being impossible to predict temperatures a decade or a century ahead (a 4 degree error margin used by the UN proves this as it is many times larger than the possible results, so void), if you smooth the temperatures for a decade or a century, you can physically work out the sea level rise per degree or less simply as you know exactly the amount of ice which melts in response. Therefore a 7 inch rise on 1.6C, using recent historic records to project as CO2 is currently linear in rise, and reduces its power on doubling. Therefore if it reaches 520ppm it would then need to rise to 1040ppm to do the same as it did between 260-520 etc.

Greenpeace skate over that one. There is no other mechanism possible to cause a rise beyond the 1.6C we are currently heading for, CO2 has risen 50% since 1850, temperature has risen 0.7C, while around 0.3 has been natural. Without amplification from positive feedback, ie evaporating oceans causing more water vapour where it counts in the atmosphere then CO2 alone can do little more than 1.5C over a massive increase, which is barely enough over the few centuries it could take to cause a single problem, using UN criteria. The experiment has been run, CO2 has risen 50% and there is no increased rise beyond its own fraction of 1C for doubling, in fact slightly less. The other reason this may be happening is because oceanic evaporation is water. No, bear with me. For reasons I did not do at school, evaporating water can either cause vapour or droplets. I don't know how or why as under 100C it should all be liquid, but those are the rules. Liquid water droplets form clouds, which block sunlight from hitting the ground (shade) so are clearly a cooling factor. Therefore the evaporating oceans have an equal chance of becoming clouds (cooling, a balancing factor) or water vapour (warming, positive feedback). The killer here is it is not possible to model cloud changes. All the UN models fail to include cloud cover, not because they're deliberately trying to fool us, but because they simply can't do it. Thinking about it, modelling the entire climate minus the clouds is comparable to modelling the human mind, so the fact it has very sharp limits should come as no surprise. We can only do things the old way here, by observing the past and present. And by doing so, we see there is no positive feedback. There is no reference to delays, the feedback was expected and it has not arrived.

Back to Greenpeace, unlike me, they have access to everything. They know more about the climate than everyone besides the universities and UN themselves, as they have the resources and contacts to do so. That means they know everything I have said here and much more, yet their written material ignores every single element, and creates a scenario most people (I know as they all vote for governments who believe in man made warming) unlike scientists do agree on. The consensus among scientists is far lower (52% in the latest survey of American meteorologists) but they simply don't air it in public as besides the minority they don't work for themselves so need to keep their jobs, unlike Ferenc Miskolczi who was sacked from NASA and had his work wiped from their records as it found faults in their material. That is what happens when employees question their lords and masters. By clearly setting the rises of temperature and sea level at the highest and least likely UN level for 2100, against the evidence since it was written in the 1990s, Greenpeace have openly and directly stretched the truth as far as it possibly can be without actually splitting, simply because their sole defence is they are only using supposition, which we can never prove either way as they're too far ahead to ever know.

That should remove any actual confidence you should have in their predictions alone, and for Greenpeace itself for using such clearly misleading methods.

Wednesday, 27 November 2013

Property is theft

I have heard this argument all my life, why should family or friends benefit from the hard work of others simply through inheritance? They did nothing to earn it, so why should they be any more entitled to it than others (ie the state, which is the only alternative if wills are not permitted).

This is an official policy of some on the left of Labour, no need to go any further to the fringes, so needs a serious analysis in case for any reason it ever becomes part of their manifesto in any form.

Looking at a family, until the children are old enough to work it is fully accepted the parents support them through their earnings, but under the far left equality is most important so requires vast levels of taxation, so even though some parents earn far more than others, as each person, and especially the children are equal the end result must be equalised as far as possible, so the successful share with everyone regardless of their abilities.

This is interesting in itself, as high taxation of the top levels of society is very similar to children of working age being given money by their successful parents, only in a long way round. The only difference is the children here are strangers, whose parents happen to earn less than average so must be brought up to the mean for equality.

That aside, what actually happens with the wealth of the parents after the children reach working age? Under socialism, the far end, whatever amount the parents add to the system most is removed and put back into it, not directly (there are no examples of negative taxation in any manifestos, ie returning money back not just to non-working people, but everyone who has less directly, beyond the margins of the lowest earners). Instead those taxes go to the state who spends it as they wish, as they have the role of protecting society whatever their specific aims and ideals.

Therefore the wealth of the parents left behind after taxation may actually not be sufficient to spend on children of working age, but when there is then although it's not legally binding to do so, most parents do keep spending money on their children because they still have more and may reach a point where their mortgage is paid off they need less so are more able to do so.

Therefore all they have to do where inheritance is banned is to share their spare money while they are alive. Assuming they are allowed to have any of course. And what about charitable donations, to strangers or non-related friends? What if someone chose to hand over their spare money to people in need of it because they wanted to? Or even put their property in trust so a charity could get rent or other benefits? Would the government see that as a good thing?

Making laws is a thoroughly Byzantine task, as every possible result must be considered in advance, otherwise any loopholes or injustices will be translated to reality and the damage will be done.

Therefore, if you ban inheritance, you must regulate living gifts. If someone can't hand over their property on death but reverts to the state, is it OK to give your money to charity, friends, or family before you die? Once you decide that then technically you must have the same rule for wills, as what's the sense in being allowed to give to charities while alive and not after death? If you donate £50,000 to the RSPCA and die the next day it would be OK, but if you left them the same in your will it would be void as all property went back to the state, so then you would need exceptions. Any property could go to charities but nothing else. Then wills must return, and the likelihood would be the state loses out altogether as nearly everyone would prefer to decide who got their property than the state, and the state would lose a massive amount of income (although it all went to good causes beyond their control). They would then need to raise taxes even higher to fill that gap.

They would, of course, also have to restrict gifts within life to stop people simply sharing what they have before they die (although that is exactly what the state are doing by compulsory means under socialism). So children may be banned from receiving money at 18 from their parents (try enforcing that mind you) otherwise all that would happen is besides their capital (which can be transferred, but requires far more complexity) all they'd do is work out how much they can afford to give their children while they live, and then make sure they get as much as possible that way. But what about other relations or friends? People don't just leave money to their children, often not at all through personal disputes. So really you won't be allowed to hand over any gifts or be accused of evading inheritance taxes. Except charity I suppose.

Basically a simple view can be seen to operate in practice, although this is a conventional opinion and policy of the far left, and secondly the very fact they clearly have not run this very simple experiment of the consequences demonstrates their hearts rule over their heads, and there is very little going on in their heads or they could not allow that to happen.

Sunday, 24 November 2013

Setting precedents. If it's happened before it's possible.

