Saturday, 29 March 2014

Divide and Rule

Using the Hegelian Dialectic, problem-reaction- solution, imagine the government (all of them, including the opposition and foreign partners etc) wanted to divide society to break down their power, they would work out as many ways as possible to do so, and invent any so called 'problem' with society which would do so. Therefore in the 21st century our British government has:

Brought in virtually unlimited immigration and then accused anyone even mentioning they have noticed it (let alone complaining) racist.

Allowed the EU to take away more and more power from our own parliament and when anyone accuses them of doing so, let alone dare to suggest leaving, calls them xenophobic and  chauvinist.

Claimed added CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the temperature dangerously (after we were all dead and gone so could never know, and with no direct evidence it would in the present), and get their useful idiot believer activists to call anyone who didn't believe it baby killers, and teach children at school to attack their own parents over their (imaginary) 'carbon footprints'.

Without a single party raising it in their manifestos or raising it for discussion, the coalition suddenly announced mid-term they were allowing gay couples to raise their existing statuses of civil partnerships to marriage, and accuse anyone who disagreed of homophobia.

Take it from me, the governments do not care about a single policy for itself, do not believe it is better for society, but what they all have in common is they create an artificial conflict among otherwise compatible groups. All they want to do is put groups of people they knew would fall on both sides for and against their policies, as they'd spent years doing their research and opinion polls etc, found out the very most contentious policies, and then brought them in, watched the fun, and made more and more to seal the deal.

Now we basically have two tribes in society, those affected who are the useful idiots, who genuinely believe, despite 80% of the evidence being against it, the temperature and sea level must still rise dangerously by 2100 if we don't dismantle the majority of technology and industry, marriage between the same sex is exactly the same as opposite sexes (try consummating it if you want to check), you can flood a small island with as many new people as possible and put absolutely no stress on society's services, doctors, dentists and teachers will appear from nowhere to supply their needs, and they will happily learn English and mix with the rest of society after a few years of adjustment, rather than form new versions of their villages previously, often working for each other, never learning English and becoming isolated from the rest of society as they tend to.

Because (as Marx claimed) you can't hold back natural processes, Ukip arrived and swept away the existing blocks on talking about leaving the EU and reducing immigration, but as gay marriage has only been made law today could not and should not have got involved there with side issues, or had as yet any effect over the greatest stroke of totalitarian propaganda, the worldwide myth of global warming. That will take much longer and simply needs everyone to look online and work out individually how it's about 80% less than they told us it would be in the 90s and reducing every year so far. You don't need a political party to tell you a scientific issue as it is not related to politics, but either correct or not, therefore, unless the crooked scientists admit it's no longer happening, something which would require a reversal of existing conditions to change and a new mechanism to cause them, you must use your own brains to see what is clearly happening around you.

Think about it, it all follows the same formula and worked exactly as I stated, free speech and criticism of opinion policies is being restricted more and more, so while the harder to suppress issues of immigration and EU totalitarianism as they are ruining everyone's lives directly more and more as they increase, the faith they have in science, authority and trust in human nature altogether holds back the dam of global warming beliefs, and the social opprobrium of being labelled a bigot means criticism of gay marriage, which is probably fairly general and widespread, is kept in private so the general impression is only the loonies (ie those with little social grace who openly question it) disagree and everyone else thinks it's wonderful. In fact no one cared before it became law or wanted it, and when it did most people I've heard in private can't understand why it was. That's not homophobia, it's perception. Just like wondering why there's such a long queue and wait for medical appointments recently. Why would any government want to deliberately introduce crazy policies they didn't approve of and would reduce the cohesion and smooth running of society? Because it puts the people against each other and allows them to do whatever they like, whether to make money for their sponsors (ie corporatism, where the large companies drive policy for their own profits), exercise power for its own sake, or any other combinations of sheer megalomania, much like Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe. Kim Jong Un just shaved half his head and decreed every other man must in North Korea. Was that because it somehow makes them irresistible to women or confers magic powers? No, it was

because he can.

