Friday, 18 December 2015

Uncertainty in climate science

Draft version, links and quotes to follow. Main data now all present.

I constantly hear references to the consensus and settled science within climate change, yet on all its foundations everyone within the community is fully aware it is almost entirely based on estimates and speculation. I will now list every area I could find which means the results of using such factors for creating what they put forward as solid claims are false, as once you look at the basis of such claims, some if not most of them are based on fillers.

Models couldn't cope with the main coolants, ie aerosols, cloud formation, and where water vapour went to. That means that although the entire AGW theory is based on a small rise in temperature from CO2 causing a far greater one caused by increased water vapour, it's far too complex to model. Especially as the same evaporating oceans can cause cooling from increasing the total cloud cover.

Modelling problems 

Cloud modelling problems
clouds have strong and varying radiative impacts on the climate system
• clouds are the largest source of uncertainty in quantifying climate feedbacks and sensitivity
• it is very difficult to simply and accurately parameterize the small scale processes affecting clouds in a global
climate model
• anthropogenic aerosol might have a large influence on cloudiness, but the overall impact is unknown
• this is also difficult to parameterize in a global climate model

 From the UN directly in 2001, confirming what anyone with school level science can work out:

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC Past temperatures before we measured them come from a variety of sources, mainly tree rings and ice cores. They sometimes disagree with each other. Here are the known issues trying to make a firm judgement based on them alone:

Temperatures taken before direct thermometer measurements (the oldest being the Central England records which are a few hundred years old) are estimated by proxies. The world temperature direct record begins around 1850. The details are less important than the results, but include ice cores, tree rings, and also which plants were able to grow in certain locations. But the problem here is they never stay fixed for long, but endlessly revised. This is vital, as the main argument by the scientists is it's warmer now than it has been for many thousands of years. Except until about 2001 it wasn't. There were a number of 'climate optimums', ie when the world temperature was better overall, causing fewer overall deaths as more people die of cold, more food, fewer wars and less energy use. As is the case today in a mild winter or good growing season compared to the colder alternative.

The UN IPCC made the greatest revisions, which in any other area- history, engineering, medicine, anything where records are kept and relied on, would probably be unheard of. This was the standard past temperature record taught worldwide until the 21st century.

 As everyone can see from about the age of five, today's temperature and rate of change is random and normal, and most of all about bang in the middle of the range. Obviously had this been adopted by the IPCC not many scientists, politicians or the general public would have had the slightest concern over today's warming trend, as clearly it's always either warming or cooling, and the range is pretty wide. The longer period of time confirms we are at the exact peak of a regular cycle, and lower than the previous ones.


Science could not have sold such a scenario even to James Hansen (whose estimates of the 21st century are ten times higher or more than nearly everyone else's), so it was quietly dropped for the alternative which was so different it would be impossible to see how without being thoroughly incompetent at their work it would have changed from one to the other:

This was Michael Mann's work, which is claimed relied on eliminating hundreds of bristlecone pine (or cedar according to this diagram) records in order to raise the present, and alleged by statistician Steve McIntyre to run an algorithm which would make the same hockey stick at the end whatever figures were put in initially. And not only did they remove past higher temperatures as far back as their graphs go but a few years later they quietly merged the two without a single nod from the media.

Medieval warm period. This alone would kill the global warming hypothesis, as if it was both warmer at that time worldwide, and without either the increased CO2 causing it or any problems for mankind (the benefits were listed and are known, including many crops growing far further from the equator than today) then nothing we are experiencing now or ahead would be meaningful. Up till 2001 the UN actually acknowledged the MWP and then wrote a new graph flattening it away, followed by another half way between the two, all to be used for world policy. How can you make a theory or policy based on such unknown history?

Not only are these graphs dubious, as who are we to know which (if any) is the right one, as of course only one can be, but they form the entire basis of world climate policy, affirmed just this week in December 2015 in Paris. Clearly proxy records must be unreliable to produce at least three 21st century revisions, and absolutely different from the original.
Ice cores

Predicting the future using models was not even accepted by the IPCC. In 2001, stating the obvious anyone who understands predicting in open systems already knew, "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." Furthermore scientific experiments must be completable  and repeatable. Setting a point from 2050-2300 as the UN IPCC reports do is outside the realm of science or logic.

Ice levels: These have been seen by satellites since 1979 (as have many other parameters such as overall temperature, as opposed to a collection of surface locations), and impossible to compare with earlier partial data. The thickness can only be measured to a fairly shallow depth while the rest is only speculated on. Claiming record ice levels only dates back to 1979 which is far too recent to have the slightest meaning.

Extreme weather as temperature rises: Even the UN don't claim it's possible to either attribute individual weather events to warming, or as some claim extreme events increase with warming. They say they may increase in intensity but not in frequency. One claim is the warmer a system the more volatile, but other scientists claim this can't apply in the atmosphere. Extreme weather events can be directly recorded from the past, droughts, hurricanes, floods etc, as local historians have kept records for many hundreds of years. Most of the worst events happened long before the 21st century. Droughts for example are far worse in the past:

  American hurricane landfalls have been at their lowest for a long time, which relate directly to the sea surface temperature:

Extreme weather records
The effects of a 2C rise and above. These are totally speculated as we have no knowledge past or present what such a rise could do, if anything, besides the known benefits of a rise up to 2C we know from history including greater food production, fewer wars, fewer deaths from cold and lower energy usage. As people all die from cold but not from hot weather then we know exactly what happens in every ice age from direct remains of skeletons etc, but not from warmer periods besides the benefits.

