Tuesday, 25 November 2014

The lost element of climate- atmospheric pressure

This is a first. I'm not a scientist but writing an article on it. It's also a test to see if a total amateur (I passed at O level and not A level after taking a year, and that was pretty much it formally) can use other people's science plus logic to present something as genuine and accurate as if written by a scientist themselves. You know, like journalists do.

The standard meme offered by global warming believers is to compare Venus with Mercury, which is much hotter but further from the sun. Logic (not science as it is universal) says something besides the sun has to make it hotter. The scientists here (well, since global warming became an issue, I didn't check before and wouldn't be easy to find out as they may have covered their tracks) simply parrot it's the greenhouse effect. All very well, except that they learnt about atmospheric pressure in their first year and would unanimously be totally aware of its effects on temperature using simple (for them) equations explaining how the identical atmospheric composition can have different effects when more and more concentrated, like Venus basically.

As we don't have a control system offering two earths, one with 260ppm CO2 and another which is rising, it's not physically possible to prove or even know with much certainty how altering such a tiny amount of a massive atmosphere will make any difference. They have a single equation which adds around 1C per doubling until it can no longer catch any further heat where there will be no more effect. No one knows this point as it can't be modelled and can only wait and see for centuries or more, which is basically a proven unknown.

Therefore they hold up Venus, say it's got far more CO2 and methane, and that's why. Really? Using the same type of equation which assigns 1C per doubling of CO2, there's a similar relationship for doubling atmospheric pressure. Now luckily the very equation is O level/GCSE standard so means I'm actually still qualified to mention it directly. Atmospheric pressure effects
There is a mass of gas, and the more you compress it the hotter it gets. Of course there are other causes, but who has ever seen a reference to air pressure when measuring causes of temperature elsewhere? I haven't. It is a simple linear relationship so easy to graph, and at any point (in an open as well as closed system where they measure it in a lab, unlike the atmosphere) can measure the temperature with the same composition and amount with the rise in pressure (Charles' Law). I won't be applying this directly but the link shows the formula, and I will now present the atmosphere composition and temperature of Mercury, Venus, The Moon, earth and Mars and pressures and see how they compare:

Average temperature,  pressure kg/m, atmosphere composition
Mercury: 167C almost zero atmosphere (hydrogen, helium, oxygen) and pressure.
Venus: 65, 467C 96% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 0.003% water vapor
The Moon:  Pressure negligible -23C : argon-40, helium-4, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide (traces)
Earth:  pressure 1.2256 14C  78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon
Mars:  pressure 0.0155 -60C 95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 1.6% argon
 NASA planet properties

Now looking at this table the interesting elements are the temperature can clearly be seen as related the most to the massive variations in atmospheric pressure. Mars and Venus are both nearly all CO2, but as Mars lost nearly all its atmosphere and only has the remnants, while as a control Venus has almost the same amount but a massive amount, (and remember at a totally unknown point adding CO2 can't add to the temperature at all) and by convention water vapour is not included in earth's official atmosphere but adds 95% of the official greenhouse effect (the difference between having it and not). Hold on, I hear you say, why have the world's top authority, NASA, included a trace of water vapour on Venus and not earth? You have their site, so you'll have to ask them, but technically it doesn't affect the figures here as I knew it was here as well so factored it in anyway. And our best control for the earth is the Moon, as its distance is similar from the sun, and as we learn the major effect of an atmosphere at all is to even out the temperature between day and night as it allows it to cool more slowly. But the daytime equator temperature on the moon exceeds the boiling point of water, so clearly an atmosphere has to slow daytime temperatures from rising as it absorbs the heat rather than letting it through to the surface. The next points are albedo (how much the body reflects heat away by how white the atmosphere is), and radiative reception in total watts per square metre. See the Lunar climate
here for more details to explain, and it appears to eliminate various causes and highlight others which again none of the mainstream system do but clearly genuine and accurate.

The next step for scientists or anyone able to is to apply Charles' law and various other formulas to the planets and see how they pan out in relation to air pressure v temperature (once distance from the sun is allowed for, which is a balancing equation they will surely know how to do as well). Then factor in the official greenhouse effect equations to subtract the ambient temperature (that assumed, as it is not certain) with no atmosphere at all, from the actual total per planet to calculate its greenhouse effect. I am then going to copy those results over here once some kind reader has done the work for me (as I really am not a scientist), and ideally double check it, and then we should get a fairly definitive measurement of atmosphere and pressure related to temperature once the distance from the sun has been evened out. But the clues as to the result look fairly massive before it's done here, while the scientists out there should probably know this already, but why isn't it in any of the material?

Therefore if you clothe each planet with the other's atmosphere the pressure will be totally different, as will the temperature.

Friday, 21 November 2014

A degree of disaster- how Tony Blair destroyed British education

Ideology is not just crazy at times, but physically dangerous. If you hold on to Utopian and immature views, get the majority to vote for them (or implement them anyway, like gay marriage and mass immigration) you will be applying your twisted and confused ideas to real people who will suffer as a result. One such imaginary opinion has screwed the highest standard of education in the world, where people spend thousands each per year from all around the world to gain the benefit of, and can be proved from start to finish. One either misguided or deliberately destructive view (depending whether they are working from ideology or sabotage, as Blair did when he opened the doors to mass immigration to destroy the middle class society) is that given the same opportunities every person can do equally well, academically or otherwise.

Of course the fact you get people like Mozart and Leonardo da Vinci, along with many other children producing art, music and maths beyond degree and professional level, sometimes with little or no training, along with others who regardless of their background will need care for the rest of their lives, those are the visible thin ends of the bell shaped curve I doubt even the furthest down the road of Haringey and Islington politics could dispute were pretty much representative of natural ability, yet they dismiss everyone else in the middle as if they could all become the same as Mozart given enough encouragement.

That or they simply didn't want to admit the 5 million or so unemployed, so when the Tories went up the road of paying them to go off sick, which gave them more money and saved many people having to suffer who nearly all were sick (I've been through the tests, they are almost impossible to beat the system) Labour took one of the most insidious and reckless ideas the left have ever thought of, slightly less possibly than the statement 'We are Hizbollah', that all people are the same. Not equal, as our lives are all equal, but all the same as blobs of clay ready to be moulded in any way life makes us. Forget the genetic fingerprinting for virtually every quality known to man, separated twin studies and all the other solid science showing the exact opposite (Mensa studies show you can repress talent but never add to it), they blindly stick to their childish nonsense we can all be geniuses, except possibly: people with Down's syndrome, people with genetic deficiencies, people with brain damage etc, so using inclusive logic (deduction) if the people at the known extremes of congenital intelligence are accepted as having limited capabilities, surely that means everyone is on that scale somewhere? If not then prove it.