That sums up politicians around the world throughout history.

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

The limits of science

We all know science evolves and learns more every day. They make mistakes, they make assumptions, and they act upon those assumptions, and carry some for decades until someone (like with stomach ulcers) discovers the reality, at which point the assumptions wither and die, as they never existed in any more than the words of the scientists in the first place.

 There are lines in science where they cannot go beyond at any point in time, ie they can never know more than they actually do.

Anyone disagreeing try going to the doctor with a mystery illness, and maybe ten years later and seeing the difference between the initial diagnosis and treatment. It is an evolutionary process in science, far clearer in medicine as doctors have absolutely no option admitting they do not know and can not help, whereas these earth sciences can be as rough or vague as you like and who's going to know either way, till it starts costing us money and we suddenly realise they are no clearer on their climate science than doctors are in treating cancer. They know some causes and almost no treatments. People dying from cancer usually die sooner from the chemotherapy than they would have without it. But they still prescribe it. Why? One, it makes billions, two, if they did nothing they would look useless and lose credibility for the thousands of illnesses they can treat. 

Chemotherapy is the same as pesticide. If anyone genuinely believes eating traces of pesticide is harmless has to stop and think what it was created to do, kill animals. We are animals, larger than insects, but still not immune to the effects, just on a smaller scale. Chemotherapy kills human cells, the new ones still multiplying, and does not discriminate between cancer and healthy cells. It is less than a last resort as in the rare cases it is cured the organ damage is often permanent. Many patients feel far worse on the therapy than from the illness, and the evidence for cures is so rare it would normally be abandoned.

My point being that science has a red line beyond which they simply do not know, and depending on the discipline can hide or admit it, but when it's easy to hide then rather than use their integrity and refuse to make attributions as if they are certain where they are totally aware (see Climategate as a fly on the wall) they are not. Yes, it almost takes a miracle to catch them out as their area is so complex the smoke and mirrors are on so many layers it would take the equivalent of a lottery winning number for them to open enough to see behind, but it will happen as there is simply nothing behind their claims when reality takes over. They die away and vanish as if they never existed when exposed, which of course they never did except in their words alone.

The greenhouse effect is based on a combination of lab experiments and equations. It simply cannot be measured in the atmosphere as it is too complex and could never be teased out as a single influence when there are others such as air pressure and aerosols which combine with everything else to both warm and cool the air until it reaches its actual temperature. It is far from certain, but using the above processes it is both easily presented as such, and almost impossible to see through. Gradually opposing scientists are finding alternative mechanisms, and this includes one which claims CO2 is a coolant, reflecting far more heat than it absorbs. Now whether or not this is either correct or even properly testable, it does prove it is not possible to be certain, and always possible to present alternative mechanisms in the climate, as unlike medical treatment no one either dies or gets better as a result of climatology, in fact it is a purely observational discipline and one where they may never know anything for certain but it doesn't make any difference to our lives. The tiny edge of reality where some believe we can change the weather should be banned worldwide by law as besides the possible chaos introducing vast amounts of chemicals into the atmosphere to that purpose, the toxicity of the chemicals involved would poison the ecosystem immediately, and get into the food and water system for years to come like radiation would. So besides the lunatic view we could directly change the climate, it is a theoretical area and not designed for certain analysis and never can be by the nature of the atmosphere itself.

But it became treated as a hard science, ie one capable of certainty and now policy making, as if they were so totally certain not just the added CO2 was causing (now, not after we're dead) dangerous warming, but was capable of warming at all, which the more I look the more I find they are not certain. Anyone like me looking more deeply into it discovers it is neither certain nor possible to demonstrate or repeat its results, and there is a growing body of literature showing this as time goes on. They are treating what I have witnessed to be a rough and vague set of assumptions as certain as they are about the cause and treatment of syphilis, and they are acted upon in the exact way as if they know the illness and know exactly what to do about it. Where are the years of trials, the field tests and the control groups? Of course not only don't they exist, they can't exist, there's no alternative earth to work on with 260ppm CO2 to compare the temperatures, no spare planet to try and reduce the CO2 to see if it changes the temperature, and no way of attributing random weather events over each year, decade and century to anything besides weather as that is what they are and always have been. Until and unless 1) Temperatures do rise as they claim and 2) Such major events do become worse (in quality and/or quantity) and 3) they can attribute it to temperatures, and 4) they can attribute that to the rise in CO2 they should shut the hell up and bloody well wait like drug companies have to by law before they can claim a single thing, even when they've known for years they probably do work. That is real science and the climatologists have done the exact opposite in every way.