The sensitivity to CO2 is set at a default of 1C per doubling at any point, as it halves its power each time, until it can no longer hold any more heat at which point it becomes saturated. That point is totally unknown (there is currently not even a general estimate as there is no means known to do so), and may have already been reached. Every other increase is from unknown positive feedback, which is almost totally dependent on evaporating oceans lodging in the exact band which amplify the greenhouse effect. If they do not, or form more clouds, they will reduce the temperature.

Temperature adjustments are officially to fill in gaps, eliminate outliers and remove local bias, which is virtually all from urban heat islands. Random errors tend to zero, bias for heat reduces the temperature. Yet nearly all pre-adjustment temperatures (plus unknown ones never released for 'commercial reasons', whatever that means) are lower than the ones finally used. These are the American ones 
but reflect anywhere else you care to mention freely available online.

Latest compromised data

Of course the greatest example, the world holocene record has already been shown above which Michael Mann redrew at apparent will. And it wasn't the only one, four were offered to the IPCC, not all similar, and his was chosen as the 'official' one, ie they decided that was the 'good' one. Until they changed it a few years later that is.

Recently in late 2015 something happened which never had before. The UN adjusted recent temperature records once they had been accepted (having already been adjusted initially). This suddenly dropped the past so the recent stall in temperatures since the late 90s vanished overnight to be replaced with more hockey stick. Prior till now nearly (?) all revision was only applied to proxies as they found better ways to measure the past, but rewriting direct recent measurements is something apparently novel in climate science altogether, and coincided with a point where over 60 (see the uncertainty there?) different reasons, from air pollution to natural cycles being given to the pause, which then suddenly disappeared.

Here it is
and it's gone
Bear in mind the IPCC not only did far more to remove the MWP in 2001 but in the following report some of it returned. How long will it last before it's replaced with another one, as new methods for measuring proxies keep being refined. But now we must also apply the same variations for last year's temperatures, and everything now becomes temporary. Is that something you would want to be used to create a world carbon price, which I guarantee does not fall as the temperature rise does.

But overall the temperature itself is incredibly less certain than the final graphs we see in the media. There are surface temperatures, often affected by urban heat islands, and since the satellites went up measuring the temperature and ice in 1979 have been drastically reduced. They are still used though, and besides using rough methods for daily average temperatures, such as averaging the high and low points per day, they then have to try and extrapolate them worldwide, and some have been found filling in the gaps (over 70% of the total now) not with the average temperature overall but the warmer end. Besides that one example it means everything is then adjusted to correct for known issues, but rather than falling for the urban heat islands and evening to zero for the random errors nearly all local measurements can be seen to have either been ramped up or tilted down in the past to make them rise. Neither method can do this. They then use the difference from a certain point in time (the anomaly) to show the temperature change rather than absolute temperature, to see if it is rising at all, and by setting the point at the lowest for decades means it's guaranteed to make the others look higher after them. They also found one of the satellites had been reading high for years, but didn't correct the records to show the new difference, which may have accounted for much of the measured warming.

Then once satellites arrived the total ground based stations were drastically reduced, leaving many areas almost clear of them, requiring vastly more estimation to fill in the new spaces. Look at what happened by a possible coincidence after that happened.

However, as it's so hard to record the world temperature, let alone its average, we have a number of various methods, land, sea, air and since 1979 satellite. Sometimes they are similar, sometimes they are not. And with the land temperatures you have RSS, UAH, NOAA and HadCrut. Here are the graphs for the average temperature for similar periods:

But wait, the 0.8C rise (almost the only thing scientists can agree on) since 1850 can't all be down to CO2 can it? Besides the accepted fact CO2 always rises after the temperature as it's released by the oceans, the new situation of temperature being driven by CO2 is only partially tested. But look hard enough and the scientists do attribute between 25-50% of the known warming to natural causes.

This would mean if CO2 were 520ppm, twice the starting figure, temperatures would rise around 1.6C (twice the rise after half the doubling in 2015) with 0.8-1.2C being down to the added CO2, exactly the figure attributed to adding that much CO2 with no positive feedback.

The positive feedback, in fact, is what will change a trivial and innocuous rise from CO2 to the 4C plus claimed by Hansen and Greenpeace, at the very end of the IPCC 1.5-6C range in 2100. Nearly all from evaporating oceans forming water vapour which is the serious greenhouse gas, naturally accounting for 95% of the accepted 33C addition from greenhouse gases, with 1C of that down to CO2 in 1850. However, that has to both form water vapour (warming) not clouds (blocking the sun), and lodge in bands not saturated (meaning they can absorb no more heat). And it is virtually impossible to model water vapour and clouds, so the very factor between a normal gentle warming and a disaster can't be worked out till it actually happens. And NASA's Aqua and other satellites have both found CO2 is actually bumping out some water vapour, creating a cooling result, and water vapour is going down.

Now the range of any projection mustn't either exceed the margin of error or be impossible to discover, or it becomes void. This graph begun by the IPCC in the 90s breaks both these rules, as if an investment advisor or insurance company said they'd pay out if the temperature rose between 1.5 and 6C it would be an incredibly good bet as it's very unlikely it would get close to 6C but may fall below 1.5 where you would lose, but going by the trend probably not. But you'd have to wait till 2100 to win the bet. No thanks.