Regardless of the impossible challenge above, Tony Blair worked out a dual way to make him look good and reduce unemployment at a stroke. Let more people do degrees, from 5% to 50% eventually, despite the 1962 Education Act setting national minimum standards to pass. I know personally from a number of lecturers they are bribed to pass students indirectly through funding per pass. Possibility of corruption? Surely. They allow science students not to add up properly and English students to use bad grammar and spelling. One or two resigned, the rest happily play along. I can't quote names as people may get into trouble, but use your own resources. The point being that a degree had a 5% uptake because only 5% of people could pass it. My polytechnic, the overspill for people who couldn't get decent A level grades but were determined to get on, had a far greater acceptance rate, and all that happened was because the degrees were of the identical standard to universities (higher at times as they were externally moderated as well by the CNAA) more people failed. There was no incentive to get people through, quite the opposite as they knew if they made things too easy and the numbers and grades improved they'd get an audit, so they erred on the side of caution. Our head of Crime (OK, Criminal Law) explained it all to us when a visit was imminent, and besides that law is also governed by the Law Society as it has to qualify you for their finals as a graduate.

So besides the element of sympathy many lecturers had for us, as a result offering us extra free tuition, as Mensa pointed out, you can't get more out of the sponge than it has absorbed, only make the best of careless, lazy or confused minds which are otherwise sound but need their sheep herding tidily. I spent the first six years after graduation teaching and know the score, each person reaches their limits, while PhDs never do as they often keep producing using that as a start rather than a finish. That's why they allow resits, get it wrong, find out why and do it differently. If you can't learn from your mistakes you've overstretched yourself and will have to pack up and resort to M&S or London Transport. The lecturers all know this as they do far more in the area than I did, and only a few extra potty sociologists around who seriously imagine everyone could really manage it given the chance, but the evidence speaks for itself and is no secret among the insiders.

When asking the inane question 'what harm can it do letting more people succeed?' remember they would have nearly all failed in the past, and in technical areas these people will give the impression they are the same now as graduates then and end up in responsible jobs despite not knowing all the rules well enough. How could they? No differently from allowing probably competent medical and technical staff who can't speak or understand English properly, except if they made it the law (they can't, it's racist) most of them could remedy that. But you can't guarantee ever getting someone up to the standard of a professional if they couldn't have done otherwise. And when only those capable got through (including everyone from poor backgrounds back when we had free selective education in grammar schools) not only were they free but they paid everyone on top for maintenance. Then Blair (Labour) introduced the token precedent of tuition fees, which swiftly rose nine times, while Scotland (using the same money) still charge nothing. So not only did they lower the standard by ten times (5-50%) and reduce unemployment by taking that many out of the system, he not only saved all those benefits but (assuming they pay enough back) potentially made a profit.

So when the poor graduates of today end up with their inflated O and A level results so they think they've got the grades required for their degree in fruit management in Gosport University (which, like it's cousins popular culture and sausage production didn't appear to exist until the new system), then what happens is they get in, get a 2:2 or worse (unless there's a bonus for grades as well), and wonder why they end up only getting the identical jobs they'd have got without it. Of course the number of graduate jobs required never changes, so by turning out ten times more graduates only a tenth of them, hopefully but not certainly the best, will get those jobs, and the rest by pure arithmetic will end up doing exactly what they would have before but with letters after their name, and imagine as I'm sure they all do the As they got at school are just the same as the ones people got in the 70s as are their degrees. Now how a government managed to persuade the millions of extra school leavers to apply for degrees is a gap in the picture I can't fill myself, as just because you presumably cram in many more people to the existing lectures and convert every college to a university, how do you get the previously non-academic students to take them up? I can only guess it's a simple process of encouragement with inflated grades and directing them into paths they'd never dreamed of taking had they got the handful of Cs and Ds they actually deserved and returned to the real world at 18 and worked in retail.

So we have a system based entirely on a failed proposition that everyone is equal academically given equal chances, the marks from GCSEs upwards were shifted accordingly (try proving that as unless someone refuses to do it they'll be incriminating themselves for fraud if they go to the authorities) so suddenly within a few years all the grades were two points up compared to before, so much so they needed to invent the new A star as so many people were getting the existing top marks it was impossible to separate them. Of course A grades were as rare as hen's teeth till then, besides the annual articles reporting them for the old GCEs The Times published national degree results every year till the new numbers would have required publishing a phone directory for a week each year. The top marks were quite rightly the top few percent, I wasn't a very good student admittedly, but from a total of 11 GCE passes and 13 degree topic passes I got a single example, which to me is almost as valuable as the higher qualifications as it took me 24 exams to get one. Back then three As at A level got you to Oxbridge at least for an interview, now the average decent old university requires As and Bs just to get through the door.

So unless there's some kind of scientific breakthrough which has discovered ways to prepare almost anyone for a degree (besides making vocational topics and hobbies degree level which never needed them before) which would also mean every single study of education and intelligence since the 1930s or so was wrong, it's a stitch up. Look at the facts:

Degrees were a set standard, 5% of people on average took and completed them, while borderline students were let in and mainly dropped out. Suddenly 50% of people were considered capable of passing them.

Lecturers admit in private they can't fail anyone without either risking the sack or a very good reason, including science where lives may depend on their competence.

Removing a huge number of school leavers from the workforce for three years reduces the unemployment figures and the costs of benefits.

The increased cost of providing degrees shifted from the state to the student as a direct result.

There are never going to be more jobs required for graduates as you always need more workers than managers.

In the end the same number of people will have the graduate jobs while the rest will have letters after their names doing what they would have done without them as that is what they can do regardless.

Danger will be possible to the general public as many scientists and other professionals will be passed despite not getting their sums right and never needing to apply what they learned at work as the employers assume they did get them right as they 'passed' their degrees, while I for one know better from the head of said department, actually one of the world's best in its field, not some backwoods ex art school.

Why would ten times as many school leavers decide to go to university when they didn't before?