Friday, 21 March 2014

Are you a denier?

As someone said before, is it reasonable to deny Santa Claus exists, or the tooth fairy? No, as they never existed so there's nothing to deny? Can you deny committing a crime? Yes, if a crime has been committed but someone else did it and not you. Can you deny a scientific theory? Only if it is testable and repeatable. Is AGW either? No, as it hasn't happened yet, not to the degree they mean at the UN, a rise of over 2C and if by 2100 then it's void as we can't know that either way so they have set a faulty experiment.

There is a strict process before anyone can be termed a denier:

1) Something has to be known to exist

2) The person then claims it does not, even though it does and can be proved to do so.

There are no other conditions.

So, for example there is no possible doubt about who died in the holocaust. We have the bodies, names and records as well as photos and reports from soldiers who liberated them and many survivors. But plenty of people deny it happened, so they must be deniers as no other term can apply to them. That is the meaning. 


The church denied the earth was round and travelled round the sun, we learnt it is both, anyone who
still claims otherwise is a denier.


Man made global warming was a two part theory, one most people accept, adding more CO2 probably (it is not certain, for many reasons) warms the surface temperature through its insulating properties. Some scientists claim it is not true, as it is not 100% certain then they have plenty of maths to suggest they may have something, so it is a slightly open subject (as air pressure and the fact
 CO2 can also be seen to rise as a consequence of warming, not a cause) that is still a debate. The dangerous warming is another matter. That requires a 2C rise in temperature before the actual advantages of warming may be outweighed by the problems. That's the official definition like it or not. When does the UN place this event? 2100. The experiment cannot be completed, so UNLESS THE LINE FROM THE PRESENT CAN BE EXTRAPOLATED TOWARDS 2C it is void.

Therefore as the CO2 alone can only supply 1C at 520ppm and has supplied around .4C at 400 (the rest of the rise is natural), what could make it suddenly start adding more to exceed 2C? We don't know. Therefore those claiming we do are exaggerating based on no more than one of many possible alternatives, although given over 150 years to observe, none of them have happened, in fact the water vapour required to cause the added rise has reduced, instead forming clouds which cool, as demonstrated in the negligible warming in response to a 50% rise in CO2.

Therefore no one is or can be denying anything in dangerous global warming if they don't agree it's 
happening. That is because it has not happened yet, and by the UN assertion directly will not be known for certain till outside our lifetimes, unless the current line appears to be reaching that point already,  which it is not.
I hope this explanation will explain the difference between uncertainty and denial of the certain, as whatever names someone calls you, unless they are accurate they cannot stick.

Friday, 14 March 2014

Conspiracy theories are redundant

Whether or not 9/11 or the moon landing was genuine or not is almost totally irrelevant. Both have happened (or not) long ago already, and the small chance of managing to gain sufficient evidence to prove they were set up, considering the very investigators would be the perpetrators so unlikely to be able to expose their own wrongdoings or allow anyone else to do so, we must just accept we can never be certain and move on.

