Seeing the obvious

 When a child wants to cross the road away from a zebra crossing, or share a bottle of vodka with a friend, they often dismiss the attempts of adults to tell them they'll get into trouble, find out themselves, and then learn the hard way. Adults however often never grow out of this stage, accepting any plan or policy made by those in authority and frantically defending them against challenges from elsewhere. I can think of three such examples where the ideas were presented, and to me and supposedly anyone with a three figure IQ could see they were guaranteed to disaster, and currently only one is now redundant, for the sole reason it was based on the free market so failed naturally. But my point was the idea was so foul it should never have attracted a single penny to be most certainly wasted on it. This was before anyone had mobile phones, and before the technology was publicly available. But rather than wait for it to shortly arrive, a Hong Kong firm, Hutchison Telecom, rolled out a semi-mobile phone, ie one which could only make calls, but not receive them, and then only within the small range of randomly provided aerials.

To me if you wanted a randomly provided local phone service, at a fraction of the price, we had had phone boxes for almost a century, so carrying your own handset which could only be used for outgoing calls, where there was local coverage, at many times the cost of the existing and identical in function (except if you were already there people could also call you back to save you money) was a total redundancy. Nevertheless, Hutchison, driven by nothing more than sheer childish ignorance, spent millions setting up aerials and equipment, and as anyone with the said triple digit IQ would have reasonably worked out, bombed and lost more or less everything they had.

Sadly this was a small scale and not an isolated example, in fact quite the opposite. Rather than be put off and train people to be more careful in future, outside the free market and led purely by subsidies, they then rolled out wind and solar farms, which were motivated mainly by the huge fees paid to their owners, rather than any actual performance. But the customers, not for wind as none of us were given a choice, but solar, had to have a missing link themselves. To me, windmills (besides the incredible expense) turn randomly, not when you do or don't need them, and need a constant backup for when they don't work. Again, like the Hutchison Rabbit, totally redundant. But because of said financial incentives they persist as a pyramid scheme, where the product is irrelevant, only the exchange of money. But those millions of advocates, when presented with evidence the child exclaiming the emperor is naked, refuse to accept this and somehow bypass their thinking mind to defend them at all costs, even though many also need to cut down forests to build them, and they all murder innocent birds.

Solar panels are arguably even easier to analyse. All solar panels have a maximum capacity to convert the sunlight to power. Most are currently around a half that capacity, which is only ever achieved in full sunlight and reduces gradually to zero at sunset. Therefore you can calculate exactly the maximum amount of power you will get per day every year, and how many panels need to cover the area to do so. Then the maximum is reduced by every hour of cloud. So they know exactly the most power an array, whether a farm or a house will provide. These are fairly low compared to the current cost, so in common with wind farms, massive subsidies are offered to keep the cost low, and then to pay owners for power generated when they are out at work or away. Without these incentives they have little genuine function, as the possible 20 years they may last may never pay back the thousands of pounds spent on buying them, as you can do this sum before you decide to buy them. But those, in comparison with the basic fact, are minor issues, as of course the more you need power the less the sun provides, in direct proportion. As all energy warming up our planet ultimately comes from the sun, then relying on the sun when the sun isn't there much or at all is clearly the least reliable method of providing power, yet they keep doing it.

But the best has been saved for last. Imagine a typical local car journey. A few miles, stopping at the end and maybe once or twice on the way. Even if you only plan a route from A to B, supposing a friend waves you down, or you see a shop open with a parking space so you can pick up something you need. Nothing special, just a normal day. Now imagine doing this journey in a car with no steering wheel or pedals. When you leave you put in the destination and it just takes you there. Well yes, if a) There is no other traffic on the way and b) If you don't change your plans on the way. The other traffic is supposed to be controlled by sensors, which in theory is possible, so say an animal runs into the road it sees it as soon as you would and has been programmed to take appropriate action. Or a car cuts you up. I expect with an infinite number of sensors it could just about react to hazards as a human being. It remains to be tested. But if you change your plans, how will it know where there are parking restrictions or not, when and where it is safe to cross the road for a parking space, how to tell the car you want to stop in time as it's not in the program, and if your plan is like mine, to drive 200 miles in a day and take photos wherever you get a chance and is safe to do so you can repeat this process a few hundred times over. I'll be driving along a dual carriageway at 70 and see a layby ahead and decided to stop to take photos, or maybe not at the next one as I'd been there before. How much notice should I tell the car to stop, and can I really rely on it to pull out into the traffic when I move off which is three lanes of 70mph vehicles a human eye can't usually miss day or night, including motorcycles?