Add all this up and you can only see what I see, a total scam and one which gets worse to this day as the government aim to get the 25% odd or so current degree students up to the target figure, while many universities are cramming the lectures so full they don't have the space or staff to cope with the numbers, and more people from even lower levels of ability will be sucked into the already fake system with even worse performance and as the target remains at 50% will no doubt be passed to raise the numbers and further reduce unemployment and unemployment benefits paid out.

As all the philosophers would say, QED.

Saturday, 15 November 2014

Stages of cognitive development

Long discussions online have demonstrated to me how it is possible for otherwise intelligent and educated people to be led by liars. The answer was simple. There are stages of cognitive development, and they have not reached the one required to think for themselves clearly, and the killer is they don't even believe such a state of mind exists where the person is immune to most forms of control and programming. When they see an advert claiming CO2 will kill us all, or eating McDonalds will make you more popular or whatever other crap they produce to persuade us to do as they want, they are moulded as Bernays and Goebbels designed it and therefore cannot think for themselves when someone else takes over their mind. This programming is designed to be totally subliminal, the trick being they either think they have worked these things out for themselves, or trust the authority figure totally who tells them. That's why toothpaste ads have men in white coats, and the problem here is when two different ads with men in white coats disagree with each other. Then they use the weight issue. No, not obesity, but numbers.

Consensus had to be invented to support poor or dishonest science when too many white coats disagreed so the sheep had to have a reason to pick the good guys over the bad (as in the message they wanted) so pointed out how many agreed so the others must be wrong. This isn't even a valid argument as if 97% of doctors say you have a fever yet you feel normal and the thermometer says you don't then it's irrelevant what other people say, in some cases you can take the material and simply work it out for yourself, and if not the knowledge you do have will resonate with what the three honest doctors tell you rather than the liars working together in what the law calls 'a conspiracy'. Believing conspiracies aren't possible is the second layer of defence used in crookery, so they mock every individual who claims it is happening, not because of the actual evidence, but because scientists or anyone else involved aren't capable of being in a conspiracy. Except bankers maybe. Or top police. But never, ever scientists.

This explains totally how apparently clever people constantly work to dismiss errors and support the global warming as their minds are simply not capable of working anything out themselves where they accept the view totally from authority. Nothing they perceive will have an effect, as even colder winters and falling temperatures will be explained with faux science, and as many are scientifically qualified and familiar with the phenomena and equations, don't take the time to apply them themselves to check (they often can't, it's one thing to learn equations, a whole other to use them in complex systems), and just use them to prove they can do exactly the opposite for what they actually do.

So basically those generally immune to mind control cannot help those who are not, as they are immature mentally and although we all have the potential to wake up and shake off the power of others, it is almost impossible for anyone outside to do it for them, and even harder for them to work it out themselves. The only current guarantee is when one of their heroes lets them down and is caught or admits cheating. A few diehards at a level even lower will accept cheating spouses and worse over and over again, but not in numbers to count. Nearly everyone else will suddenly see the light and want to deal with the scientific community or whatever who made them idiots and cost them a fortune for all that time. The same goes for pyramid and Ponzi schemes, and any other example where a few lone voices present almost perfect evidence a group are collectively cheating and the authorities and others alike ignore and mock them, until years later (Libor took over ten years, Bernie Madoff was investigated a few times before they were finally busted almost by chance) they are busted.

Then most ex-sheep will claim 'Ah, we had our suspicions for ages, we just weren't sure' etc, which they totally didn't or they wouldn't have kept their money in the bogus investments, or called people murderers for 'denying climate change', but in fact many are not even consciously lying, as the result was so obvious after the event they convinced themselves they must have seen it as it is so clear to them now.

Just as it is to us before they do.

But until then they see those whose minds operate at a logarithmic level above them, like a Richter scale, as an impossible power, so dismiss it exists at all. To those in three dimensions four dimensions cannot exist, or those in two for three. Therefore as their minds are currently restricted by smallness, they assume all minds are. So they assume everyone else are liars, as they have no concept of having a free and independent mind. You can't fix this as it's part of human development, but at least you can be aware of it. Sometimes you can describe a problem very well but not provide a solution. I have read intense personal contact can win souls over one at a time, but is far too time and labour intensive to have more than nominal effects. It's a bit like counselling, you can't help an addict or troublemaker until they realise they need it. Till then they will swear their wives made them hit them, or they can spend a day drinking or stop smoking if they wanted to, and everyone has to sit back and watch them destroy themselves and those around them. This is the same position with all believers in what others tell them or those who refuse to accept what others think when they disagree with them, and they are lost to the world until they may reach the point where they lose more from their beliefs than others do. But we can't do a thing to make it happen. That's life apparently unless someone can find another way.

Thursday, 13 November 2014

Solar panels, the payback period

It's actually quite hard to find figures for domestic solar panels online, presumably as they want you to call and have a rep over to try and persuade you to hand money over rather than learn the truth on your own and shut the door tightly.

Gradually information dribbles out, through other people's enquiries and TV, and a rare article in the papers, and eventually I think it's possible to present a definitive formula for how long a customer will take to profit from a solar array, which doesn't really matter on the size as the saving is proportionate.

I will assume an average £10,000 cost for simplicity, which is fairly typical for a domestic array. There are a few steps involved in a basic up front deal, where the customer carries the entire cost and then gets paid by the government (currently ten times the market price) for the power they create and don't use. Then I will remove these subsidies, as without them the profit appears not to exist, so in fact what they are saving per year is mainly made up from everyone else's taxes on their energy bills which are then redistributed to renewable subsidies.

Step one: You spend £10,000 on a solar array (including the inverter). Optional batteries (almost as much on top) will allow usage for a short time after it gets dark but not part of the equation.

Using simple cost accounting you have made an investment, no different from any other. It is not a cash investment as you can get those back, but a depreciating asset like a car or a computer. Therefore it is a one way street, once bought then you have no alternative to win the deal by living in the same house until the money balances out and then the profit comes.

Step two: Accounting principle two, money today is worth more than money tomorrow. That is why all investment accounts pay interest and the further ahead the more they pay. This means a solar array which breaks even in a decade or more will have lost you the annual interest for at least ten years so the money you make does not really count after you break even as it's eaten at least another year after you nominally catch up to cover the lost interest from having to spend all that money in one go instead of gradually over the period.