The major reason for this is not the impossibility to ever track down and bust conspiracies requiring top level government cooperation worldwide with equal resources, but there are no shortage of genuine existing and past conspiracies we either already know have happened, or far more importantly, the perpetrators have announced, as currently they are top of the food chain and have no level above them who could do anything about it. So technically the problem is not the conspiracies themselves, as they will continue forever as long as the chances of getting into trouble are so minimal people will always carry them out, but the fact there is no known enforcement system once they are discovered at that level. The ones which were busted all involved lower levels, where the government if involved were never brought into the prosecutions and acted like outsiders enforcing the rules. But when you look at two currently known conspiracies, Libor fixing and foreign exchange rate fixing, no one has been charged with fraud, as with Libor the official line was yes they did it, but it was outside the criminal law. As the Theft Act has no defence of either being a bank or not counting once you hit a billion I (as a law graduate) can tell you this is not the case. The real reason no heads ever rolled (it was treated as a civil case and settled out of court, but none of the stolen money was paid back to the victims but went to the Treasury, officially at least) was the widespread allegation, and practical fact that the banks were simply doing as they were told by the Bank of England and government of the time. Of course any trial would be impossible to avoid the willing divulgence (in the face of serious threats admittedly) of how they managed to continue cheating on a world scale at the highest level for years without a single challenge. This could only happen in such an open system (ie one governed by official rules which had to be followed and policed to be followed) if the activities weren't just actively being overlooked, but the authorities wanted it to happen. If not then they may have whispered something smelly is going on and you really ought to stop before someone else notices, the gentleman's agreement method, and it would have stopped fairly quickly considering cheating the entire interest rates for the developed world is quite a serious crime.

Instead it just carried on indefinitely, and like so many before them was only spotted by pure chance and then impossible to cover up, as a container of sewage will always leak sooner or later however good the seals. Even the smell can lead people to it eventually, which tends to be the way things like this and Bernie Madoff ultimately came undone. The 23 year cover up of known orders from senior police to doctor evidence over the Hillsborough disaster meant once again the excrement finally leaked into public view all the guilty officers had retired or died already and were unanimously let off scot free. So there is no doubt conspiracies are a fairly standard part of western society as well as the third world who always get the entire blame besides Italy who take pride in it and have the Mafia as the greatest section of their economy, and currently absolutely no action being taken to do a thing about it. But the enthusiasts themselves are wasting all their energy watching slo-mo video clips of the twin towers endlessly, and employing costly experts to analyse minute evidence, when we have the Rockefeller Foundation and its vast tentacles of followers openly announcing their plans in clear view, and no one does a bloody thing.

Therefore, all we need is a marriage of the wealthy conspiracy theorists, who can get films made on prime time TV of yet another 9/11 conspiracy film recycling the same stuff as the first one, and reams of paper on the Diana car crash (bog standard SAS neutralising, but can't bring her back so why bother trying?) with no chance of success as those responsible for the genuine scams would never admit it and there'll never be anywhere near enough evidence as they are professionals and never leave it, which is why even though the injuries and personal actions of David Kelly were not possible to kill someone no one has been able to carry out a full investigation as the people carrying out such investigations are employed by the people who would have done it and said it was suicide. The circumstantial evidence for both deaths is clearly enough for murder trials in both cases, but as the people are dead already and we know such things happen then nailing these specific examples wouldn't make any difference either way overall. Instead all they need to do is divert their entire efforts to publishing known quotes admitting they made up global warming, they don't tell the truth as they couldn't control the world's minds and bodies as a result otherwise, etc etc, all freely published online, and if someone in charge of a system has freely admitted they are scamming you rotten then that alone will end the scam once enough people hear it.

For example: Agenda 21 open confessions

Agenda 21 Mission: Create Crisis
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”—H.L.Mencken (1918).

Find Someone to Blame:
―The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.‖ The First Global Revolution by Alexander King –Club of Rome

J. Gary Lawrence, 1998 UNEP Conference, UK

“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many… who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. So we call our process something else such as “comprehensive planning,” „growth management‟ or „smart growth.‟”

Environment * Economy * Equity * Consensus * Affordable Housing * Friends of… * Action * Protect * Preserve * Quality of Life * Benefit of all * Sanctuary * Social/Environmental Justice * Best Management Practices * Watershed * Facilitator * Traffic Calming * Outcome Base Education * Endangered Species * Invasive Species * Restoration * Public/Private Partnerships * Common Good * Regional * Collaborative * Inter-disciplinary * Stakeholder * International Baccalaureate * School to work * Historic Preservation * Vision * Sustainable Medicine. Smart Meters.
 Maurice Strong : ―…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.‖

I have already posted many more such comments here and my fraud blog, and all the wealthy activists actually need to do is produce a single film featuring all these quotes and relating them to actual policies and the entire system will be finished overnight. You can't pick someone's pocket if you tell them you're about to do it first.

