Monday, 16 December 2013

Looking for trouble

Technically a pathogenic branch of confirmation bias, when science and public mental health overlap, and led by rent-seeking third rate hacks suddenly propelled to the media and government realms, if there is any mission involved to collect money and power then every event within that mission must be consistent with the message.

Therefore, despite even the great god UN itself stating every few years 'You cannot attribute individual events to global warming', the slew of papers released every day and collected by Greenpeace and governments alike almost all do just that. From weather conditions, ie warmer than usual, wetter than usual, dryer than usual and windier than usual, to local conditions, ice melts and drying lakes etc, these are secondary results of not just global warming, but firstly need to be large scale and long term (ie raising the world annual average minimum) and secondly need serious warming to happen, ie above 2C, not 0.7C, which is not detectable.

They take the heresy of induction, generalising from the particular, combine it with hypocrisy, don't use weather (unless we need to), and roll it into a taco made of insincerity by moaning when it's colder and snowing more both wide scale and longer term, it's actually caused by warming, and when it isn't getting warmer (honestly) the heat is 'missing' somewhere.

Think about all these examples. They share one thing in common. If you watch any interview with a guilty criminal (ie caught red handed on video) in reality or even in fiction, the way they manoeuvre against the questions from outright denial 'It wasn't me' to confusion 'I can't remember' to diversion 'I saw who did it', and if the interviewer is able, a final confession once confronted with all the evidence collected catching them red handed. All they did was waste everyone's time and the likelihood of such a routine when your car is not on the insurance database and they filmed you jumping a red light is almost enough not to even bother interviewing these scrotes at all and simply setting a court date and reading it out to the magistrates without them even needing to attend.

The only difference is we know what they've done so can pee ourselves laughing when the creep who dropped a bag of drugs or stolen goods behind a fence and then says he didn't, despite being covered with their fingerprints and filmed from above, rather than have to listen to a stream of people expected not to do it, churning out endless manure (except manure is actually useful in its place) and because most people 'don't do scientific method' simply is accepted blindly because they are qualified to lie as much as they please as people trust them.

Operating the Ken Livingstone method, lying because you can get away with it, is called bad xinxing in Falun Gong, the Chinese method of spiritual development, as the students are given powers only when they don't use them to cheat and beat others without them, or even show them off for personal ego. Eastern philosophy at least recognises the value of using your power wisely and fairly, as does the Christian Church also teach leadership as a duty not a power trip. Knowing your position of authority allows you to basically say black is white (cooling is warming is identical in nature and dishonesty) as if you say it is people with higher levels of trust assume it's true, while the bright and worthy (always the top level of the fat bottomed pyramid, so too few to be heard) know all this since the age of three but the masses are deaf to us as they only accept a retraction from the person who shafted them, which is the same as expecting the entire staff of the Italian Mafia to hand themselves in and give up their ways. But unlike the Mafia, every single person can work out someone else is lying as if your four year old child told you 'Mummy, it's getting warmer as it's snowing' you'd laugh and smack their arse (or something, I don't have children), but when James Hansen tells you exactly the same thing, you put the heating down.

Don't be like a four year old, as if an adult takes advantage of them you know what you'd call them. If a scientist does exactly the same to you as you think like a four year old, then they are exactly the same thing.

No comments:

Post a Comment