After the war and the liberation of the concentration camps it became known eventually Churchill and many other leaders were well aware of their existence, but had they done anything about it believed they may have allowed Hitler to know they'd intercepted their intelligence and hurt the war effort. Forget the millions of innocent people they could have saved, they believed overall victory, keeping their countries free from invasion, was far more important than any deaths in the short term. This was a passive acceptance of genocide, a collusion at the highest levels, allowed 'because it prevented something even worse'.

Before the war ended the German people unanimously elected the National Socialist Party, whose major policy was to rid Germany of the alleged cause of its hyperinflation and huge economic problems, the Jews and undesirables. The great majority of voters, the consensus, was the Jews were so dangerous to the national economy, and not part of the master race, they could never succeed as long as they were in the country. Up till there nothing was new, the Jews and others have been expelled from other countries from the beginning of the bible, but unlike the previous examples the Nazis didn't even consider simply kicking them out, as the English and Spanish had done, but wanted to wipe them out altogether, as they weren't just bad for Germany, but the world itself.

The governments knew, the German people believed it and chose for it to be carried out, and many millions of people are now gone as a result.

This set a new precedent, in that it can be possible to convince an entire nation to not just remove any unwelcome race, but eliminate them entirely. And then once the governments discovered this was happening, nothing was ever done before the war ended as it was not seen as important. The people who collude with your enemy are surely also your enemy, and proved secondly it is capable to happen. The last war is not unique, just extreme, and since then tribes and Christians have been slaughtered in Africa, nothing was done to stop it by our governments, while in Iraq it was only after Saddam Hussein killed the Kurds in his own country in very similar ways as Hitler using poison gas, they finally invaded when the damage had already been done, for reasons we still don't know.

So we now know:

a) The people of a 'civilised' modern country can be convinced to wipe out any group the government want rid of.

b) Your own government is capable of allowing them to do it.

Besides proving the government are not your friends, and people can be convinced of anything by them as they know how to do it, it proved something far worse which is happening right now, it can happen again.

Having quoted the original founders of the Green movement from the 70s onwards who believed man was a cancer on the planet, many such as the late Stephen Schneider and David Suzuki then reached positions of power within the UN and its agencies, as well as the Bilderberg Group, Club of Rome and all the other Rockefeller related cabals, giving them the power to carry out these policies. Taking direct confessions quoted previously, 'The threat of global warming will be the motivation for the new world order', repeated in many variations leaving absolutely no doubt this was their plan, and as demonstrated above, is quite possible to repeat, this time not just the Jews and undesirables, but the 'Useless eaters', as they call us, getting in the way of their enjoyment of the planet. And what do you do to fix the problem? An 80% reduction in population. Not enough Jews then, sorry, unlike the last time they mean you as well.

Do you want them to continue? If you are reading this, probably not, as I tend to preach only to the converted who read my material. But we have a world consensus, not necessarily among the scientists or the governments, not in private anyway, as they have the genuine figures about the climate, but the voters themselves who vote for climate measures which, like the concetration camps, kill people today to save people tomorrow. Yes, it happened before, don't let it happen again now you know it is.

Saturday, 23 November 2013

Joining the protection racket

So, the third world countries want compensation from the west for damage caused to them by the climate? Well what do you expect? They are only doing exactly what the west are doing to its own citizens for exactly the same reason, and the thing they both have in common is it is physically impossible to prove any cause and effect relationship, but once the idea and consequences are thought up the results are inevitable.

How long do the innocent citizens of the entire world want to be ruled by fear of a distant future outside their lifetimes and give, give, give while businesses and governments are happy to take, take, take, and the left out third world who are actually burning the fossil fuel as unlike the west they can't afford the crap we have used to pretend to replace it and manufacture the goods the west needs as a result.

Think long and hard, the temperature hasn't gone up very much, while CO2 has. We don't really know why, and even the experts only say man creates about 3% of the total. The rest is natural so will continue whatever we do or don't do and always will. And as long as this illusion is maintained every single authority will use it to milk as much potential money and power from it as long as people accept its reality.

How can you prove anything beyond a major rise in temperature over 2C and consequent rise in sea level? Neither of which exist in my reality or yours, or any other. The temperature has risen 0.7C in 150 years and the sea level is rising around 7 inches a century, which we didn't notice in the last one and can't ever notice as it's not noticeable. And without a rise in temperature well over 2C it can't rise so it will be. Ever.

Friday, 22 November 2013

Tony Blair's legacy 1

What if you decided, in a position able to do so, it was very unfair only highly intelligent people had high IQ scores, so as a political policy wanted to make sure 50% (instead of 2%) of people could get into Mensa.

Fucking idiotic isn't it.

So Tony Blair, as prime minister, (for reasons closer to reducing unemployment) decided to raise the number of graduates from 5% (ie those capable of it, it was free so anyone was eligible to get one) to 50%. As I know or know of at least four professors or senior lecturers I can confirm it had to be done by dropping the standards, and was enforced by taking money away from universities where anyone failed. Then to finish the job he charged for these new degrees as obviously the country could basically manage to pay for the 5% to get degrees, because it always has, but not many more.

Besides insulting everyone like me who got a degree because I worked for it, it simply now means employers, like in America, have to find other ways to select candidates as as well as the degrees all the A levels and GCSEs were dropped in standard to get people into university, again a proven fact as presentation criteria were dropped and the same rules about guaranteed passes were given to the exam markers. So by devaluing the degrees, like the currency, all it did was produce inflation without any more actual value. We have a generation of false graduates, the best sticking to the subjects you can't fudge, but not including science as one professor who has to quite happily overlook wrong answers is an engineer. Imagine that. Engineers who can't add up.

This is my real point. Many degrees form part of a professional course- science, engineering, law etc. It is one thing employing a false English or History graduate in the civil service or Waterstone's bookshop, where they can learn on the job and survive on their merits, but allowing a false graduate into a profession where they are advising people on financial, medical and technical matters is totally dangerous. Imagine the engineers from the college I describe (one of the best in the world), the ten percent or so who would have been kicked out in the past, who they have been encouraged (bribed) to keep on, and they get a job designing bridges or bus shelters (the sort of thing they do), and only got their degree as their mechanics failures were overlooked? The potential is obvious to all.

Thanks Tony Blair, another thing you have done to destroy people's lives.

Monday, 18 November 2013

How to run a protection racket

There are some very old and simple con tricks employed by some for their entire careers. One is the old fashioned protection racket, made famous by the Mafia, and based on the insurance company principle if you pay them nothing will happen to you, your business and your family. Amazingly years after paying a rising 'premium' your business really hadn't burnt down, but was it because you paid them or it wouldn't have anyway? Or if the kid asks you for a tenner to look after your parked car.