But self-driving cars are said to be months or at most a few years away. Unlike the first three examples, if it all goes tits up this time people can say I told you so. I give the trials on public roads an hour maximum.

Climate change doesn't add up

 

You do not need to be a climate scientist to understand the climate.

 

You do not need to be a scientist to understand the climate.

 

You only need to be able to add up.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The UN said sea level could rise 2 feet by 2100. James Hansen of NASA said over 10 feet. The rate at the time was under a foot a century.

 

The UN official projection has temperatures increasing by 1.5-6C by 2100.

 

Every past warm period in human history was called a climate optimum as everything thrived, while there were mass starvations and extinctions during the ice ages. Yet they tell us more warming will be a disaster.

 

Every 100,000 years is a short interglacial spike in temperature which we are currently experiencing, but this one is blamed on CO2 while the others were natural.

 

NASA changed their world temperatures over a decade after they'd first measured them.

 

The UN erased hundreds of years of medieval warming overnight.

 

Trees absorb CO2 and give off oxygen, yet businesses are cutting down forests for wind and solar farms.

 

Errors should always tend to zero as over and under-estimates ought to cancel out. Temperature measurements over land have always risen when corrected, although most were to correct for urban heat islands where thermometers are often located, This diagram was the compound of all local alterations which were nearly all the same as this.

 

Activists tell us many coastal areas will soon be under water, yet businesses still build housing developments there and are bought by millionaires who say they will soon be under water.

 

Why did the temperatures fall consistently between 1940-1970 while CO2 was rising? Or show no relationship whatsoever with CO2 across history?

 

CO2 has always risen after warming, apparently until we made it cause warming. Except the diagram says it still rises after warming.

 

Every decade when they said the Arctic would be ice free and it isn't they set it back another decade.

 

It was called global warming, yet the southern hemisphere is generally cooling.

 https://phys.org/news/2020-05-trend-cooling-southern-ocean.html

The Arctic however seems to be holding its own although they keep saying it will be ice free.

Warming is supposed to cause deserts to expand, yet they are actually shrinking as CO2 is making plants grow more widely.

 

Although warming is supposed to cause more hurricanes and other extreme events they haven't shown any increase since it began recent warming.

 

Warming makes oceans evaporate, which can either form humidity (warming) or clouds (cooling). It is currently impossible to know, but we are told it will cause warming anyway.

 

Although sea level on average has risen a foot since 1850, most photos of coastal areas haven't shown any change from old photos to the present.

 

All activists tell us warming will cause more extreme weather, although the UN itself says it doesn't.

 

Although wildfires are not even increasing, they are now blamed on 'climate change', despite being proved to be caused mainly by not clearing fire breaks.

 

There is no trend in floods or droughts either.

Many planets in the solar system are also warming, yet ours is uniquely blamed on mankind.

 

It doesn’t add up

 

 

Consequences of leftist policies

The left are the experts in presentation. Everything they do is in the name of ideals such as equality, fairness and inclusivity. But when they actually get into power whatever they say they are doing ends up in actual consequences which simply cause suffering. I have made a list here of what actually happens in society when these policies are actually carried out.