Thursday, 13 March 2014

Where's the climate feedback?

Despite the added CO2 reaching 50%, the temperature hasn't risen any more than supposed to with no feedback, in fact remove the natural rise and it has risen slightly less. Now I can demonstrate why. This in itself is a direct and simple explanation, proving beyond any doubt any added water into the atmosphere becomes cloud cover (cooling) and humidity is decreasing (cooling), so why hasn't it ever reached the news? It's pretty simple and clear, why don't people ever hear about it? But if you're reading this then pass it on, and they will.

Excuse the size, why anyone posts photos too small to read the text beats me, but the trend is clear.

So you can clearly see, it's no mystery why warming is negligible, the clouds have indeed increased while the humidity is actually reducing, so any effects from CO2 are almost being neutralised by natural processes. But being so clear and direct why hasn't anyone else pointed it out?
A new paper just out the same week I wrote this confirms this, as do the comments by the author and others beneath it Feedback calculations paper

Monday, 10 March 2014

Global warming is a belief system

One of the standard defences provided by global warming believers is 'You can't know better than scientists', which I have already dealt with as a bare statement, and will now demonstrate why global warming only uses science but is no longer real, top level, repeatable and verifiable science.

Looking at what is, we have satellites which circle the earth proving 100% it is roughly spherical, and also that it definitely rotates around the sun. You can't even use discrete and direct locations as science, as although science discovered their locations, it was astronomers, space geographers, who use the specific information directly. Science created the tools to go up there and look, and map the skies, quite accurately, with telescopes and satellites, but knowing the earth goes round the sun is no more clever than knowing you need to go north from London to get to Luton. No degrees are required for that, just using a compass, created by a scientist but not specifically for them only to use.

More complex phenomena are the sole field of scientists. If you expose a lung to asbestos, eventually most will form cysts around it to isolate it from the tissue, and many will become cancerous. If you inhale filthy smoke from cigarettes similar results will follow, including clogging up the bloodstream with embolisms and reducing the lung capacity. Unfortunately many required decades of direct experimentation on innocent animals to actually prove it, especially as legislation would follow if proven, but we pretty much know. They can even forecast the local weather on large land masses like America, as even many of their coastal regions are part of a single current and only subject to one dominant air stream. But in Britain we have a convergence of streams from all points of the compass, and as a result many forecasts are a percentage of likelihood and turn out to be wrong.

So we have a sliding scale of certainty in science, they can measure as much as they are able to, but only within limits. They cannot measure ice beyond a certain depth, and when they sent Pen Hadow off there to drill directly the equipment broke as it wasn't up to the job. They cannot measure anything directly before they could, and either use indirect proxies, such as air bubbles in ice cores and what plants grew which can't cope with certain temperatures. But that can be confused, such as the trees which grow wide rings both from warmth, CO2 levels and water supply, but still if they want to they can use them for temperature and overlook the other two causes of growth they are fully aware of, not because they are accurate but because only other scientists within a very small region of expertise would have known that. So yes, it can be cheated and if you visit Retraction Watch can see pages of examples to save me doing so. The certainty of knowledge as you go from the solar system to what causes gravity and the nature of black holes can go from as high as the full 100% to a very low number, something which all the scientists themselves are aware of, but not the public or politicians who they advise and communicate with. So to extend the level to global warming, we can safely compare long term weather forecast with climate forecasts. The mechanism they are measuring is the same atmosphere, the equipment is the same, the only difference is rather than focus on specific days they are looking for trends over decades, which has certain known mechanisms which all combine together in a complex mixture to create small and large ice ages and interglacial periods, with 30-60 year oceanic cycles and 11 year solar cycles.