Step three: You then need to compare your total period owning solar panels when they expire (15-20 years or so) with your identical power use on your previous system. You must calculate the exact amount spent not up front but monthly or quarterly for that period had you not had the solar panels, and then subtract what you actually ended up with (bills plus payments) for your bottom line. Then it has to be adjusted for inflation, as your solar array was paid for up front, and then you waited a year for a fraction back until if you were lucky you broke even. Otherwise you get your power in credit and pay after you've used it. That is not affected by interest or inflation as you only pay the equivalent £10,000 on power in instalments without the interest, explaining why you have to take it off for solar as you have lost at least a decade's interest or change in value by paying now and not as you use it.

Step four: To be genuinely honest you can't compare the market run power companies with subsidies from the government which pay ten times more per KwH than you would otherwise. It's not even your money, the government have skimmed it off everyone else to encourage people to buy solar, even though they've just spent an entire decade's typical bills in one go. Once you've subtracted the subsidies you will see that without them no solar domestic customer could ever make a profit, as the little power they generate (10-15% of domestic requirements maximum) means you only pay 10-15% less for the actual power assuming you're in when it's happening (ie during the day when most people are working), as it can't at night. Unless you fill a room with batteries, and that costs pretty much what you save so cancels out anyway.

Therefore standing alone, spending £10,000 or so on non-storage real time solar, you can't save more than 10-15% off your bill through what little they may generate when it's light enough, you'll never be able to use them at night when the lights go on or in the winter for long when you need the heating the most. It's physically not possible. So although I've demonstrated that waiting a decade or more for solar to even pay back before adjusting what the money spent now with the savings over spreading it out is economic lunacy, even that is almost totally made up of the massive profits you make on the few watts they produce each day when there's no one home. But not from actually creating power you use instead of from the grid. Ever.

Of course you can add even more panels if you want more power, but look at how much it will cost you then. There's no way round this one. Even as things stand you have spent a decade's energy bills up front with absolutely no guarantee you'll ever see it again, and even if you do it'll be well down from inflation. And take away the subsidies and a profit is impossible, how could you get it from saving power alone when if you're lucky you'll save 10% a year after spending ten year's worth up front? And many locations can't manage that, so won't get much back from subsidies either as there won't be enough excess to register.

You can't rearrange these figures besides the two future potential variations, a maximum doubling of solar efficiency and an economy of scale reduction in panel prices. But the same rules always apply, you pay in advance for power you may not get, and only make a profit while governments continue taking your fellow citizen's money to do so. And that's not real business is it?


1) £10,000 spent before any power is generated.

2) Annual return = up to 10-15% saving plus subsidised sales of excess.

3) Assuming returns are maximum (rather than average) you could ideally get the amount back over 7 years but that does not represent a typical installation.

4) Remove the subsidies, reducing your payments by 90% (for the great majority paid ten times per watt as the going rate).

5) Calculate exactly what you would have spent on power for the same period without solar and subtract the difference. Did you make a profit or a loss? This will vary per house as no two locations have the same amount of sunlight, but you'll then know for sure, and you almost certainly won't like the answer.

Tuesday, 11 November 2014

Global warming, it's a dead end.

Over time I've tried to prove global warming is real, not disprove it. In fact whichever way you try it's pretty much the same as you're simply testing the foundations, but I really wanted to make sure they had something real besides future models and competing guesses.

You have a pretty simple formula, with associated claims, and secondary issues. I went through all the main ones and as you can see, none correspond with Al Gore, James Hansen or any of the other cheerleaders from Ban-Ki Moon downwards who base their entire speeches on what I am about to present.

The temperature has been rising since leaving the little ice age a few hundred years ago, there is no certainty how much since CO2 increased in 1850 is natural but maybe 0.2-4C of a total of 0.8C. CO2 is meant to add 1C at 260ppm and 1C per doubling. It's risen 50% and including the existing rise would reach a relatively beneficial (according to the IPCC) 1.6C when doubling at the current trend. Those are the fairly knowns (as it is not a perfect science from past or present measurements).

More than that requires nearly all the additional rise from evaporated water vapour from the oceans, causing a higher rise. This indirectly hasn't happened, or the temperature would be significantly higher now, and direct satellite measurements confirm this, with no reason for this mechanism to change. Aqua satellite even found CO2 was replacing some water vapour at the vital bands causing negative feedback.

Then they claim the current warming is both unprecedented and faster than natural. Until you look back in the official historic records:

You can clearly see today's temperature rise is part of a half-million year long cycle, which either totally coincided with our CO2 output, or more likely as it happened till then, the CO2 was a result of the warming as released from the oceans. Either way we are right in the centre of a major regular peak and not even as high as earlier ones. That steep slope proves the rate and level of today's temperatures may be rare but absolutely normal every 100,000 years or so.

While cloud cover increases (presumably from the evaporating oceans) causing shade during the day and reducing the temperature overall.

The secondary claims are equally tested, extreme weather was not actually included by the UN, they simply said it is unlikely to increase in frequency, but possibly in intensity. But for those who say otherwise it hasn't.

The temperature was higher worldwide, before the UN altered their graphs some years ago, and then altered them again the other way a little last year, in the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. Records show unlike the claims made by those not able to support them (how can they till the temperature rises enough to know directly?) the world was a better place with more food, fewer deaths from cold (everyone dies from cold, only the old and weak from heat), and fewer wars and a higher birthrate. Written records exist from the most recent as well as plant records not possible to currently grow so far north. In fact until the 21st century there was little question the current temperatures was perfectly normal as (despite being cobbled from proxy records) it has been higher regularly within human lifetimes. Of course the proxy records potentially show no better they weren't warmer as well, due to their inherent weaknesses, but that isn't so reliable as they only just decided to fix it after it being the existing, to borrow one of their own terms, 'settled science'.

There are a few local and world graphs here which are virtually impossible to alter to be different when they have clearly stood for a long time as part of geological records.