1) Travel restrictions. Like the Soviets, the first thing leftists do when gaining power is make it difficult for ordinary citizens to move around freely. Whatever the alleged cause ('safety', 'climate change' etc.), all they actually do is restrict movement for everyone and cause huge delays, and make it more expensive to do so through:

a) Road narrowing, humps and closures
b) Division of exisiting roads into bus and cycle lanes, which are usually very rarely actually used
c) Bans on certain types of car
d) Additional charges to drive in specific areas
e) Increases in fuel taxes, which make everything more expensive and hurt the poor the most.
f) Low speed limits, all they do is make people drive below the natural speed, check their speedometers constantly, and run cars which are not designed to be driven in low gears. They also show it has no effect at all on deaths and injuries as proved in Bristol who carried out a full scale test.

2) Liberal or unlimited immigration, causing

a) Overcrowding
b) Pressure on services such as surgeries and hospitals
c) Language difficulties, especially in communication by professionals such as doctors and nurses who can't understand their patients and may give the wrong treatment, and schools where teachers are forced to teach classes where hardly anyone speaks English
d) A glut of cheap unskilled labour
e) Few checks on criminals who continue their criminality in their new countries.
f) Almost impossible to build houses and find more land to do so to accommodate them.
g) Impossible to carry out long term economic plans as no one knows how many people will be here.

3) High taxation. This means

a) Once you earn more than a certain amount, often anything above the average salary, it is not really worth earning any more as you may only keep half of it or less.
b) People who do earn more leave the country
c) There is little incentive to start a business or career knowing you will not be able to keep the fruit of your labours
d) You will no longer be able to pass money on to your children as inheritance

4) Equality and diversity. These are tied up in immigration and high taxes, but also mean:

a) Minority groups hold disproportionate amounts of power
b) Family values are eroded at the cause of alternatives.
c) People are refused work and educational positions to make way for minorities
d) Laws are made to protect minorities at the expense of the majority who have to make allowances for religions and cultures with no connections to their own.

5) Energy policies. Climate change management has simply made life tougher for everyone except those companies who sell 'renewables' (these are normally the alleged 'big oil' and 'fossil fuel' companies they pretend oppose this, while in fact they are the same companies who simply provide energy in any ways which create a profit).

a) All energy prices rise (the Kyoto Protocol stated energy usage must be reduced), making the poor pay the most in proportion.
b) Thousands more people a year have died of cold as a direct result of this in Britain alone
c) Business have closed down when their vehicles have been banned and they can't afford to replace them.
d) Wind and solar panels use expensive foreign resources, last under 20 years, and are almost impossible to recycle.
e) Electric cars use batteries which run down over a period of years until the car needs a new one which costs many thousands of pounds. They are not free to run, owners pay for electricity and can never guarantee they will have a charging point when they need to recharge.

6) Economics. The mechanisms the left view as being behind economics mean people who make money simply take it from somewhere or someone else in the economy. Growth is not understood, or the concept of wealth creation or adding value, so they have policies which make these things very difficult.

a) As soon as people earn 'too much' it is returned to society.
b) Businesses doing well are seen as stealing this money, removing it from the economy, and not deserving of the wealth so have it removed.
c) Manipulating the market to allow failing businesses, products and individuals they approve of to do well.

7) Sociology. The left believe we are moulded by our environment, so treats humans as the same at birth with only their surroundings responsible for their differences. This means:

a) They will always try and force people unsuitable for educational and career positions into them, often preventing those actually suitable from taking up those places.
b) They fight any selective education, as they believe anyone can earn a PhD given the same conditions.
c) Rather than allow people to choose their own careers, set policies to direct everyone into the same areas on a quota basis.
d) Because society refuses to become equal voluntarily, carry out constant policies of social engineering to pay people to take up courses, change marking to favour disadvantaged groups, and force unsuitable people into positions they would never have managed under a free market.


---------------------------------

Ultimately leftism is based on an ideology, and one which when it does not correspond with society, simply tries to force society to fit it rather than accept that it is wrong. This must be recognised, rejected and stopped at all costs.