The same sort of issues affect sea level, obviously as it is different all day long due to the winds and the tides, so measuring an average is not as easy as it seems even though unlike the temperature there is one due to the total amount of water. But tide gauges are accurate at each point and when many have not risen much for over a century in many low lying areas it makes you wonder how they can find a rise at all overall. Also you can see the rate of rise has not increased as you'd expect, but is changing with no regular pattern at all and lower now than in 1910. It has also been claimed the direct measurements change in natural cycles. Tide gauge study 

Tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:

Tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
Tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
Tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
Tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
Tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
Tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
Tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
Tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:

Tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:

Tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:

Tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
Tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:

History shows regular peaks between ice ages. We are currently at one right now. Every previous one was natural and part of a regular cycle. CO2 rose every time as a result of the warming ocean releasing it. None of the previous ones were caused or affected by added CO2 and our current peak is below every other one. How can anyone seeing that think anything is not normal just because it coincides with us burning more fossil fuel? That is the first assumption you would make and then dismiss. 

Scientists know this as well Explanation by Dr Tim Ball

Saturday, 12 December 2015

Minimal government

Here is my model for minimal government, based on the principle the government are employed to do what individuals can not, and are working for the people, not ruling them. Their only role is to protect everyone from crimes (only those causing direct harm to the person or property), and the poor and susceptible. This includes running the legal system and public services, as there can be no competition selling a single product, and as they are essentials and should not include an element of added profit. Every other product and service can be sold freely so allows an entire run for the free market without distorting the economy with fake competition. Healthcare should remain free as no one deserves to lose money from illness. Selective education will become free again so everyone is entitled to receive the best standard of education.

To cover poverty everyone would be given the same amount each year they could live on, paid for by a flat rate tax everyone would pay as it would not be so high anyone would want to avoid it, and be adjusted annually based on what the economy could manage.

Foreign intervention would be based on the principle it is wrong unless there is a very good reason, and armed forces would be employed purely to defend from any invasion and be on stand by doing other work the remainder of the time but paid the same regardless as they all have other skills.

There would be no laws to protect morals or causing offence, as these are changing and totally subjective, and cause absolutely no harm unless you believe in religion, which has no basis in reality.

Travel would be made as simple as possible, with absolutely no restrictions on roads or railways if required. Freedom of movement is essential in a civilised society and delays waste time and fuel.

No additional taxes would be levied on unproven global warming etc, only genuine chemical and biological pollution would be regulated which is known to be harmful.

Social engineering and attempts at it would not be legal. People in a free society must succeed totally on their own merits and nothing more. Quotas are as discriminatory whether for black or white people, able or disabled. Genuine discrimination will still be illegal, therefore include positive and negative as there is in practice no difference between them.

There would be no adoption of supranational groups such as the EU if they make laws over our heads as that is not democratic. On a personal note immigration would be strictly controlled as the benefits are not directly apparent but all the disadvantages are known. These include overcrowding, language problems, cultural clashes, ghettoisation, overloading services (schools, medical, sewage etc) and also takes employment from the national pool of workers.

The basic principle will be to make no new laws or restrictions without a very good reason. Otherwise it is best to allow people's freedom. No one is less equal or more important than another so making laws to protect one group at the expense of another is totalitarian.

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

The principle behind it all, freedom

I was asked recently what’s the ultimate basis behind my work, and the simple reply was freedom. It is something we can all relate to, humans and animals, and when it is removed or restricted it is either for a reason of safety or personal development, and if not then punishment.

So as removal of freedom is one of the most universal punishments known to man, along with assault and causing death, its existence is held to be the ultimate situation in life, next to life itself when compared with the death sentence. Knowing this, then why do governments throughout history do all they can to reduce and restrict our freedoms, using the Hegelian dialectic, that the alternative is worse. The alternative that rarely even exists but they knew they could create as the means to get the majority who sadly do not think for themselves to hand over their freedom. To quote Benjamin Franklin, those who give their freedom for security deserve neither.

I do find many people are so lost in this vision that I found I needed to list examples of the difference between imposed restrictions ‘in the name of work, health and safety’ and their removal. By applying everyday and ordinary examples then I hope everyone can relate to their own life situations and realise there simply aren’t many times any such restrictions are appropriate or beneficial.

Work and driving are my personal favourites. Driving is the ultimate freedom until humans learn to fly (literally or mechanically). It allows everyone, including the elderly and disabled, to have the opportunity to travel wherever and whenever they need or want with absolutely no need for other people to rely on, timetables, routes and the like. The late 20th century saw growing restrictions on driving, from closed roads in Camden to the Tory Kenneth Clark introduction of road humps and the related road narrowings. As speed is not the primary cause of accidents (otherwise why do country lanes have a 60mph limit?) but lack of concentration, selfishness and alcohol (check the figures), then the false premise of 20mph zones whatever the restrictions added to create them, and the same restrictions on officially 30mph roads where you’ll wreck your car if you drive over 15mph are clearly for some other purpose. When I decided using logic maybe the councils wanted to do it to put people off driving altogether (forgetting all vehicles use these dreadful roads, including buses and emergency vehicles), soon afterwards the EU plan to ban urban driving by 2050 came out. No coincidence really.

Barnet council broke the mould, uniquely to my knowledge, when they decided to remove the humps and restrictions, much like Liverpool council just set the precedent to remove the bus lanes. A road a mile or so long I used to use to visit my grandma had been given mini roundabouts at every junction, slowing the traffic on a road with no buildings along it every few hundred yards for absolutely no reason. When overnight it seemed they disappeared it simply became a road again rather than an obstacle course. Accident figures are recorded by law when injuries are caused, and the most injuries come in the same borough from the deaths from emergency vehicles being slowed down by road humps, meaning the councils are actually causing more harm than benefit. Knowing this officially what does it tell you about the councils?