Of course in these cases the insurers are the ones who would actually inflict the damage if you DIDN'T pay, but what if a smarter crook could persuade people if you paid enough your house wouldn't burn down, because statistically they knew far better than you only one house in many thousands ever burns down, so used every trick in the book to convince people the risk was far worse, like the security salesmen do to old people on Watchdog. Fear trumps brains and create enough fear and most people's brains drop right out of their bottoms.

Pay us more and more and we will stop the temperature rising by 2C when you're 140 years old. What was that again? You want me to give you more and more money every year so after I've died the temperature won't be much higher than it is now?

You decide.

CLUE~ How could you tell should you manage to live till 2100 whether it was your money that stopped the temperature from rising or it wasn't going to anyway and they knew that already. Hear d of a two headed coin? They've just spun one. They can't ever lose with a formula loaded like that, and most of the world have fallen for it.

Two important principles

To restate two major principles which will allow everyone, like keys, to see through cheating and worst practice.

1) The Ken Livingstone principle.

In short, just because there is no penalty, you should always do the right thing. Our ex-mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, promised he wouldn't a) Raise the price of the congestion charge b) Extend the congestion charge c) Stated the congestion charge was revenue neutral by law d) He would never get rid of Routemaster buses.

In his two terms he a) Raised the price of the congestion charge b) Extended it to double in size c) When the extension was removed by his replacement, he openly admitted he wanted to get rid of it all "But they couldn't afford to lose the revenue" d) Routemaster buses were dumped in 2003 except two short routes for tourists.

When interviewed and asked how he could so easily break such promises, he simply said "Because I could"

That is pure evil.

2) The Hutchison Rabbit principle:

Before mobile phones, a vast company in Hong Kong created a wireless phone system where customers could make calls within a few hundred yards of an antenna, but not receive calls. The cost of units and calls was higher than landlines (as you'd expect) and the range was comparable with the far cheaper public call boxes.

Despite not providing a better and cheaper service, millions were invested in the company, and as any not fit for purpose and entirely left to market forces, it failed almost immediately, as it totally had to as it did not provide a useful product or fill a gap in the market.

The second part was that despite being a massive telecoms company and spending years investigating the British market, Hutchison still went ahead and blew the lot on a system which did not deliver any more than was there already, and at a far higher cost. Who would finance a plan like that?

I very much doubt a single person can't see this after the event, but none did before or it wouldn't have gone ahead. It created a specific principle, producing anything not fit for purpose, but still going ahead can not provide a useful product and must fail.


Knowing this, electric cars use the same source for propulsion and peripherals. This makes it physically impossible to judge the available distance at outset. If they do run out there is no fuel besides a replacement correct size battery to switch it, which even if possible may not be nearby. If they do make it to a charging point they take many hours to charge, what do you do while you are waiting?

All these problems are inherent in their being, and very unlikely (besides reducing the charge time and increasing the range) to overcome totally. Add to that once the batteries wear out (another guaranteed problem) they will cost all the saving you made in fuel to that point. Guaranteed.

People are buying a few of these, but a tiny fraction of those expected (no surprise there), but they are still being made despite attracting barely any subsidies. Companies are hardly being paid to produce them regardless of sales, yet they still do, like Hutchison handsets.

They must fail.

Solar panels and wind turbines produce intermittent power, in the case of solar very little, and wind currently only usable at the time as impossible to store in batteries. So while solar barely produces more than you need unless you're not at home so hasn't much to put back for night time, wind produces sharp peaks of power whenever it's windy, and is either added to the grid or wasted. It also requires extra staff as unlike conventional power it does not provide a steady supply the grid needs not to burn out, so they have to turn down the wick whenever a peak comes in or the whole area will black out. Plus any power they supply is cancelled out by a permanent backup station, on whether used or not as they take weeks to warm up. Plus the power to turn the rotors, put the brakes on in high winds and heat them when they may freeze. And maintenance. This is inherent in their nature, you can never make a wind turbine turn without random mother nature, the technology is 3000 years old and all windmills can only collect as much wind as provided to convert to energy and no more.

There can be no solution to any of the links in these chains enough to complete any of the three. Even if one or two issues could be improved by new technology you cannot make the wind blow or sun shine when they aren't, so the power source fails by its nature.

So why do we have all three of them at all?

Fraud, proven it goes straight to the top

How dirty does it get?

It took around 13 and 23 years to expose the Libor rigging and the Hillsborough evidence tampering, which in itself was no surprise beyond the fact both were exposed. But the big and most major surprise of all was both were given total criminal immunity. Firstly that is not legal (you cannot make exceptions to the Theft Act, perverting the course of justice, breach of trust (assuming that is even a crime), and any other of the proven acts of both the bankers and the top police who ordered the tampering.

But both were removed from the criminal system entirely. Besides being a feature of a banana republic (this does not mean we were not, as we now qualify by action) it actually means had there been a criminal trial, which is standard in all similar situations, evidence would have been directed to the top, as Libor was impossible without both approval and alleged orders from as high as you can get, while in Hillsborough the top police did order the mass doctoring of evidence and were given blanket immunity by the government. That's not a very good example to set the people of where their loyalties lie either.

After seeing governments worldwide shtup 70% of their population with low interest rates, we can now see how they protect their own against our interests after they have been proved to have committed serious crimes.


Friday, 15 November 2013

Summary in quotes

It's been a couple of weeks and 37 entries, here are some quotes to repeat whenever appropriate and reprogram the minds of the listeners until they start to take the concepts on board. It is a slow and gradual process. People hardly ever give up their beliefs suddenly whatever the evidence, but you need to repeat over and over again what I hope to have demonstrated to be objective facts as far as possible until they simply sink in, not because we are doing the same dirty trick that made them think those things in the first place, but actually undoing all the programming they've picked up over their lives.

Only governments and investment banks gain from low interest rates.

Unless you own more than one house you will nearly always lose when prices go up....

Manipulating the economy to cause inflation is a crime against humanity.

If a ruler admits they are lying then the material related to it must be lies as well. Just because the quotes were not reported doesn't make them go away.

How could the indebted countries in the Eurozone be worse off outside it?

There is no political element in the climate.

If someone wants to restrict or ban cars and travel ask them how they'd manage.

How do you supply hundreds of thousands of new immigrants a year with schools, hospitals and medical services overnight?

Monday, 11 November 2013

Scientific consensus

Any academic knows the level required to pass muster and end up as both a theory and taught, and at university level the majority of what is taught is fact, with some opinions in subjects like sociology and politics. But when I took sociology my discovery half way in was although via the human ego each theory claimed to explain an entire area (as did legal theory) each provided a piece of the jigsaw, usually getting a bit right but not all of it, and when I put it all together and represented how it all worked and fit my marks doubled in both.

Until now the last time scientific agreement was used as a justification of a theory was the geocentric universe, which got various heretics put to death for suggesting the solar system. It was science by primitive edict, non-science in fact, or more accurately nonsense. In 2013 we now have the UN acting as the world's Spanish Inquisition, insisting 97% of scientists are 95% certain man has caused global warming.