As you can see, there are no shortage, as I never post a rogue diagram but make sure it's represented in many places before accepting it. However you play it today's hokey stick diagram with a flat tail and sharp uptick has no place in history. Only one single diagram made with great effort by Michael Mann, and proved to select proxy figures such as a single tree ring to flatten past temperatures, and massive 'homogenisations' (like they 'homogenised' the Cypriot bank accounts recently) for the present ones to shoot up. But try as he might the trend cannot bust the 0.2C decadal average required for the deadly warming geologists actually knew was beneficial overall at 2C, as since it's risen 50% the total decadal rise has been 0.05C. Dana Nuccitelli confronted me directly over this, claiming in articles it was exactly the 0.2C required, I spent a day checking, and what he'd done was choose the recent 30 year rising trend of the multidecadal oceanic oscillations and ignore the entire rest of the temperature records, choosing a too short to be representative section and a specifically sharp one. Before then the previous 30 years (with CO2 still rising) between about 1940-70 had fallen, so choosing a small element of the total to represent the whole was not just cheating but plain wrong. His last shot was that he only picked that section as the CO2 rose the most then. Yes, however much it rose was a slice of the entire 50% cake. But when you put the whole cake back together the entire rise for the period was still 0.05C a decade, however the CO2 and temperature rose in sections of the period. That is called smoke and mirrors, how magicians misdirect the general public to believe they can read their minds and write down numbers in advance to apparently random ones guessed by the audience, where if you run the same formula the same answer will come out whatever number you choose. But they fool nearly everyone as well and these creeps simply exploit the public weakness.

And even if you were to accept the most severe Mann version of the recent period, look how it melts away when put into context, and you discover the rise began over a thousand years ago, when we didn't emit much CO2.

 Imagine the papers printing the hockey stick as part of geological history, people would have laughed it out of town. As anyone reading this should now.

However, the rule I outlined earlier, where climatology produces more than one diagram for the same periods, only one (if any) can be right. You can see long term the temperature always rises or falls, large and small ice age cycles and interglacial continue from start to present. So how and why have the little ice age and medieval warm period both vanished from Mann's hockey stick diagram, the one the entire UN policy and hence world policy is based on, when everyone else till then had used them? And how did the sudden rise coincide with the use of satellites in 1979?

Not only is this odd, against every other area of science, and clearly suspicious, the UN themselves used the lower diagram themselves till they replaced it. Although this applies to Europe and the Northern Hemisphere they still represent two identical periods and totally different results. That would also guarantee at the bare minimum the science of proxy temperatures before around 2000 when the new diagram totally replaced all others of the past besides in old textbooks, was clearly totally worthless, otherwise how could they have made such huge differences from what Michael Mann clearly found to be wrong. Or vice versa. As I say, science comes below logic. An unreliable witness makes the identical slipups whichever field they represent, and a good investigator will always spot these long before the general public. The IPCC themselves used the old diagram so how can there be a problem now compared to that? Of course there couldn't be, so someone had to fix it, knowing only a handful of people would notice and even fewer would care.

In fact Ross McKitrick demonstrated Mann simply took the same data and fiddled with it. Here's the before and after, and the before Mann got to it, or after McKitrick undid it, it starts to look just like it did before. Fancy that.

More details
Mathematical proof?

I could trawl my way through all the minor issues as well, like the absence of hurricane activity for years, sea level rise barely increasing from the 20th century (maybe 30% higher in rate, enough to add a whole four more inches than it rose the previous century, and not really challenged by the UN who only use a metre or so range meaning they don't really expect the temperature to rise that much) while James Hansen says it will rise 3-6 metres but not till 2080 or so suddenly, with not a single authority to defend the view and a very few people alive today who will ever know it. Even though the Arctic ice (10% of the total) is reducing, the Antarctic is increasing, meaning the sea ice at least is not even changing. Land ice is a different matter, but as you can't really measure the depth beyond a short level (ask Pen Hadow, who was sent to drill manually and the equipment couldn't even manage it) their claims are to be taken with a pinch of salt, although the latest surface measurements, a proxy for the total depth, show it to have fallen and now recovered.

"In a press release ESA announced that the measurements from their 2010-2011 campaigns show the height of Antarctic ice to be an average of nine centimetres higher than the measurements obtained during the 2008-2009 campaigns."

"According to the ESA press release, there was a five cm drop of the height of Antarctic ice from 1991-2000 that continued until 2008. ESA does not yet have information explaining why the ice height has increased, but are encouraged at the possible upward trend."

The secondary material supports the primary, and each claim added by the warm brigade has also been put through the same testing process, often taking only a few minutes by doing a search and checking a few representative results. These foundations, basically only requiring water vapour to increase or global warming must be restricted to maybe 2C at a virtually impossible 1000ppm CO2, over a timescale where we would both be able to discover an alternative to fossil fuel anyway, and maybe teach (or legislate) people not to build on flood plains to guarantee the least effects from the slight rise in sea level we are currently experiencing with no known causes I could find to add to the rate.

The known results of what till recently were accepted as previous periods of warmer temperatures are all positive, so how they can claim disaster when even a 2-4C rise won't add enough sea level rise to reduce coastlines by a few hundred yards maximum (I read the formula recently, as the ice is known to contribute directly to sea level rises per 1C rise plus the equal thermal expansion anything more than the 1-3 foot range only the outliers like Hansen and Greenpeace ignore are possible. The temperature rose 0.8C and the sea level rose under a foot, so that gives a ballpark figure per 1C or so, as unless you want to believe in Hansen's personal scientific system, these are linear.

The major contradictions so far offered to my presentations that even warranted further research (ie not formulas which did not apply, speculation or statements of authority) at best simply produced differing graphs produced for the same period, addressed in another entry here with some samples, which only demonstrated how easy it is to either get things wrong when measuring the climate (as obviously only one graph per set can be right while the others aren't), or as in the case of the temperature records per region, add some warming after measuring they weren't, which is a crime.

But unless there's positive feedback, based on water vapour increasing, the game's off. No past records of higher or lower count at all, they are only countering the nonsense that today's temperatures are any sort of records, or the rate of rise. And when you do look back to the best proxies history can do, they blow away every single secondary claim in one go. The conclusion has to be whichever global warming road you look up to find it they all end in cul de sacs. There is not a single route which takes you there, at best one may get you lost or in a dead zone like a limbo, but none actually demonstrate the conditions required to break 2C or even close.
Antarctic land ice increases

The primary issue here isn't which graph is right (for a change) but the existence of too many alternatives. I wouldn't want to be a patient in hospital with so many opinions on my health, and neither a taxpayer whose taxes depend on said graphs. If science wants a wankfest then good luck to them, but NOT when world policy is then based on it. And they chose the expensive one of the two, fancy that.

Monday, 10 November 2014

How to scientifically falsify the man made global warming hypothesis

In answer to this question, one which science has so far failed to produce, here was my take on it.

AGW is based on shifting sands. The great majority, maybe 90%, is simply guesswork, and within a complex non-linear system, and worse still on a timescale beyond our lfetimes to discover.

