Saturday, 13 September 2014

How to break a consensus

As the data itself can't pass muster, the climate community substituted actual measurements for a measurement of agreement. It's actually an urban myth, no more accurate than the Disney lemmings jumping off a cliff (they were pushed, check it out), but equally accepted by the masses. The John Cook masterpiece asked whether man was capable of changing the climate (ie no context, a variable missing, how much), so most said yes, and then the responses were filtered out from over 3000 qualified respondents to people qualified exactly as Cook required. Of course a sample so reduced from original is what they like to call cherry picking, so even if the question was a genuine one then without the others included you would have to ask what the result would be if they were, and also as it wasn't the entire exercise was not only of zero value, but less than zero as it's the opposite to the truth so less than nothing.

But as it's been taken and used to replace reality with agreement, something used by totalitarian collective governments worldwide, here is why consensus and science are not interchangeable, and by even deciding to use it as the major (or any) part of their ammunition it shows the material itself can't stand up and they have resorted to pure dishonest fabrication. Yesterday someone anonymously (it's always anonymous as these people are all still in their jobs and want to keep them, hence the delay in full exposure) admitted the entire Australian BOM government climate organisation knew the CO2 theory was crap, but they'd never had so much money before so had to make the most of it while they could. I've already talked about doing the right thing at all costs, as they now have more money and an indelible mark on their souls, and you can't take the money with you but when they die they will go down as liars and cheats. I'd rather be poor and honest myself, but I have developed beyond them, that decision alone is its own proof.

The only difference between anonymous confessions and named ones is their weight and value, not their accuracy. It is the first stage of the escape of the truth from a closed, organised cabal. With time and further investigations as a result the next more conclusive statements can follow. But this is not about the evidential value of a confession, or better still a corroborated confession (one with more evidence outside to support it), but the logical consequence of one.

If one member of a conspiracy confesses with evidence, then everyone involved is exposed as a conspirator. The fact with a number n of conspirators, however large n becomes, it only needs a single individual to expose them all as cheats. Remember, when you have a conspiracy you also have a very large consensus, at least 97%. Think about it. This means you firstly argue from consensus as the data does not stand up on its own, and secondly if you are part of a conspiracy without an almost 100% consensus it will not only fall but so will its members. The criminal consequences alone, besides the ending of major careers, are sufficient to attempt to maintain this consensus at all costs and efforts from their side indefinitely. I believe this is possible as the ones we do know about took a very long time to come out, and can't represent the total, just the ones which were not possible to cover up like Libor, Hillsborough and the Foreign Exchange fixing currently under investigation. These are all exactly the same as the global warming scam, using tight groups of powerful people and the media to ensure the public see the front activities, the legitimate business the drug running and arms smuggling is working behind. One mafia don actually made more money from the restaurant than the criminal activites run from the back rooms, but didn't close it down as it was his family tradition and he didn't want to leave the crime of his childhood behind him and let down the brotherhood. That is how it works. For some the crime feels even better than the benefits, as it provides them with a perverted form of power which is a greater turnon than anything gained from legitimate business.

So ultimately a consensus is the symptom of a conspiracy, as the two are the same thing. Agreement to commit a present or future crime between two or more people. If 1000 of 1000 people agree to commit a crime then it will be stable. If 999 agree and one changes sides and comes clean, they will actually bring down the entire 999 left, as technically a conspiracy requires 100% support to maintain, any less will bring in the investigators, and without burning and burying all the evidence once the authorities are on to them, then  once exposed the consensus will drop from 99.99% to zero. So taking this to the climate, if even one qualified expert with no job to support as they are retired exposes their peers as wrong, with scientific reasons, I would rather trust one of them than the thousands of dishonest conspirators. In fact there are many hundreds of said scientists, and their claims are supported with material which blatantly exposes error after error in the established material, and the fact even if 97% of scientists really agreed (which they really don't), it wouldn't make their data any more genuine.

No comments:

Post a Comment