Work is the other example in my life, with the standard story of my family’s shop manager, who had a weekly timetable which basically meant when you weren’t serving a customer you’d be dealing with the stock, every single moment of the day. The work was exhausting and demoralising, but we assumed it was necessary for a busy international shop in the centre of London, till the week the manager went on holiday, we did the work when it was needed, and over the fortnight he was away everything he made us do got done in about a day instead of a week. We all then realised the reason the timetable was there is he believed no one should be paid to do nothing, so he simply created the work to make everyone earn their wages rather than relax and work better when they were needed to.

Animals without any speech express freedom the most graphically. The contrast of animals in cages, something to me which is one of the lowest levels of human behaviour, to when they are released, or when the cat or dog is returned from the kennels and bounds out of the car to run around the garden after being locked up for a week or two tells you pretty much all you need to know about the basic principle. If every government was based on this principle then every restriction would be a last resort, rather than their entire motivation.

Imagine the difference in your life if freedom was known as the prime motivation for all aspects of life. Rather than impose discipline as a default in schools onwards, people would have to work out through any required means to only apply it when nothing else would work. Respect of other people is one example- punctuality, carrying out your duties etc, using the other golden rule to treat others as you’d want to be treated yourself, could be started with outside discipline in school and home, but be replaced by self discipline as with early enough training such principles would become second nature. That would ideally be carried through to work and family life, where people would do their jobs properly not because they had to but because they knew they should. Freedom of speech would also be protected unless it actually encouraged people to hurt others, so David Cameron’s two attempts (succeeding the second time) to ban causing offence, a victimless and technically harmless act, and one so widely interpreted it could effectively close down any negative speech in public and possibly private if reported. We are all offended by other people’s words from school onwards, and that is our problem for caring what idiots think, as much as theirs for being idiots. But being an idiot is a personal problem and should not become illegal.

So logic dictates the bare minimum of examples where it is necessary to restrict our freedom for a greater cause. Public health, protecting customers from poisoning by food products, restricting the spread of illnesses etc are pretty obvious and why anyone would want the freedom to sell bad food or sabotage it is anyone’s guess. But they all come under the golden rule and common sense. Working hours can be flexible where lives don’t depend on it, files don’t evaporate when not put away on time, and people can easily be employed to share jobs and arrange the hours between them to allow for children and other personal time when they would otherwise have to be working. Banning cars or making driving difficult affects everyone, like poisoning the air with geoengineering. Even the politicians are held up on the same roads as the plebs they legislate for, so why do they do it? Misanthropy is the root of most such rules, followed by exercise of power simply because they can. Two dangerous and primitive motivations, loved by politicians of all eras.
I believe once people learn the simple message they will quickly and easily wake up. Just imagining the difference between a journey before they narrowed the local roads and sent people on complex diversions is a good start. The extend that to your life. Wouldn’t you rather get to all your appointments easily rather than change buses (London split all their long routes presumably to collect two sets of fares for people going across the new boundary), be able to take time off work without official warnings, and not be taxed on both what you earn above a certain amount or what you spend beyond the bare minimum? Who earned the money? Most of the time you did. You probably studied for a few years, even if just for GCE exams, in order to work, and then the hours you work on top increase your earnings, or amount you sell that people buy because you provide things they need or want, and the government not only take the bare minimum they need to maintain the roads (which will soon be empty), health service, and support those unable to support themselves, they take more because they think it’s wrong for people to have ‘too much’.

Misanthropy returns, punishing those who succeed is another formula we need to consign to history, and wipe out simply through education that it is the exact opposite motivation people need in their short lives to strive to success. If you give up trying as your tenth painting will get you a tenth as much profit when you sell it as your first, then you may give up painting more than a few per year as why bother when you don’t get much back for the others which took you just as long to create? Or do another music tour bringing pleasure to thousands as you’ve reached the top tax threshold level. Like it or not the more money you have the more freedom it offers, so effectively by making it harder to have more than a certain amount under socialism then they are restricting the freedom of those who have done more to earn than their peers. This never means their peers can do and have more, just that they have almost as little as they do.

As a counsellor part of my work is getting people to take back their personal freedom. Who actually has the power to tell others what to do? Their parents, their employers, their governments and their teachers. But from that list one is different, the government. Those with the most power do not have it because they are royalty and aristocracy, at least not any more, but because we employ them (paid for directly from our taxes) to handle issues we can’t ourselves. Not to rule us. Using the minimal interference rule then parenting and employment should only make the fewest rules and allow people to use their own abilities to schedule the work, and if they can’t then the employer should have the freedom to sack them as they can’t do the job. It works both ways. Education is as much about self discipline, so only really needs to make sure students don’t disrupt classes, if they don’t turn up they are only hurting themselves. Hopefully by now I have created a picture of every aspect relating to the single root principle, and explained why in every case there is no need to use more than the bare minimum of restrictions, and this includes taxes and rules applying to work, laws and any other area of human activity. You hate having your freedom restricted, so why should other people have it when it doesn’t affect you? And when I hear the voices shouting from the viewers ‘What about global warming’, something which has caused the most restrictions on everyday lives worldwide since the fall of the Soviet Union, I’d say to watch my first interview on the UN and big society, and discover that was the biggest illusion created to cause the greatest loss of freedom ever encountered by humanity, as it is being applied equally in every UN member state worldwide whether you are aware of it or not, China has just come on board this week. If anyone seriously believes the aims of the Kyoto Protocol of 1992, to basically reduce demand for energy, by making it more expensive and less available, can be an improvement on the effects of a slightly warmer planet outside our lifetimes needs another session at school. This is no different to reducing demand for food, water and air itself. If they could they would, but food is becoming more expensive, meat is being made less attractive as cattle farming is alleged to contribute too much CO2 so is also being discouraged, and many farms in Africa have been cleared to grow biofuel, mainly corn and palm oil, to burn food in engines not designed to use them. Vans and lorries over a certain age are banned in London despite passing the MoT emission tests, and cars in Paris, as all major changes are now carried out in gradual stages so people don’t realise what’s happening till it’s too late. Making essentials such as energy, food and travel harder is making everyone’s life harder, and for what? Pretending they can control the earth’s temperature. As I said about the Incas, thousands of years may pass but humanity has not changed a jot.