But where did these figures come from? I won't copy and paste, but there was only one main study to get the 97%, which whittled down thousands of replies to vague questions no more precise than 'can man influence the climate', and then ended up with a total of 77 acceptable individuals, and was used as the Koran ever since to provide the edict of global warming and now repeated as often as morning prayers.

All studies since have been variations on the same theme, and if pinned down to psychological data or scientific then they would have caused the students creating them to be sent home and probably recommended never to return. Yet most warming believers roll this 97% out first, as if that makes it all OK, the Doctor Who psychic paper passport allowing total access to all areas and signed by God himself.

I will now rip the whole fucking lot to pieces. So small your toothless granny could manage them.

1) How many scientists exist who are qualified to speak on the climate? It depends what you believe. If you agree with the 97% (sic), you can be a geneticist (Paul Nurse), an obstetrician (Robert Winston), a total wanker with no relevant qualifications (Al Gore), a railway engineer (head of UN IPCC Rajendra Pauchari), basically your BSc is a passport to climate excellence so long as you agree with the climatologists.

In order for the 97% to be a representative sample, meaning 97% of all BSc qualified scientists minimum agreed man has warmed the planet with CO2 you would be better off counting the ones  we already know to disagree.

There are two places to find them, firstly the BScs onwards, the tens of thousands of scientists who signed the petition project, and secondly the PhDs and meteorologists who write papers every week dismissing one or more key areas of AGW theory from start to finish. The 'reasonable doubts' created over solar radiation, decadal cycles, cloud cover, dimming effects from pollution, CO2 time lag and dwell time in the atmosphere, and even a small cabal who claim they have proved the greenhouse effect is not possible using gas at all, mean if you add all of them together at say 40,000, (shame I failed maths so don't know the formula to do it) you would need around 980,000 who are qualified and agree, just one the ones who have said so in public, while a handful of anonymous whistleblowers have said they had to keep quiet or lose their jobs, which apparently represents the current university position for all involved.

2) Rather than play with numbers, what about logic? If you honestly assess the genuine known figures of course there can't be anywhere near that many scientists who care or grasp global warming, and those with an understanding tend to do their own jobs and only talk about it when specifically asked, and if their jobs are in another field believe it or not frequently say it's utter nonsense. Then you get the retirees, such as Philip Stott, or independents like Stanton Friedman, both quite capable of the science as professional scientists for many decades. They have no one to pay them for an opinion so simply say under the science they learned and worked with man made global warming beyond the margins is impossible. Now the word there, margins, is the key way they slid in the consensus, as the questions were so general even chaos theory states any act can affect the climate, so it must include humans, so it ought to be 100%. But give an honest question removing 'possible' for 'serious' and what would the answers have been?

Bear in mind this was not an anonymous survey, partly as each person needed to be qualified, but also it could have checked their status first and then given them a form without a name to identify them. If you do a survey or any vote it must be controlled, and getting professionals who have jobs and reputations to maintain are going to be as genuine as people wanting to put their hands up against union action. So besides making the questions and sample unscientific, the very process of questioning introduced possible bias by each voter being named on their answers. Imagine Phil Jones or Mike Hulme of the IPCC Mafia saying they didn't think there was enough evidence, or the question was honest and said 'raise temperatures above 2C' or the like, which is what everyone assumes they meant (which they didn't). One appendix to this, Phil Jones and Mike Hulme did cast serious doubts on their own scientific processes, along with some very heavyweight colleagues, but was revealed in their private emails. Now that is going to tell you exactly what they really think, not a survey which breaks every single rule of surveys.

3) The final question to ask, which I hardly ever hear, is when most of the scientists who don't agree are climatologists and meteorologists, equally or better qualified than the others, either they may be right as equally able to do the figures, or at least are casting vast amounts of doubts over the status of global warming theory, as technically although it has warmed since CO2 rose in 1850 it was warming already, and only around half the total is attributed to the CO2 anyway, so it's not any more than a potential, requiring many phenomena to happen at the same time which have never been witnessed before so they simply can't know for certain. Had it already risen 1C plus then I'd shut the hell up and only criticise the policies as it's far better to spend nothing and save the money for adaptation (the alternatives are far, far worse as we've seen around the world) but it's way below even the lowest estimates except three, and heading lower each year. So it is not observed science, but an extrapolation of a shaky theory at best (where are the past examples of studying the climate at high CO2 levels?) and sold as certain in order to maintain the public acceptance of policies destroying societies at every level.

In fact, there is a growing number of both scientists and studies running a coach and horses through the tenuous CO2 + positive feedback = dangerous global warming. If you go to some of the usual sites like Wattsupwiththat or Real Science they post every day and have all the correct letters after their names and credentials, and are not even surgeons or botanists but meteorologists and astrophysicists, like Piers Corbyn and Joe Bastardi. I am familiar enough with the names and qualifications I can list hundreds now by memory (trust me or look for yourself, I want people to read this to the end) and if they represent 3% of scientists there must be at least a million who represent the others. Or it's total bollocks, which I hope I have just demonstrated to be the only possible outcome.

Just the facts

As an exercise I will now go through the entries here so far and try to sieve out the facts so people can judge for themselves:

More people lose through low interest rates- fact.

People whose houses become worth more pay even more when they move- fact

Britain loses from EU membership. The annual fee is known, and we are officially a net contributor. If the CBI or anyone else says we're better off in it let them prove it, as the tariffs we save are negligible, and lost on tariffs paid outside the EU. These figures are not as easily found but the tariff rates at least can be, as well as our normal trade deficit with the EU, meaning we buy more from then than they do from us.

Racism: Playing the Obama race card ignores the black Republican politicians no one appears to have a problem with. And drivers who get stopped for being black despite the fact it was dark and they couldn't be seen in the car. Don't blame someone's race unless you're absolutely certain, as there's normally a far better reason and almost impossible to prove it.

Renewables: Wind turbines produce randomly but cost constantly (backup power, brakes, motors, heaters etc). The can never and have never produced any valuable energy as more than a byproduct of their existence, while much they do produce can't be used as it isn't needed at the time so wasted. Biofuel clears land of other crops and rain forests and much of what is used is corn which reduces the food available and raises prices. Wood chips cost far more than coal and produce far less power, and require vast numbers of trees to be cut down and cannot grow fast enough to be replaced after a certain point. Solar panels work when least needed and not when most needed, and the little power they can store is ony enough for a short time overnight and little or no more. All this can be verified.

Electric cars use the same power source for propulsion and power, meaning you can't judge how far you can go if the lights, heater and wipers are on. And it is guaranteed you can't get the fuel to the car when it eventually does go flat on the road, and even if you can make it to a charger what do you do for the many hours while you are waiting? Take a bus where you were going and another back the next morning?