Imagine an investment or building project where the results or returns were dependent on the market (ie not fixed) and simply offered a variable rate interest which may mature when you're 90 or 160 and the rate could be between 1 and 6%, with the likeliest results in the middle.

Then 20 years later the actual market had fallen so low that the figure was just about to fall below the minimum point for cashing out at any moment in time.

Back to the science, the IPCC have set the very wide goalposts but narrowed down the bullseye at 2C for a doubling of CO2. That rose from 260ppm in 1850 to 400 or so in 2014, and the average rise when divided among decades is 0.05C. However you slice it, like Dana Nuccitelli, who falsely only used the last few decades where CO2 had risen more and extrapolated from that, despite it stopping rising anyway, when you put the slices back in the cake it has responded with a 0.8C rise after a 50% increase of CO2, much like the bare lab figure plus a little rise mainly natural.

Bringing it back to a 2C rise after 520ppm, only requiring an increase in water vapour plus minor additions from changes in albedo, the water vapour has decreased, directly observed by NASA. It cannot increase as the conditions required are simply not happening. That means the only condition able to make AGW into what the IPCC consider a problem (unlike the people living in Greenland and elsewhere during the last warm periods) requires maybe 700-1000ppm, by which time our technology will have changed so much (maybe a century or two ahead) the chances of not finding an alternative to fossil fuel will be almost zero, so the problem will have been solved by science over time, rather than order.

Hansens's 3 metres plus of sea level rise, all coming logarithmically in the late 21st century with no supporting science (and we won't be here to know it). Using logic this is the extreme end representing all others which are only a watered down version of the same total arrogant nonsense assuming psychotherapists (on top of a law degree in my case) know fuck all so they can spin us around as much as they like while cheerleaders like you strike us down as worthless.

Known issues:

Massive adjustments and gaps in land temperature records.

Models unable to cope with aerosol, cloud and water vapour.

Water vapour (the almost exclusive cause of positive feedback) reducing while the voices increase in loudness.

Nearly all global warming being set in the distant future.

The trend required for >2C being way sharper than any existing one.

Fake claims made about climate refugees and rising sea levels when the amount is barely higher than the 20th century which caused no problems.

The entire creation is almost totally based on trust, and extending lab equations and experiments via a massive computer game into unobserved and mainly future reality. Just look closely and you will inevitably see it as well.

Analysing it further, science must be observable and repeatable. Most climate measurements are estimated within known points, and vary so much it can be hard to compare like with like, so unlike engineering and medical measurements their quality is maybe 10-20% of the standard. That is not a good basis. Of course a serious rise in temperature can be measured from the few taken (land stations are reduced so much since changing to satellites most are filled in almost randomly to complete the gaps) while CO2 measurement is variable but more direct than most to assess. The main way they get away with it is stretching the timescale further and further, much like the Greek debt, so making it harder and harder to disprove as they keep just asking for a few decades more. The trend is a 0.05C a decade rise on CO2, that can't change as the water vapour isn't rising to add any more. It's been disproved.

Saturday, 8 November 2014

Mind programming

There are some very unusual phenomena going on which have become the most apparent in the 21st century. Groupthink, where you can replace anyone in a conversation with anyone else and not notice, simply should not happen outside a tightly controlled exclusive cult, where, like a small family growing up in a remote area, people are only exposed to the same material day after day till they think there are no other ways of being.

From the liberal left, global warming supporters and extreme religious fanatics, they use the same sort of fixed mindsets and stock phrases and responses only expected from a physical program. This would either be a computer virus which hijacks minds so makes diverse people into unthinking drones, applying their personalities to deliver a standardised message which they have barely even thought of but can quote and defend directly. Now I literally have no clue who the Koch brothers are and do not wish to as they are only a meme from the ether, but the times people quote them and big oil for apparently persuading me global warming isn't really happening is uncanny. Why would people all unanimously make up utter nonsense when global warming science is free to read and available to all, and simply does not need anyone secondary to present it as it really isn't so complicated it needs a whole lot of simplifying. Just check the basic figures and theories and work it out yourself, I did and I failed O level maths. You don't need to run the equations, only the results.

The second alternative to a physical form of programming would be a resonant harmonic frequency, where whoever is running the show sends out a mass signal which affects all susceptible minds. Being sadly the majority the parrots and sheep repeat the same nonsense over and over again, with no physical reasons or evidence to support it but because someone's told them to believe it and they have taken it all. But the suddenness and total overshadowing of their own minds is more than a normal political or psychological movement, it is a complete rearrangement of their thoughts to comply like clones with the Tony Blairs, Gordon Browns and Nick Cleggs of the world who have learnt their trade and managed to basically hypnotise millions of people in each country their like operates to make them think the way they want them to,

Can we really believe that most people in London welcome not just the massive crowds, road and transport congestion, foreign languages and lack of communication, educational chaos, little foreign communities within their own areas excluding anyone who does not speak their language and wear their uniform, and worst of all those extreme Islamic fanatics who are taking over Birmingham and East London telling people what to do illegally based on Sharia law? I am in the middle of it myself, and people pretty well are polarised between the natural reaction the areas many have lived in all their lives is not recognisable any more, besides the surface appearance, and those who say it's wonderful and like the dire David Aaronovitch said in Thursday's Times (6/11/2014) anyone who opposes mass immigration is simply using the practical aspects as a cover for racism. They always have to demonise those immune to the wavelengths like me and many like me, but we will and must win, as the entire mind control system is making people into robots as a free army to defend their diabolical policies.

Who really wants a cold house, food and energy rationing, and travel restrictions? Yet people regularly demonstrate around the world for higher carbon taxes as they are so scared of something based on what is only a little warming. Which can't even happen for almost 100 years so they could never know anyway. To me, as a qualified therapist, this is delusional. They know global warming could never even begin to cross a threshold set by the UN before at least 2050 at the worst case scenario, and possibly by 2100 otherwise, yet they treat it as a genuine threat even though the actual temperature rise is a quarter required at 0.05C a decade and slowing. No fact of figure can get through their shells, and they are lost until maybe they wake up on their own.

In the end, like with any hypnosis, the benefits will stick and otherwise any means to ends will wear off. The power being used here is infinitely stronger than therapeutic hypnosis, but the minds affected are all the same, and cannot be moulded permanently into dribbling idiots without some form of surgery. Every day someone somewhere wakes up and thinks "The weather outside is exactly the same now as it was ten, twenty and thirty years ago, how could anyone have thought it could really be changing?" and they're back. Or one of the cheerleaders for multiculturalism can't get on the train as it's full with mainly immigrants and they miss an appointment. It could be any small thing, like the snap of the fingers in hypnosis, that does it, but unlike the groupspeak it's something that affects them directly, proving everything they believed and preached was a lie.