Question every attempt to make your life harder. Do they really need to do it? Why are they making something you’ve always done impossible or much more difficult? Why have the new rules at work been brought in and do they really make the firm more productive? Do not accept a single attempt to interfere with your normal activities of life. Who has the right to stop you moving around freely or take more of your money than they need for their requirements? You have given every single one of these people your power except your parents, you can change schools or employers if they do not treat you the way you want to be, and certainly get rid of every politician as they are our servants, not our rulers.

Simple principles, easily understood, and resonate with every living being on the planet.

Breaking illusions

Here is the text used by my third interview with Mark Windows plus more detail.

3rd interview: Breaking illusions:

As a child growing up we start to discover many new ideas, mainly from politics. Fairness, redistribution of wealth, equality, all apparently good concepts designed to help people. The second stage, assuming we ever reach it, is to start applying these ideas and looking more closely into them, after which we may well discover they are not as clear as they seem, and quite often actually worse than the alternative. Redistribution of wealth means there is X amount of wealth, all owned in different amounts, and simply removed from those with the most, and not even given to the rest directly, but just goes to the government, just like the estate of a person without a will or family. No one wants that, so who would want better off people (who worked for it rather than stole it somehow) to simply hand over much of their capital for an unknown and unknowable fate, just to make the worse off people feel they may get something out of it.

For me the turning point was the black and white clearly wrong issue, when they planned bus lanes for my area in the 70s. As a teenager I hadn’t yet comprehended the lack of space in town, so imagined the buses getting their own new roads. When they arrived soon after I discovered all they did was take a lane from existing roads meaning there was less space for 95% of the traffic and a spare lane which was hardly ever used, causing jams from that day onwards wherever they are. Including buses, as most wait behind where they start while all the traffic comes to a halt moving over to the outside lane.

I have already dealt with low interest rates in my last interview, and will just remind people they help maybe a quarter of the population at best, as even the ones with mortgages pay more either when they buy their house as it will cost more, or when they sell it as the others will cost more, so they won’t save anything in the long run as everything they did will be lost through the directly connected price inflation. I will add as many as I can think of which use the single process of not accepting the wrapping on the surface but peeling it off to see the worms or worse underneath.

Credit cards are fairly definitive. The old saying, how many bankers own credit cards (answer, almost none) should speak for itself. If a retailer would not touch their own products with a bargepole (I’m guessing the same applies for the current trend of solar panels) then why would anyone else? There is no function for credit cards (the insurance they come with can be found on many other cards without borrowing money to get it), as if you have the money then you don’t need to borrow to buy things, and if you don’t then sooner or later you’ll almost certainly fall back and end up paying more interest or defaulting, and losing it all in costs. Before the first one people simply waited till they had the money before going shopping. There was and is hire purchase, which at least limits your impatience to a single item rather than an open door, and if it’s not a loan to make more money by selling a good deal on offer for a short period then you don’t need that either. That holiday or car can wait, and if you can’t afford it now then the added expenses of a car or holiday will roll up on top and you’ve already committed a hundred a month or something for three years out of the clearly little money you’ve got coming in. Why pay more for something today than save and buy it tomorrow anyway, is anything that vital for a one off, let alone a lifestyle?

Pyramid schemes, legal or not, are perfect examples of something even rich and famous actors lose thousands on, although there is only one version. The only difference is the size of the pyramid and amount put in, but a pyramid scheme of a typical 15 triangle (4,3,2,1) where four pay one and everyone else moves up means whenever the money runs out then 14 people lose for every winner. That’s the mathematical formula, so it’s the same as betting on two numbers in roulette, you’ve got a 1/18 or so chance of winning 18 times your stake, and put money in a pyramid scheme, and as all will run out of new people as each level multiplies the required number of new arrivals like rice grains on a chessboard, reaching trillions by the time you may get a payout, it’s a gamble not worth playing. Yet every new one still gets supposedly professional adults chucking their money away as they never wrote down the formula and worked out the chances of winning.