Don't pay more for a solution than the benefit you get. If you are told the planet is warming up, and if under various conditions, it may be so warm the climate is worse overall than it is now but not for a hundred years or so, so you must turn down your heating, pay more for energy, restrict travel etc, despite no physical chance of even knowing the result, or any indication the temperature is rising more than half they claim is enough to cause a problem, why make people suffer in these ways? If it then removes huge amounts of money from the poor to go to climate research, renewable subsidies (see above) and carbon trading (see earlier references to Enron), just do the sums. Can all this current suffering really be worse what is technically an unprovable attempt to control the climate, which we know from history is not disastrous when warmer anyway? These are the knowns, yet it ploughs ahead regardlessly. Because no one questions them.

A confession is always valid, especially when by many: If someone who is employed to create new taxes for the benefit of the planet, and then says they can't repeal them as they need the money (ie Boris Johnson, London's mayor, on removing the congestion charge, created to break even and not make money), or one of the UN's economic directors admits openly climate taxes are to redistribute wealth to the third world, they are being honest. As we are so used to them pretending the money and restrictions they impose are in good causes, or we would never have accepted them, the incredibly rare times they come straight out and admit it it's like seeing a ufo, people blink and think they must have imagined it.

All Ponzi and pyramid schemes pass the same money from the bottom of the pile to the top, and eventually the people at the bottom will run out and lose all their stake, and the top of a pyramid is always smaller than the body, so only those at the top can ever win. This is carbon trading and renewable subsidies as one does produce absolutely nothing (as a pure Ponzi scheme), while the other has an ostensible product to give the impression of a genuine business.

My point about the Eurozone recession and debt was a question. Could Greece, Portugal, Cyprus, France, Italy and Ireland have ever been worse off outside the Eurozone or EU altogether than the years to decades of recession they are now guaranteed as their debts are so high from borrowing money they could never afford otherwise?

Anyone who uses negative political assertions in climate discussions has lost instantly, on both sides. Either the planet is warming dangerously or not. It's not anything to do with left or right wing any more than preferring cherry or apple pie.

Even Green activists have to travel, as do ambulances and other emergency vehicles. By making it incredibly expensive and inconvenient to do so, to save the planet, their journeys are screwed up just the same as everyone else's. Do they really want to hardly ever go anywhere beyond where the local buses go, or take their children to grandparents as they have to pay extra to drive there? Those mercury bulbs take three minutes to warm up for them as well, and the mercury is just as hard to get rid of whether or not the law made us all use them. Their grandparents may be poor and on pensions, and their energy prices go up as much as those of the rich carbon emitters, and pay far more of their total capital on energy than the rich they appear to believe are responsible for our problems. If Benjamin Franklin said those who trade freedom for security did not deserve either, I see little today to change that view.

Mass uncontrolled immigration does not mean new water and sewage supplies can be built, teachers, doctors and nurses trained and hospitals added to accommodate them. These take many years even for a relatively static population, and when you simply don't know how many people are coming as there are open borders it is permanently impossible to provide the services adequately, even when they decide en masse to go somewhere else and local businesses had grown (like the hundreds of Polish shops) to supply them. No countries ever had open door policies until around the 90s as it was assumed to be totally unmanageable. Britain has proved this yet continues to accuse anyone (including ethnic minorities who lived here already) of questioning this racist.

If a politician says something and then does the opposite, or can be proved wrong, they lied. Lying is not illegal unless a loss of property or reputation is caused, and it seems if you're a politician then collecting money under false pretences falls outside the Theft Act, but can be shown to do it anyway. Once you have seen one lie a couple of times how can you trust them on anything else? If you lied at work even once and were caught, how would you expect to be treated? Yet when they lie at work and collect billions in taxes as a result, or restrict our lives for no known reason, they get reelected more often than not.
If your partner had an affair and you caught them, and then they did it again, would you ever trust them again? If not then why do you do it with politicians who do the exact same thing?

It's magic- or is it?

When I was about 20 they had a magician on the radio. He asked the listeners to pick some random numbers, add them, divide them etc, and surprise surprise he got the right final answer. I did a standard lateral thinking move and worked the sums back from the answer and found it got the same result whichever numbers you put in and rang up to tell them. Did I get bollocked! You must be a magician, you can't tell people how these things are done, you're trying to sabotage me! etc. At no time did anyone simply think I'd seen through his crappy little trick and it wasn't good enough for purpose as it was so easy to figure out?

Since I started this site I've been accused with blurring my opinion with facts. The way it is supposed to work is much like the magic trick. The government and authorities make up ways to get people to accept being treated like sex slaves and donors to their causes and I see through them. How I do is simply by using formulas which have been discovered one way or another over the years until the entire picture was seen, everything fits together as a whole system and the closest comparison is government by mafia.

Once your view of all those asking for your money and to give up your rights for a greater cause (their own wealth and related power and benefits) it starts to make perfect sense, as that is exactly what they are doing. If they do something that helps you it's either because it helps them directly, or like the devil in the bible can't hide open lies so has to hide the poop in a real sandwich and put enough salt and pepper on so you can't be sure it's in there. What I do is to open it up with my probes and take away all the bread and other things they've piled high on top to see the garbage hiding inside. When I tell people they either worked it out themselves, or try and kill me. There is rarely any in between. The very fact millions of people can work all these things out as well affirms their veracity, but as hundreds of millions believe we are far right extremists and hate the poor and working class etc, let alone god forbid the very planet itself, we are at information war with them, while not trying to destroy the enemy itself but their sheer blanket ignorance.

I don't say this as an insult, but as a description. Did I always know about all this? Of course not. It's taken me 53 years on this planet to learn all I have and once I trusted the elders and betters as well, till I spotted a couple of things they'd done which cheated me, and found more, more and even more till I found the entire thing was rotten from the inside.

Going back to the magic, unlike magicians some of these deceivers come straight out and admit what they're doing (see my fraud blog for pages of examples), yet people ignore it. Jimmy Savile was clever enough to die before anyone found enough evidence to assume (as it can only be an assumption post-mortem) he was guilty. These a-holes can even publish their dross in full and still be totally ignored. Much of my material here is either numerical or directly quoted and all I need to do is share it, there is nothing required to even work out. And where there is, little is very complicated, and can all be checked and verified otherwise I wouldn't add it here. My training is in law, and the most important part is never to present your evidence until it's been thoroughly prepared and verified. And as far as I'm concerned nearly everything here can be used to work the same things out yourself, rather than be opinion, but don't take my word for it, I am pointing people in a direction and if you think it's just my opinion then show me and prove me wrong, there's always a comment box.