When they discovered CO2 was almost 50% higher than normal (as it had been stable for a very long time) the existing knowledge attributed the atmosphere as it was to raising the surface temperature an average 33C above space or a planet without any in the same location. The moon has very little and can still reach 100F at the equator. But the 33C figure was directly attributed to the water vapour (95%), existing CO2, methane and a few trace gases which made up the remainder. So clearly the CO2 itself didn't do much, 1C in fact, 1/33 of the total. So doubling it would add 1C, and again by quadrupling it as it loses its power as it increases. But there was a wild card thrown in in the (100% theoretical) positive feedback amplification. That basically meant if it gets a little warmer more water will evaporate and add the real greenhouse gas which will warm a lot more than CO2.

Fair enough. I did science at school for long enough to know how to do an experiment. We had to write them up and present our data exactly as they do in the Climate Research Unit, certainly as they are supposed to, and when we are given the parameters at the start, and what needs to be measured, if we are able to follow its progress then using a line plotter we can usually see the trend after around 50% of its run and unless we are told that there are points that need to be crossed before a substance dissolves, melts or explodes then the runs tended to be fairly linear. If you distil alcohol, for example, once the drips begin they continue until the liquid medium is used up. It doesn't speed up at the end or work in waves. Evaporation itself is always linear, watch a puddle evaporate after a storm and the sunlight gradually shrinks it to nothing. We can observe it and repeat it ad infinitum.

The UN, the world's climate authority, politicians advised by scientists, say that a rise of less than 2C is fine, and actually (you can quote me on this) beneficial, so firstly the people who claim we are already worse off without such a rise are going against the UN, as only bad news is reported we don't hear about the 30% plus increase in plant growth worldwide as a result, which was also tucked away in their reports. Overall, according to the UN, if people are suffering more then other people are benefitting elsewhere even more as it does increase temperate regions, cause fewer deaths, increase food production and uses less energy for heating. Obvious but generally overlooked. Those are the experimental parameters at day one. World average temperature in 1850- 13.8C, CO2 260ppm. The feedback is not a measured observation, it is a theory, something which could happen (I haven't seen the probability, probably as no one's really made a point to share it) but not necessarily. There's no history of higher CO2 level effects before, unless you go back a very long time using proxy records, but the Minoans and Romans had similar higher temperatures which are in all climate history books till the UN magically rewrote history in the 90s. But they didn't manage to burn any books so they are still in them and a few screenshots which refuse to go away.

So, imagine a school science experiment, you are told to stick your thermometer in the air (not in a container as unlike a glass greenhouse ours isn't solid) and keep adding CO2 and measure the increase. There is a pool of water at the bottom to simulate the oceans, and the air is the same in the lab as everywhere else so standardised. Unlike the atmosphere you needn't even be told the possible results and mechanisms, as scientists you only need to observe, measure, and only then attribute causes. That is what scientists can do that we can't. We can all measure and observe, but we don't have the theories to then take that data and analyse it fully. In fact if you told one group of students the possible results in advance and not the others it may even distract them, and for example if you told them about the feedback theory  some may actually start looking for it even though if it were present you couldn't miss it anyhow.

So after an hour or so (you only have a small room so it doesn't need more than a single canister to slowly leak out to double the atmospheric CO2) it has risen 50%, and you have your four probes in the room to average local differences (like heat islands from Fatty sitting in the corner) showing the temperature has risen 0.4C. If the teacher asked what you expect the result to be, bearing in mind the graph has risen in a fairly linear manner, and if you said it would probably reach 0.8C, especially as no one had considered starting a fire or opening a window, which would both wreck the experiment, as there were no other likely changes possible, few other sensible conclusions would be possible. Now take the experiment outdoors, but instead of having a couple of hours we need two hundred plus years. Now luckily for us the experiment has already been running in the background since 1850, so is around half done, so we are in the same position as the students. The thousands of probes say the temperature has risen 0.8C, but subtracting the rise based on the pre-1850 trend (as we are always going in or out of an ice age, which means a gradual rise or fall in large or small waves since the earth was created) we end up with around 0.5C. Exactly as measured in the lab with no fires or open windows.