They also have some formulas which are so blatant it’s incredible most people still swallow them partly as they are too busy to look closely enough to see what’s being done. Affirmative action, otherwise known as positive discrimination, is one current policy forcing its way into the BBC and EU, making people employ 20% ethnic minorities as it represents British society, and a minimum number of female large company directors. This means they are not employing the best people for the job but forcing one out to make way for a token ethnic or female candidate, who ought to be as offended being taken on purely as they ticked a box, rather than because they would have got the job anyway. Police candidates are turned away as they’re only employing ethnic candidates till they reach their quota. How insulting is it to be ‘part of a quota’- “I got my job because I was part of a quote, but my qualifications weren’t really good enough”. That’s a real crowd pleaser isn’t it. And discrimination is pretty universal, you can’t discriminate who you discriminate against, or shouldn’t if you’ve accepted it as a principle, so as some wonk has decided Britain is 20% ethnic minorities and the BBC at least will have to reflect it, regardless of even the number of applicants, as with women directors the studies prove they simply don’t want to do it that much. But that means football and other sports ought to represent it as well. What’s that, they already do? Really? So if you were to take the entire football league and apply the BBC rule then you’d have to presumably hold back from taking on ethnic applicants till it represented society, surely if the formula is correct it must be applied equally to all? Or have I missed something?

I think the principle here is the most important thing to learn, and the examples can easily be extended to things like rationing and market manipulation, where instead of relying on a legally enforced free market, governments hold back commodities to keep prices up (since when were good prices a good idea, houses or otherwise?), or not let third world people eat or profit from their natural resources as their rulers keep it all for themselves or sell it abroad for profit, or don’t provide a system to import and distribute it? Therefore when the west ration and fiddle commodity prices as they look to the third world to imagine there can’t be enough of the basics we all need, the figures prove there was always more than enough but no one will either allow the average citizens to earn enough to buy it or even bother to sell it locally there as there’s more profit in the developed world. That is an insidious political policy which looks like they are conserving valuable resources by limiting their availability worldwide, but all they are really doing is imposing the same policies which cause third world famines and power cuts on their own people by restricting access to food, power and whatever else they say is running out at the moment, and people think they’re doing them a favour.

Equality is a related illusion. As I’ve said before, each life is equal, but every person is different and unique. So treat everyone equally but don’t expect them to run the same race without winners and losers, and as each career and life is different then few people are even in the same race, so each can win their own simply by fulfilling their potential and being persistent. Positive discrimination is one example of enforced equality, while comprehensive schools and high taxation are others, all solid socialist principles and all failing to improve the natural situation minus government interference. Try it for yourself. How many socialist politicians are millionaires, send their children to private schools and use accountants to save paying tax Tony Blair and family? Just like the credit cards, how many socialist rulers live the way they try to make you? Look some up if you don’t believe me, or read Toby Young’s story of his left wing millionaire father Lord Young spending many evenings with his millionaire socialist academic friends discussing ways to reduce the money of the wealthy while drinking expensive wine and driving home in their Rolls Royces. That’s how it works, the people promoting all these illusory policies would never apply them to themselves, who in sound mind would?

You can see this principle operate quite easily in sales pitches. Again, a good business sells things people need at a fair price, and if they do then they will thrive, as many like it do. But the many who don’t are using the same shortage mentality, as they believe there aren’t enough genuine customers for them so must create extra ones by cheating. Of course this is blatant fraud, but they do it and unless you learn the tricks they will work. Do we all need to go to what was apparently a long term legal mock auction in Oxford Street to learn how they work, or just learn from a single customer? The other scam businesses vary little, they all make claims they can’t fulfil, offer more than they can provide for less money, and inevitably you end up disappointed and down financially. Shell games are the same, all variations on the theme, if the dealer has two chances of winning and you have one mathematically then you must lose, even when they aren’t cheating as well by hiding the ball under a different shell when they lift it up.

The greatest illusion of the 21st century, despite the true performance figures being available, are wind and solar power. The industry manufacture them so know what they produce (eg most years the British farms produce 80% of their full capacity for a week a year, at 6-12 times the cost). Solar can’t convert enough watts for more than 10-15% of domestic use even in the Sahara and if anyone thinks they can store the paltry amounts they may build up on summer days when no one’s home for more than the odd night then sit down and do some sums. Not forgetting the short dark winter days when you need it the most. As for the random amounts produced by wind which can never change, combined with the maximum conversion power per turbine, is obvious they are a waste of space, money and resources. They can never improve or change as they can’t convert much more than double the current few watts, and become slightly cheaper but not compared to fossil fuel, ever. If in doubt then convert your local hospital to wind and solar and come back and tell me.

Quantitative easing, ‘putting money’ into the economy (so they tell you), is clearly an illusion, as how can the treatment for an ailing economy be providing more money which you clearly don’t have. Where exactly does this money come from, and if they’re rich enough to provide it then why is the economy in trouble? It doesn’t make sense now, does it? They call it ‘quantitative easing’ as it sounds far better than ‘currency inflation’, which is a lot closer, and simply forces up commodity prices making life more expensive for everyone except the sellers of the commodities. Who are far from the majority of course. If you even think about it for a moment, how can a government put so much real money into the economy when it needs it, because it hasn’t got it? It’s the same money of course, all they are doing is redividing the numbers to look better until it all blows up in the inevitable inflation as no more capital has ever appeared, exactly like shifting the money around in a pyramid scheme. All variations on the theme. If the government actually had the billions the papers tell you they put in the economy every year why don’t they just divide it equally and give it to each person directly? Unless and until they do then you know it’s not real money as it’s only the people who need it, not the banks and investment companies it actually goes to, and it doesn’t increase the economy as it makes everyone else poorer from low interest rates and high prices, so simply shifts the same money away from the people.