Saturday, 9 November 2013

Ignore the warnings

How many times do you hear in the news things like 'We should never leave the EU, it will be a disaster' (latest by the CBI), and the worldwide panic when the Federal Reserve even hinted they may reduce quantitative easing (they didn't). There is a very good reason for this and all others like it, the people who benefit from such policies are terrified they'll lose their easy ride, and given their position where able to influence and harangue the media, use their PR weight to invent any old alarmist junk as if they even have a clue exactly what would happen if any of these policies or changes were to go ahead, besides their bottom line reducing.

These are purely the attempts of vested interests doing everything they can to get public opinion on their side, while in fact these policies only help the elite at our expense. I have already explained quantitative easing and various other details of how popular economic views are backwards in relation to reality, and whenever there's the slightest chance one of their sacred cows, those which directly put a needle in our vein and drain the wealth as blood to their accounts having done absolutely no added work for it, they are trying to fool you. Don't let it happen.

Friday, 8 November 2013

What about the losers if rates rise?

This is based on a reply to a query, and is a combination of arithmetic (ie a few times more people lose from low rates, currently getting less than a third of their income under market rates) and choice.

People saving have a choice limited by the market. There is a range of fixed rate protected investments, and if you take risks for more firstly few are even fixed and none are safe, and could potentially lose everything. Pensions are even less flexible as they are either state run or bought long in advance and you are stuck with them. Buying a property however is a free personal choice, ostensibly based on ability to pay, and although the old rules are long gone fixing a maximum of 3-4 times income for a mortgage, they should still show everyone the simple table of monthly repayments at every rate possible.

There are no mysteries buying a house, it's very simple to know how much you can afford now and ahead, and if you are not certain you can in future you are not ready to buy. Otherwise you buy at the level where whatever today's interest rate is you can comfortably cover the maximum, like the 15% we had in the 70s. If not, again you must drop your buying price limit. Who should even be allowed to gamble (as it is not their money they are borrowing) at rock bottom rates they won't go up, as they should never have been allowed to buy for that much on their income? Yes, people shouldn't need the law to stop them making bad decisions, but as firstly it is not their money (OK, the lenders should not be reckless either) but the consequences of failure caused the last world recession and quite possible to happen over and over again as the rules haven't changed to stop it, laws need to be there to restrict mortgage to income ratios for the sake of the whole economy. Until that happens (one can dream) no one buying beyond their means can complain if interest rates ever do go up and they are caught as they all knew exactly how much they could afford when buying the property and why would anyone want to live in fear for years worrying if the rates will rise and they'll be stuck?

Mortgage borrowing is a personal decision, and as a result people must take a personal responsibility for it. They do not have a choice in investing when they need every penny to live on so can't risk losing the principle for risky options, so when 3/4 or so of the population are forced to earn a third or quarter of what they should be then being concerned about the 1/4 who would pay more if they rose, considering not a single one of them should ever have bought not knowing they could cover all possible rates it's a fairly clear picture which is the right one for society.

The broken step

Imagine, as many do, that aliens arrived here and we instantly realised it was possible to travel light years, and quite possibly beyond the speed of light and through time and dimensions. Instead of working it out ourselves over hundreds or thousands of years the work would have been done for us, and as a result could suddenly jump ahead with all the benefits, as even if these aliens didn't want or intend us to know they were there or share the information if they did, we would know by default it was possible.

This can apply to travelling to remote isolated societies, and while they initially see planes and TVs as god and magic they tend very quickly to realise what they are and decide whether or not to adopt them into their society even though they had never got close themselves and may not have done for generations, but perfectly acceptable to adopt work done by others for their own benefit regardless of whether they earned the right by creating it themselves.

So what about information? Given sufficient evidence, especially accounts which can't really be disputed, you would assume if a few people at the top of the pyramid, those who do their own research and make their own conclusions independent of the establishment and dominant views of the profession they are not even members of, discover something new then sharing it with those below would be of the same effect. If the people assumed low interest rates must mean everything cost less and with primary school maths they'd get it in moments, forget it. Technology can speak for itself, but the broken step has been discovered. Finding information does not mean you can pass it on.

The reasons for the barrier are various and covered elsewhere- lack of authority, lack of trust, and a built in certainty they know better than anyone apparently on their own level. So when you discover anything which means the establishment view is wrong, or someone there is cheating, even with open confessions and caught in the act examples (like Climategate) they are like smoke in the wind. Not only do they not register, they and you are vigorously rejected, as if you are the heretic and have just attacked their god.

Until we find ways to convey the information which is often so blatant you could trip over it in the dark the information revolution may lie only with the already converted, but the only key we currently have is repetition of key issues until they may sink in and provoke enquiry. If someone can work things out themselves, or think they have, then they own the information and come to the right side. Till then they are victims.

Thursday, 7 November 2013

Deliberately causing inflation

Yes, most governments actually want inflation. I only recently found this, a 2% target is planned, and today the Eurozone dropped their interest rates even though there is 0.7% inflation already, as they wanted even more. Extending from and looking at the other side of the coin from my low interest rates entry, this is the theft of a percentage of our money redirected to governments, banks and retailers. I am not an economist but know enough of the basics to explain the error of their ways:

Having established and confirmed low interest rates cause a loss in around 3/4 of the population who are overall savers or pensioners (which are both based on the interest rate), inflation is the inevitable result as money moves from cash deposits to commodities. Unless wages follow, where you end up exactly where you were anyway, everyone else loses as a result of inflation. All of it. So why would anyone actually want to inflict inflation on an entire country as a government policy?

The reasons for low interest rates mean inflation is a consequence, and of course the same people who borrow at base rate (banks and governments) benefit from low interest rates, as do all commodity speculators. This takes money from everyone else who lose as much as the minority gain. Commodity rises mean higher prices on average for everything, ie inflation. Who benefits from that? Retailers who sell more of a product that they buy, whether shops, banks, commodity brokers or anyone else who buys low and sells at a markup, will all make a profit from inflation as long as their workers aren't paid the same amount more to compensate, which in effect leads to hyperinflation which is at least as bad.

Now, without wanting to send anyone running for the hills, if a man has a small winkle he can't make it bigger naturally (despite what the spam emails tell you), so has what could be described as a fixed asset. How can he make it appear his equipment is actually larger than it is without changing a thing? He'd have to find a woman who was smaller down below than average so relatively it seemed bigger. This works with short men and ugly friends as well, just find a shorter woman or even worse looking one and you will look taller or better despite nothing having changed. You get the formula. Causing inflation (market manipulation, which is a socialist/fascist act) does this to debts. If you inflate away a debt then if you pay £100 a month for ten years, while the prices and wages rise, the £100 is a smaller percentage of your overall income each year when inflated away so it seems you are paying less, which at the time you are, BUT:

In the end you end up paying the rest when you replace whatever it was which has worn out or become too large or small for you, from a car to a house. All you've done is delay the result, as when you buy the replacement, instead of it costing around the same as it did ten years ago it will have risen the same amount roughly as everything else, and so will the entire economy. So in the long term you pay, and until then you still do as even though while your small section of expenses is going down relative to its value, so is everything else you are buying! Therefore even though that £100 a week is worth a little less for the period, everything else is going up literally, so what you save on that debt is being spent right now on everything you are buying.