As a student, where would you expect the line to finish up? Remember there were also the supposed existence of positive feedbacks from day one as possibilities, from evaporation and reduced ice cover reflecting less heat. And clouds. We mustn't forget clouds, they are formed by oceanic evaporation and block the sun during the day and keep in any warmth longer at night, overall cooling as the heat can't get in in the first place when blocked out. That water vapour can form humidity (positive) or clouds (negative) but science cannot predict the possible effect on clouds, so simply left it out of their pre-experiment parameters, even though they knew it was as possible as any other result. Again, no parameters or physical mechanisms besides the minor faster ice melting, a very small element, would speed up over time, but the rest is linear. If anyone can find any others let me know as it took me a very long time trying to find if they had a reason for a delay but if you simply return to Newton's laws it would also have to bypass them as well if there is one.

This is reflected in the predictions made in the 90s which used the same projections, run on computers attempting to factor in every significant element in the climate, for the entire planet, except of course cloud formation, and the other unknown, aerosol dust pollution, the other major coolant. Twenty plus years later 95% of the lines were well above the real temperature in 2013, and this (as far as a jury would be concerned at least), would prove they couldn't factor in enough elements to provide an accurate temperature forecast based on adding a single extra element of CO2 into the air. You only need forecasts before the event, and now CO2 has risen 50% and the temperature has risen 0.8C,  even if this was all attributable to CO2, which no one claims it is, it could still get nowhere near the 2C when doubled, so using student logic, there clearly can be no problem. Prove me wrong.

There is a third element to the CO2 belief system, as despite the known evidence, the scientists, politicians and media, all say nothing has changed. 25 years later despite the results coming in clearly, only a handful of them have changed their position, so few as to make no difference anywhere as yet, despite the actual figures being so more clear and direct than when Al Gore first testified to congress. Because of this it is hard to see it as anything else as a belief system, as they all say whatever the current situation, it is almost certain to happen when it reaches a 100% rise. That is the second element, the alternative view which requires so much faith in science they can actually disregard the solid physical temperature and related data, and use the theories of the scientists, which being scientists and based on thousands of pages of complex calculations, simply must be right. We just have to wait long enough for the 100% rise to be reached and it will almost certainly happen, because most of them say so. Not because we can look at the graph and see it, but because they know more than everyone else and their knowledge is so great it is actually more important than the data itself. That is unfortunately no longer science, so has been relegated to the stupid division, more respectably known as faith or belief. Something in fact no advanced human being should have, as there are only two positions, I know or I don't know. I know has already been demonstrated to be on a sliding scale, and you can say I know this much or that much, meaning the remainder I don't yet, but if I did then it would be certain. That is the process of science and life in general.

So what is the third element? Now we have a world consensus (the majority is reducing, but it remains the majority) that the scientists know more than even the current figures tell us to the contrary, we will know for sure at a 100% rise, which is due around 2100. There's our second major problem, the first being the lack of a delay for the positive feedback to arrive, we'll never know either way. The experiment can never be completed. You don't start an A level practical with crystals which won't be formed for three days in a three hour exam, as it would be totally stupid. You don't get results for your cancer or blood tests thirty years later when you'd be 102, as even if you got the all clear you'd never be able to celebrate. You get the picture. So what does this sound like? Possibly if you lead a good life, or even a bad one, but repent your sins and accept Jesus as your saviour after you die you will go to heaven.