Hopefully you will get the idea from a few examples, and apply the bus lane formula to any other cheat you find in life, and spread the word. People ripping you off won’t advertise it, my last interview showed the government are actually as bad as any of the crooks, so they are at least as likely to do it and need watching for every policy. They have to make it look good, and massive corporations and governments alike have all the resources they need to provide a massive fa├žade for the hell they’ve provided behind it. The entire illusion of equality, wealth redistribution, renewables, low interest rates giving people more money (they don’t, it’s proved), are all either robbing Peter to pay Paul, putting people in positions they didn’t work for or deserve, telling you it’s raining when they’re peeing on your head, are all variations on a single theme. Taking a ripoff and making it look like it’s helping and you have to have it. Once your pocket’s been picked it’s an expensive lesson and too late to get it back, so learn the principle first and don’t let them near it.

Wednesday, 11 November 2015

PC translations into English

The 21st century has produced a slew of worthless neologisms, this is what they actually mean:

I was assigned male/female at birth - I am a boy/girl
Carbon footprint- How much can we tax you
Transition- Have your vital organs excised to collude with a mental disorder rather than treat it
Carbon trading/credits- How much can we tax you without you noticing?
Wind turbine- ugly looking machine to extract money and taxes
Islamophobia- You must tolerate diabolical behaviour from Muslims at all costs
Homophobia- You must support every act ever carried out by a homosexual at all costs
Misogyny- You must be positive about women at all costs
Sexism- You must accept women are not just as good as men but better
Equal rights- equal misery
Equality of wealth- poverty
Genderfluid- batshit crazy
Safe space- exclusion zone
Diversity- everyone not like you
Multiculturalism- everyone's welcome except your people
Challenged- disabled
Liberal- fascist
Anti-fascist- fascist
Tolerant- fascist
Sustainable- shortage
Clean energy- no energy
Solar panels- virtue signalling on your roof
Pro-Palestinian- Nazi sympathiser
Boycott- Nazi sympathiser
Zionist cabal- Jewish people
Palestinians- Arabs in Israel and around its borders
Casual racism- making a joke
Causing offence- speaking the truth in public
White privilege- Black failure
Check your privilege- Give us your money
Progressive- Luddite
Equal opportunities policy- Ethnic minorities, gays, women and the disabled come first
Nuclear free zone- Local virtue signalling
Low Emission Zone- You must pay us even more
Bus lane- half a road
Cycle lane- quarter of a road
Mini-Holland scheme- gulag
Diversity training- brainwashing
People of color (sic)- coloured people (no, I can't see the difference either)
Racial diversity- every race but white
Renewables- nothing
Green jobs- unpaid voluntary work
Green economy- third world economy
Diversity officer- thought policeman
Microaggression- I just made that one up (I wish...)

Tuesday, 4 August 2015

Blaming others

Recently I have been reading more and more about people from every group not being white and male as being somehow discriminated against, and blaming their lack of success on others, usually white straight males. Forget the successful women, ethnic people in western and other countries, disabled people (eg Stephen Hawking), homosexuals (most of the entertainment and fashion industry) etc etc. Instead they fight for 'positive' discrimination (as it discriminates for them and against presumably white males) and use terms such as 'white privilege' to excuse their own lack of success and bring in slavery as a reason, even though it is ten times less current than Nazism and has no living survivors, or many were not owned by white people or were all black anyway, but don't let history interfere with your prejudice.

In the end the definition of success is doing well through having a talent, persisting with it, and not giving up when you fail. Inevitably each complainer falls down at one of these steps, expecting it from no training or qualifications, many being barely literate, being put off by not getting jobs and blaming their race, sexuality or gender, or simply not bothering to get what they really want when they fail a few times. So yes, many have as much talent as those who do succeed, but are dragged back by such a heavy weight on their shoulders they give up as they believe no one will give them a chance for who they are, rather than what they can do. Such actions are not even legal in Europe now even if they did happen from time to time, and if you don't persist then you won't find the vast majority who do not judge someone on their personal characteristics but their ability.

Also people are different and unique. Forcing jobs to 'represent society', the latest hobby horse of the left, simply takes any powerful job and wants it to be half women and whatever percentage of races live in that area. Forget the fact the courses and jobs don't and can't specify such things (as it is illegal to discriminate) so every course and job applicant is 100% equal, even if they are deaf, blind or paralysed (unless it's as Tarzan or a driver). Imagining their personal attributes, if not those of the majority or mainstream will mean employers will simply overlook them for their more palatable peers is so paranoid one would imagine the entire world was operating apartheid, rather than outlawing it. Failure is not a reason to fail but to keep trying. Looking back on it and blaming your race, religion or gender will become, to you only, a reality, and when you interview with a bad attitude as you now assume they are looking at you as an inferior being, they will do. Not because you are but because you come across as one, a self fulfilling prophecy. Just because there was discrimination in the 20th century and is still a small part of mass culture (as in the proletariat), it is not dominant anywhere in the world except maybe the exclusively black and brown countries, where many do discriminate against the darker skinned of their own race, and millions of pots of skin bleach are sold a year as a result. There is the only real known and enforced discrimination, not with ethnic minorities but within ethnic majorities, but as they are not happening in the west they are largely not mentioned or considered despite easily being the worst current examples. Even the largely persisting Indian caste system is partly based on skin colour, with the top being the blue eyed Brahmins. No coincidence there, and not a white privilege in sight.

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

What is genuinely racist?