Bottom line, by creating inflation your government is screwing you, and in the wrong hole. Sideways. With a pineapple.

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

The final solution

Hitler planned to wipe out the Jews and other undesirables, and successfully managed many millions over around a five year period, and the rest of the world claimed not to even realise it was happening at the time. We know this, I lost around 3/4 of my family as did most other Jews in Europe. Then we hear Churchill did know but decided not to act as it would give away he knew more than he did about their operations and would have caused a strategic disadvantage. This only came out recently after the secrets became released, and shows not only can it happen here, now and in a democratic country, when others did find out they allowed it to happen. Is it an exception (albeit a massive example) or a precedent?

In 1994 the Hutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda, the west knew and stood back and left them to it. The Turks murdered well over a million Armenians and related Christians around 1919 and the country still claim it didn't happen. Saddam Hussein killed many thousands of native Kurds in his own country using chemical weapons, we did something but many years after he'd already done it. Nowadays, unlike during the last two wars, we have worldwide communication in seconds and spy satellites which are almost impossible to hide from. Such early 20th century excuses simply do not wash. If it happens now anywhere in the world no country can claim ignorance or pretend they're not doing it as perpetrators.

So bear in mind it is always possible, therefore who is immune? Your country? My country? Any country?

What if the UN itself decided to do the same thing, but unlike the mass slaughters of the 20th century and before, would need to do it slowly and quietly in many different ways so people simply couldn't be sure it was happening? Managed depopulation This is not a rogue site but represents both quotes, plans and subsequent observations around the world. Agenda 21 talks in code but applying its codes in reality tends to have results of raising commodity prices, reducing available food stock and diverting resources for disease eradication and providing water to the false cause of 'global warming'. By omission alone the money they have already caused the world's governments to spend on climate research, renewable energy and other projects could have provided clean water and sewage for most of Africa. Now it can't. There is more than one way to skin a cat but if like Churchill we all turn a blind eye then eventually it won't be the Africans starving as their crops have been seized to grow biofuel, but your elderly relatives dying of hypothermia as their energy bills have doubled while their pension has not risen at all. In the EU they are guaranteed to rise every year indefinitely to stop people using so much energy. As we all need to exist at an optimum temperature and eat a minimum number of calories or we become ill, by raising the bills many times faster than income rises (if it even does) the result is guaranteed. It's slow, indirect and almost impossible to prove. You could describe it as the perfect mass murder.

Tuesday, 5 November 2013


Why am I here? To explain how modern politics is cheating us and imposing unjustified restrictions on us, and by simply having it both pointed out and presented in a way it can be shown to be unjustified then one by one more people will realise it and with enough aware, then collectively rebel against it and turn public opinion against such oppressive and insidious rules.

As I was coming home just now they said Birmingham University had banned Mexican costumes as they were stereotypes and racist. Firstly there is no such thing as a Mexican race, and secondly what exactly has allowed them to extend their totally valid care over racism to something with no malicious intent and based on reality, otherwise it wouldn't actually be a stereotype? Think about it, if someone says you have a big nose and you don't, then how can it be an insult, and if someone says you have brown hair and blue eyes all they are doing is describing you accurately. If they point out most people in your family have the same features all they are doing is recognising within that group there are some common characteristics.

Only a fool or a child believe a stereotype of any sort represents exactly how every single member of that group is. If the liberal left genuinely have such a low opinion of everyone except themselves (oh, they do), it is they who have the problem and need enforced education not everyone else. Extending a genuine remedy, ie one against genuine racism, to a false one only designed to restrict people's freedom of expression, they have crossed the line of utility into totalitarianism. It is like correcting a problem and instead of going on to deal with a new one if and when it arises, keep on trying to extend and tinker with the solved problem until you start ruining whatever you've created, pretty much like completing a portrait and then instead of putting it up on display keep on and draw a beard and moustache on it, or worse still a cock and balls. Bottom line, when there is a problem which needs solving or correcting, much like the previous entry on feminism, once it's got everyone equal or protected, you must stop. Going further either gives the original victims an unfair advantage just like their earlier oppressors, or brings in harmless acts as banned as well as harmful. I suspect most people who work to stop any such activities are far more interested in the power and sense of achievement it gives them than any actual results. And especially when hardly any of them are either Mexican, disabled, Muslim or any other allegedly oppressed members of society, talking on behalf of others, otherwise called patronising, when they have not asked or wish to be represented at all, which is one of the worst examples (when it becomes taken seriously, which nowadays it always does) of a total and unjustified abuse of power.

Equal opportunities

These two words together have a very clear and fixed meaning which ought to be very difficult to misinterpret or misrepresent. It means whoever you are you are treated the same, no favour should be offered to one side or the other and not to discriminate against any group of any type.

The results in Britain have been a series of laws designed to stop discrimination against other races, the disabled, and women, although so far there is none against older people in work or anything effective against paying women less for doing the same jobs. But that principle has been enshrined in various laws and taught by councils and expected by employers. But returning to our old friend Karl Marx, the dialectical materialism principle does usually take over. One strong group wants more, or those being returned their rights want even more, as that is human nature. So in the 70s the union rights trumped employer's so much most of the British manufacturing collapsed as they were on strike as much as working and produced a little for more and more money. So the businesses went under or relocated abroad without such pro-worker laws. Then the balance was changed by Margaret Thatcher but the damage had already been done and the businesses had moved elsewhere.

Once any group become more powerful than they were they get taken over by extreme wings of pressure and lobby groups, whether feminism, black and religious rights groups, basically anyone who had already been remedied by new law but were on a roll and wanted more, eventually so much so they then crossed the line of equality to being favoured, firstly in their wishes and then when applied in new laws.