There's nothing like a convert for support, and those scientists like Lennart Bengtsson or James Lovelock who used their technical knowledge to actually not trust their peers but check them and found them to be totally wrong. If so many can do it and confirm my own measurements then why could they all get it wrong? They are either retired, self employed or like a few actually lost their jobs when they spoke out, and that pretty much says it all. The consensus (ie mind controlled groupthink) of a thousand scientists working for government and private organisations is worth nothing compared to the views of a handful of equally qualified independents who have no reason to say what they've been told to. Like the few Muslim extremists who saw the light and now educate others how to deal with it, or the lifetime criminal who was reformed, they are the best teachers, like so many drug clinics are staffed by recovered addicts.

If you imagine a cloud generated by the group who set the agendas, and is then released into the atmosphere and knocks out the susceptible majority who then become programmed robots spreading the word of global warming, multiculturalism, feminism, extremist Islam, whatever, then presumably something can become an antidote. It either blocks the mind through its action (frequency), in which case it can just lift, or changes it in which case something else is required. Either way that mind is taken over by a meme, and as a result they will defend their belief till the end, even though they don't understand it or have a clue why they are even saying or thinking it, especially the global warming brigade who are none of them qualified so have no means to defend it anyway. Those unaffected can easily point out their errors just as a three year old can sort a row of animals into the tallest, but they can't explain radiative forcing. The scientists can and the majority of the consensus who thrive from it know it's being misapplied and used to obscure things.

In the end I believe everyone must wake up, as our mind belong to us, and you can't simply rearrange how someone thinks through external persuasion or any other means for that long. I have no idea how long it may take or what could speed up the process, but simply being aware of it is the first step.

Sunday, 2 November 2014

Leading questions

There is a neutral grammatical formula which creates the impression of offering options, but the user actually knows they are leading you to only either choose between the exact options they present, or worse still only the one.

I say neutral, as a hypnotherapist we are taught this formula to help our subjects, as we only present options to them which make them feel better, thus deliberately excluding their original negative reactions, all done fully with their consent. Outside this area, if it is being used you can be pretty sure the user is cheating. Here are some examples of all its various forms, taught in business courses to sell things to people they don't want, or policies.

In law it is void to do so and as a result you will barely ever come across it as the barrister knows this and won't waste their time asking the witness "When exactly did you stop beating your wife/having sex with the goat/shoplifting" as it is simply putting words into their mouth, and indirectly accusing them of a crime in doing so.

In politics, especially under UN Agenda 21, they simply either offer you the two choices where you want neither, like Pepsi or Coke, or none at all "What should we do to reduce our carbon footprints?", "What measures should we take for traffic calming in Walthamstow" etc, which all presume the concept has already been voted on and accepted, when in fact they are forcing it on you whether you want it or not, as James Delingpole puts it, the UN IPCC spend all their time debating how much dog mess should they put in our yogurt (a nice big lump or just a trace) rather than even having an option of having none at all, and that means the only result is your yogurt has shit in it. Do you really care whether it's just a little or visibly floating in it?

LBC just provided a typical propaganda formula, by tweeting "How should gay rights be taught in schools?"

Now that is pretty blatant even for the media, especially as LBC are only a radio station and not officially promoting any agenda, unlike the known constant stream of UN propaganda emanating from the BBC. Since when was it responsible or reasonable journalism to ask such a question, which in normal media or life would read (How) "Should gay rights be taught in schools?".

They provided a perfect example for me, but sadly showed the state the media and politics has fallen to. But you don't have to take it, you still have the same range of choices you always did, whatever the authorities try and make you think. You just have to keep one step ahead of them or they'll stitch you up.

Saturday, 1 November 2014

The smoking gun for global warming

Source NOAA/NCDC Proxy records are clearly not totally certain but within their limitations certain patterns will stand out and should be indicative of trends if nothing else.

Imagine there was no significant change in CO2 associated with current temperatures. If you remove that element and rely on the standard historic temperature graph you will see that where we are now is clearly part of a long term regular cycle, and there is nothing different between today's peak and any other's. The scientific 'consensus' minus the added CO2 ought to have been this is a standard cycle and we are in the period between ice ages where the temperature rises before falling again as it always has and presumably always will.

The CO2 of course always rises after the temperature, in two cycles, the long (up to 1000 years) and short (1-2 years), combined means that every other warm period has had increased CO2 which arrived just after the rise in temperature. There is no question about this, or doubts, scientists are fully aware of it, but because man has been burning fossil fuels the latest rise has been attributed almost totally to that (despite our current temperature peak being lower than the past and corresponding with all others previously) but this simple graph proves beyond reasonable doubt that a) today's temperatures are totally normal within the long cycle and b) if CO2 always rises after temperature then why isn't that the case for the CO2 levels of today?

But the simple question is knowing this is genuine, then why hasn't anyone considered that today's temperature is normal for the point in the cycle, and if the CO2 hadn't been so high then could anyone have thought otherwise, even if it's natural from the rise itself?

Eugenics, the root of the UN

Once you follow threads they always lead you to the source, and today's applications of UN Agenda 21 lead all back to one person, Julian Huxley, the brother of Aldous, who was the original head of Unesco in 1946. Now just imagine how someone can hold certain views, prevalent within their narrow elite of academics and aristocrats, and they are so determined to carry them out they are prepared to wait generations to gradually impose their views until one day they wake up and the world is exactly as they wished. We are already more than half way there.

Global warming was never thought of either in 1946 or previously, when Huxley and his eugenics society, the elite group who wanted to breed lower elements out of society in any ways they could, and that arrived as the key to open the new world order (who said that, Henry Kissinger I think) as otherwise you can't impose such severe restrictions for no reasons without a revolution, but they have the useful idiots eating the crap out of their hands by regularly marching in the street for higher carbon taxes. The formula works, and always worked since pre-history.

There were various methods on the spectrum to reduce the population and breed out as many 'useless eaters' (ie anyone not like them) as possible, Huxley was at the softer end who did not believe in enforced sterilisation and contraception or worse still genocide, but he still wanted to selectively breed humans to reduce the heavy bottom of the masses. But from his original speeches as head of Unesco in 1946 he despaired the fact he believed the UN simply didn't have the required power for one world government, politics and culture. But they do now.