You can look all you like for life after death departments in universities, teaching it in degrees and sending students there on excursions to learn about it directly. There are no equations showing its existence or likelihood, and I have yet to find a single scientist who would suggest this will become possible in the future. It is entirely 100% based on faith, trust and belief, as you can never actually know it. At least not before the event. Many atheists who have never even considered belief in god, or followed any religious rules or rituals are displaying the identical faith in millions without claiming to accept the validity of religious faith at all. But what is the difference between faith in scientists and priests, if the scientists cannot and have not provided enough evidence for their claims about something which not only won't happen till the future, hasn't started to happen, and won't even be expected to happen within our lifetimes and I'd say you were either crazy, stupid or both. Pardon me for being insulting, but there isn't really another way of putting it politely without providing the identical conclusions.

Facts vs opinions, some examples

Immigration is a good example of separating facts and opinions in a single issue. The left, as they are, as exemplified by the material of Stuart Lee, claim unless you want totally free immigration and no doubt (as others have said elsewhere) hate the idea of a white British city, you must be racist. This is using the standard totalitarian means they have now adopted of taking an opinion and making it appear to be a fact. But those who say (including existing immigrants) the only reason they don't want more is because there's no room, and that includes white Europeans coming in at a rate of six figures a year, are simply stating facts. The EU claim it's racist to test their doctors on language when moving countries, but not if someone dies as they couldn't understand what they were saying.

This represents every single other example, where generally those on the left make the two heinous transgressions of forcing their opinions on others under the disguise of facts (if you say marriage is between a man and a woman you're just 'homophobic') and trying to make facts into mere opinions where they disagree with them.

This state of mind dominates 21st century politics, but once pointed out and identified, can no longer work. These sleights of hand are no different from poor magic tricks. They may work on the majority of average people for a while but can never last once they know how they're done. The nature of facts and opinions can never change, so when a thermometer rises 0.8C then there is no way anyone can claim it is anything more than a fact, but then saying 'but it's rising fast and will soon reach 2C' when no one outside a linear system can know, and you say that then it's called an opinion and you get labelled a murderer (as I have been).

Otherwise politics is and should be driven by the majority of opinions in that society at the time, and known as such.
Therefore you can have two parties who want more or less immigration, but be honest and say clearly 'We would prefer a society with more/fewer immigrants and vote for us if that's what you want'. No false claims of economic benefits or more curry for everyone, just strip it down and say 'we want more/less immigrants in our country as that's what we prefer'. That's an opinion, as opinions even if you don't like one they're always equal, and can never be any different to what you prefer on a menu.

When the other side (that is the other side from honesty) make claims otherwise, they are being totalitarian. You must have our opinion otherwise you don't belong in society. Therefore only the party who said 'we want more immigrants as that's how we'd personally prefer to live' would be the only ones allowed, the only 'right' opinion, and the other would be outlawed, and like Russia and many like it today the other side and its supporters would be imprisoned wherever possible.  That's how the second world war started, and is responsible for deaths across the world since the start of history. There is a third related thread of religion, which takes the opinion and attributes them to a supernatural source they claim makes them into facts, so when carbon dating shows life on earth to be millions of years old they simply say it must be wrong as God said so. These sorts of arguments are expanded by the political dictators of today and vast armies of their propogandists are employed to tell you gay marriage is equal marriage, and temperatures will rise dangerously in 2100. Both are totally their opinions, but disagree and you could end up in serious trouble one way or another. That is because these memes can and are becoming enshrined in laws, the British government tried to make it illegal to cause offence to others recently, and only narrowly escaped becoming law. Of course that would have included gay marriage, so had it been enacted I would have been potentially liable for claiming it was only their opinion and more so may not even be valid as only a man and a woman can be a married couple.

So where opinions can not only become elevated to the level of facts, but override them, you have the most dangerous situation of all. The terracentric universe or flat earth. Where the authorities enforce a lie over reality and punish anyone who disagrees. Labour and the Greens are now considering legislation against climate change denial if they come into power, even though it is impossible to know if the temperature can rise that much as it's a chaotic system and none of us can live that long anyway. We are in a lot of trouble politically. The totalitarians have the upper hand and are currently winning, but knowing their tricks is always enough to undo them, and that's what you do now.