We are currently back in the realms of discriminatory laws as a result. Equal opportunities means everyone should have the same chances to excel in their abilities regardless of means or physical issues, and be treated the same when they have gained those skills in applying for work and being promoted. So when black people and women had trouble being employed for jobs they were equally capable of doing, or in the case of black people renting accommodation, the law was made and anyone now trying to do so will be prosecuted. Fairness is partly a mathematical formula, everyone being given equal chances means a reversion to zero, where favour or disadvantage is not applied to anyone. Human nature however contains the inner child, the 'me first', so no one is content to accept their own raising to the level when they can cheat and get even more (see the entry on cheating). Currently the state of the law is swinging back to discrimination in many areas worldwide. The EU are now making a law forcing a certain percentage of women on company boards, whether or not sufficiently qualified women exist or apply, and many countries operate positive discrimination for racial minorities, including attempts in the British police, who want them to represent the society's mix. Social engineering simply takes over the manipulation of society for ideological means regardless of fairness and equality. Labour's all women list for politicians is an even more extreme example which pretty much reverses the principle, and whatever excuses they offer they are excluding 50% of applicants on their sex, who are not even a minority. Unfortunately choosing where it is valid or not to apply freedom of speech and opinion are followed by who they want to be more equal on the side of the liberal left.

EU and British law have also included criminals in the general view of human and equal rights even though once they break the law they have left society and disregarded the rights of their victims and the laws of the land. It is illegal to attack a criminal stealing from you or your house under enough judicial decisions, despite the law saying you can apply reasonable force recent decisions have all but made any force impossible to apply. Worse still EU legislation has outlawed sending back foreign criminals, including the majority who are illegal immigrants, as long as they can show their life abroad would be worse than where they are living, which it nearly always is. They have entered a country illegally, abused their hospitality and been granted an amnesty to remain in a country they both should never have been in in the first place, and in most cases only went to commit the crimes they are now convicted of, but once released from prison it is almost impossible now to deport them, so given such encouragement what would you expect them to do?

Equal opportunities work both and every way. Once you have the playing field levelled it is flat, and no attempts to tilt it further in anyone's favour is fair or equal to anyone.

Monday, 4 November 2013

Hypocrisy- would they want it for themselves?

Borrowed over from my other blog, all my life I have argued with those who believe in the big state and collective control, that what they want to take from me they would also take from themselves.

Let's begin with the latest example, Russell Brand. He wanted large scale wealth removal, despite if his policy became law he'd probably have very little left of his personal multi million fortune. He represents the general attitude of the far left, take things away from people- money, property, rights, freedom of speech, until it applies to them. Here is a basic list of all the things I've heard over the years, some of which are now partly at least law.

Banning cars
Making driving restrictions so severe it makes people want to give up their cars
Stopping personal wealth and inheritance
Removing personal property
Banning fossil fuel
Restricting free speech to include causing offence, banning specific words and anything else the government do not want you to say, despite only inciting a crime and lying do any actual harm.
Forced diversity and multiculturalism
Rights for criminals

Like the politicians who allow criminal practices by railway companies, who for example can charge less to travel further or make people go beyond their stop and return as they won't stop the train there, when they have to use it they suddenly wake up. Make no mistake, all the green activists have some family (although I'd say as they were all bastards it may be in doubt...), and most will have at least one on a pension and quite probably very little personal income beyond it. There is no immunity from hypothermia, in fact unlike heat every person is equally susceptible to it, unlike the old and sick from heat. They neither understand or care that by forcing up energy costs the poor pay the most from their total, and will run out sooner than everyone else. The left only exist to protect the poor who cannot look after themselves against the owners of the means of production and the bourgoisie, so why use global warming to deliberately wreck and possibly end the lives of the poor due to the only policy we have, raising energy prices? (yes, they go to renewables, but until they run a hospital on wind and solar you can discount that ruse).

The anti car brigade is one of particular danger to society. Most of course don't own cars, either as they cannot afford them or drive at all. So of course they will not be affected. And the others who do own a car would be just as put out as everyone who did want to use them as many have in Paris already, the first of many EU countries planning to gradually ban cars in cities, by limiting the age of cars there first, and vans in London. Like the congestion charge all it does is hurt people, one friend had to give up caravanning as their motor home was banned and they couldn't afford to change it so had to sell it, no doubt at a loss as the new owners won't be able to drive anywhere near London.

And wait till a Haringey leftie gets burgled, in their children's bedrooms at night while they are asleep in them, find themselves faced with a group of youths, possibly with weapons, and then complain next time someone is caught trying to stop a burglar when caught in their home.

The bottom line is be careful what you want to stop other people doing, as if you succeed, you will not be able to do it either.

Sunday, 3 November 2013

Applied logic- population

Population growth is one of those things that only becomes an issue when it comes to somewhere near you. Till then I constantly hear reassurances from all and sundry even with a doubling of population there's room and resources for everyone.

In simple geographic terms, we already know the available land and resources for the present, the stress it may or may not be under, and the effects of a doubling or more of population. Anyone like me who has lived through a period where their own area became far denser compared to before can describe the painfully obvious consequences. Firstly there is clearly the barely inhabitable land we need to dismiss, and then we are left with reasonable climate and resources not too far from water and flat enough to build on. But then you get the inbuilt demographics. For example although there is plenty of space in Ireland which is geographically similar to the inhabited parts of England, it is an island and doubly removed from the European continent. It already lost most of its population in the potato famine which has never returned or been replaced. There is nothing stopping as many immigrants going there as to England, but they don't. Why? Because even when there is a wide choice people pick the richest areas to try and get a slice of the action, and Ireland is not one of them. You can't make people move unless you become a fascist regime.

Why it should even be necessary to explain if you only have so many doctors, dentists and a reducing number of hospitals, plus a finite system of underground pipes and wiring in the medium term, adding more people from within or outside has the same consequences, and despite the hideous and socially alienating tower blocks of the 60s, the vast influx of new arrivals has meant demolishing not slums which went after the war, but top level housing and building low rise flats. Our standard of living has fallen in a couple of decades, turning London gradually into a third world capital with its statutory shanty towns created by EU arrivals who either get jobs and then lose them or never find them, but still live in such hope of becoming millionaires like Del Boy they prefer to live like rats on the streets than return to their own national poverty.

One of the clearest examples of the results of increasing and concentrating the population came in New Orleans, with echoes across Bangladesh and the Netherlands. They are all near or below sea level. Now were the population even that of a hundred years ago, the Netherlands may not have needed to extend their land from the sea as (regardless of the endless wars over expansion for its own sake) they could have fit the numbers comfortably into the available space. Japan is the size of Britain, but like Australia most of the interior is barely habitable so people cluster round the lowland edges and pay millions to live in a small box in Tokyo as a result.

Being forced to even consider, let alone actually building entire cities on flood plains is both short sighted and reckless. Yes, you may get away with it, and build massive defences, but what happened to New Orleans can happen wherever there are hurricanes, while all you need is a once in a century tide and half the polders will return to their natural state. People still build in dangerous places without pressure, but they do not feel obliged to do so. With world population set to double possibly within our own lifetimes and the only solution, something being piloted in India and other locations, is to educate the children that it is not necessary or recommended to have more than two children, and exactly why this is. The children in India have no trouble understanding and accepting this and represent what is possible worldwide. Don't wait till you are affected before it becomes an issue.