Since the left developed the method to repel opposition by yelling 'racism' at anyone they disagree with, here is a check list of what actually is racist and what isn't, but they label it all the same and means the real racism often gets watered down as people are made to think one type is as bad as the other.


Treating black/ethnic people badly, eg: Not employing them, not wanting to live next to them, not wanting your children to go out with one.
Calling them insulting names purely based on their race.
Racial based attacks.
Lying about the shortcomings of other races.

Not real:

Complaining about immigration.
Mentioning how few local born people are in your area now.
Making jokes about other races (including your own or by others about yours).
Using the wrong word for black people.
Having a society where everyone gets a job on their own merit and are not forced to have quotas.
Arresting black people with a genuine reason in areas of high crime.
Racial profiling.
Reporting the races of convicted criminals.
Stereotyping (if based on accurate observations).

I think this is fairly simple and easy to follow, and will add any more to the list if I think of them, but by including the lower list with the upper list paints innocent people with a dirty insult, and debases the very rare but genuine instances of genuine racism.

Thursday, 25 June 2015

How to analyse computer models of the climate

Thanks to Tom Nelson I suspect we have busted climate models to hell. He tweeted this today, which I followed up and realised this person actually appears to admit the atmosphere and related planet is as complex as the human body, something I as a total amateur stated some time ago:

Hayhoe argues that "the planet's as complex as the human body"

Now having replied to a few questions on it here was my response:

Someone just suggested as you can model the earth's atmosphere with computer programs you could model the human body and carry out tests. I'd be fascinated to see doctors using models of the human body to determine their treatments and diagnoses. Like a computerised kidney, brain or entire body. Could they do it?  You could introduce cancer cells into an organ and test virtual treatments on them. Saves lots of animals. Imagine modelling an entire circulatory system and trying treatments for leukaemia on a computer program. Of course you'd need to factor in the effects of all the organs as well but modern programs are incredible now.

Now going by the daily claims of climate modellers creating the largest and most complex system comparable to the human mind and body combined, I doubt a single one of them would either dare to take on modelling a single organ, let alone the whole body. So why the atmosphere?

QED I say, and busted.

Wednesday, 17 June 2015

The victimhood of the left

Surfing Twitter for the last week to read the often side splitting hilarious tweets about Rachel Dolezal's new transracial movement has shown me the inner workings of the mind (they only share the single one, via groupthink) of those of the left, and having been through the entire machine a single word comes out at the end, victimhood. "It's not my fault I didn't do well, it's everyone elses'".  This is the babyish immature view we can never succeed as long as others try and stop us. Forget the concepts of competition and freedom, if you are in a western country where the law itself doesn't offer special treatment to Sunnis, Shias or Brahmins as they do in the third world, if you are not a white middle class male then you may as well either chain yourself to the sink or get a McJob as they won't let you get any further. Or something.

What a load of utter steaming garbage.

In counselling one of the main journeys is self development, from blaming others to taking full responsibility. Yet for the first time in my life I've seen into the pathogenic idea (mainly in America but spreading fast elsewhere) of what they call 'white privilege'. People of all educational backgrounds, job statuses, and oddly enough races, who are part of this negative mindset, genuinely claim white people and men enjoy a status in the world above the others because there was slavery in the past, and black people overall have never done as well as white people where they live together. That is the sort of conclusion a child will make when they lose a game or do badly in an exam, blaming the wind, their health, circumstances, basically anything except their own personal responsibility for their own personal failure. I must oversimplify to make the point, but anyone with a belief in white privilege is oversimplifying themselves, so am using their own shortcuts to get to the point. Of course the incredible success of black people both in sub-Saharan Africa, where somehow nearly all the best jobs go to them, and the west where people like Oprah Winfrey, Whoopi Goldberg, Stevie Wonder, Rajendra Pauchauri (head of the UN IPCC), and now of course president Obama, if you've got it you will make it.

I have already also mentioned the blindness of exam marking. They can't see who wrote the exam they mark, deliberately so, and a caller to the radio from Africa this week said he came to England, passed two degrees and is an academic because he could. Don't listen to me, I am just the reporter, listen to those who have been there, done it and proved the naysayers wrong. Divide and rule however works very nicely, so when you find white people constantly being behind such myths, fanning the flames of hate and division you realise some of it is actually not invented by the minorities themselves, but deliberately created to cause such division to sabotage society.

But whoever created it the bottom line is it's nonsense and dangerous for anyone to fail simply because of their appearance. Exam results are not based on appearance, or comedy or musical or artistic talent. A product is not judged on the ethnicity of its inventor, nor a book or essay. Does anyone think that unless they're a paid up member of the KKK a publisher will distinguish between a piece written by a black or white person? I even hear women complain their art, music and writing has done badly as they are women, although as many have proved since, by either not revealing their gender or by actually being as good as the men, they have done just as well, like JK Rowling. If you invent an obstacle for you it exists, and you will be driving forwards with the brakes on, and carry a negative attitude which alone will put everyone off as they can pick it up. You become your own worst enemy, and create self fulfilling prophecies, looking at everyone else's success and blaming your own lack for who you are not what you do.

It breaks the first rule of counselling to blame others for your failure, and the obsolete and divisive myth of 21st century white privilege, combined with its evil cousin feminism are the worst examples of doing so and as a result tearing apart society and causing false obstacles and acting out the blame on the perceived white male perpetrators as if it really was their fault the others couldn't reach their levels. Like the original myth of Marx's class war, it has now split in three to include race and sex. And three times as dangerous and divisive as a result.