Thomas Malthus was probably the eugenicist's hero, the philosopher who calculated the resources could not keep up with the rise in population, and the Eugenics Society were the organisation devoted to methods to deal with this problem. I was asked how long does this view go back, and logically the actual results these views propose would really be the Green Dream of returning to the simple lives before the industrial revolution, where the two major features of government were feudalism and slavery, so one could say they simply want to return selectively to these times, while keeping all the benefits of modern life for themselves with everyone else working to create the benefits for them.

Details of Unesco speeches

"the purpose of UNESCO, which is to mentally prepare the world for global political unification under a single world government."

"First, that the more united man’s tradition becomes, the more rapid will be the possibility of progress: several separate or competing or even mutually hostile pools of tradition cannot possibly be so efficient as a single pool common to all mankind. And secondly, that the best and only certain way of securing this will be through political unification. "

Therefore you can clearly see from day one the warm and fuzzy aims people think the UN was created for, to look after the countries of the world who could not look after themselves and raise the developing world up to the level of the developed was the window dressing, just like they push reducing industry and energy use to stop imaginary global warming, they created the parental organisation to be the mother and father of the orphans of the world, they were simply an organisation designed to create a single government where no country would have the power to govern itself, and with the current policies of multiculturalism and diversity, to merge every culture (and presumably race eventually) till there was only one remaining which was a mixture of them all. Then the strange actions of governments across the west start to make sense, inviting millions of Muslims from non-EU and countries with no previous rights to immigrate into Europe, including non EU Norway, and then allow the extreme types to take over entire towns and run them under their own rules as far as the police and local people allow them to, from Tower Hamlets and Birmingham to Stockholm and Oslo. The overall promotion of multiculturalism is all based on organised Agenda 21 plans, adopted across Britain since 2000 in every single council and applied by their own volunteer change agents, and meaning the same environmental and cultural policies are applied in every council regardless of which parties were actually elected. All they can do is delay or reduce the extent of the 20mph zones, high rise flats and closed roads but never stop their progress.

So when you look back to the roots in 1946, when Julian Huxley clearly stated his plans for the UN, which were later written into law (it may be voluntary to accept but compulsory once accepted) it is pretty clear that these plans were always the primary aim of the UN, and everything coming from such roots will be branches and flowers of means to bring about the plans for a single government and culture, and the similarities in party lines in each democratic country since the late 20th century, with the arrival of 'New Labour' (ie a combination of left wing and right wing policies from all parties which then coincidentally continued after they were replaced by the coalition) show the one world politics is already more than half way done. The rise of the non-traditional parties as a reaction in Europe is now under way as an inevitable consequence, but even with the PR system of Europe none currently hold more than 20% of the vote so are not yet an actual force against the system.

Hopefully now it is virtually impossible to deny the single thread running from the world policies of today- Keynesian economics- massive government borrowing, quantitative easing and low interest rates, bank deregulation, green policies, forced multiculturalism, high density housing, reductions in personal transport, energy and travel taxes, rules outlawing offensive speech (which causes no harm and can cover whatever they choose it to), you can trace them all back to the wider policies building up since before the UN within the Eugenics Society and others like them, which crystallised into a world political organisation and spread its tentacles across it with legal power and is seen in its results wherever you look.

Do we want this now we've seen what the world government, with a world carbon tax and currency to follow if they get their ways, looks like, or regardless of whether or not you still believe them over global warming would you rather have your freedoms back and take your chances that man cannot change the climate in either direction and we will adapt to any actual changes as we have since the beginning of history?

I will add in here as well, and now have discovered he was behind the World Wildlife Fund in 1961, along with Prince Philip.

This means that the same agenda, person and philosophy spreads its tentacles from many angles, governments, charities, think tanks, you name it, all appearing to be different but in fact different faces of the same thing.

I will continue from Julian Huxley's move from the Eugenics Society in 1946 to Unesco, to WWF in 1961. Of course if his views are known, and back then they were far more open, as they both believed in what they stood for and were proud to share it with everyone as it was their gospel. Then of course along came the internet, and such views became hidden in laws obscured by new wording under the veil of 'sustainability', ie sustaining a population the planet can support, around 1 billion.

WWF official statement

Obviously Julian Huxley did not become a different person when leaving the Eugenics Society to run Unesco, far from it, as he claimed although he personally did not believe in the extreme end of the eugenicists in managed depopulation (genocide) he did believe in a single world government and subsumation of local and national cultures to a single one for the entire world. So he didn't become someone else when founding WWF, it simply used a hook to appeal to another area of humanity, the animal lovers, to make the planet better for the animals, at the expense of people. But such sacrifices must be better as the animals can't choose if their habitat is being cleared for farming and building, so we must put them first. Of course this then opened the door to Agenda 21 policies of land clearance and moving people out of the countryside into the multiple occupation units of the city. As China has no personal liberties they were able to carry this out directly, by simply forcing people out of the countryside and making them move to more and more overcrowded cities. They can't do much about it, China has been the same for generations and they have to do as they are ordered.

The west simply used more subtle methods, firstly by flooding the country with new immigrants who all needed housing, and then the building companies or councils bought up houses and replaced them with flats, carrying out the compulsory Agenda 21 rules to make cities sustainable through reduction of transport costs, making people live in flats to save resources, they claimed. The using political correctness accuse anyone who objects as being racist, even though the current majority of new immigrants are European and not a different race. But they use it anyway.

In that case, back to WWF, they are fundraisers for animal conservation, so why are they now running biofuel clearances to save the planet from global warming? WWF now into biofuel
"By improving the way global commodities such as palm oil, soy and sugarcane used for biofuels are produced, we can reduce our global environmental footprint and significantly drive up markets that offer responsible products, goods and services."
So basically they have (like Greenpeace and the RSPB) diverted from their original aims to fighting global warming through any means they can, including burning food.

 From Bilderberg 2014

QUOTE: "Our main historic enemy to the implementation of our plan was obviously the national states. Globalization, globalization, European institutions, mass immigration were so many tools that we have used with great success for 30 years and now national identities and feelings of belonging were significantly reduced, as patriotic feelings. Money and ownership have become the core values of many. The politicization of the masses has been significantly reduced, nations as we hoped, become fragile and can now be destabilized from within." 

Bilderberg leak