Following a twitterati reply 'There is no debate' yet again, I must provide a short climate summary.
The global warming theory arose in the 80s in its current form, and like now relied 100% on amplification of the 1C from a doubling of CO2 as that alone was totally harmless. With 25 years or so of observations it has been very easy to see the results of a 50% rise, and do not support amplification as the temperatures have risen far less than 1C meaning they cannot reach 2C or more when it rises the remaining 50%.
Two major errors were present from day one. Firstly they assumed positive feedback (amplification) even though it had never been observed in nature, and secondly the models they used to create the projections couldn't include the major negative feedbacks, ie cloud cover and aerosol dust. 25 years later the temperatures predicted by the models are all above reality, which was virtually inevitable if it wasn't possible to factor in the cooling influences. But satellites show an increase in cloud cover so by direct observation it is the most powerful feedback from the little oceanic evaporation added, and also the added CO2 was found to displace water vapour where it counted, which is also a coolant effect.
Therefore even if they find global warming does come back in 10, 20 or 30 year's time as some are trying to claim, firstly the only certainties are what we have already observed, and secondly it is not reliable to trust unknown futures at a distant later date. Even if temperatures rose again it would be certain natural causes reduce it and mean the overall average rise could never catch up to meet 2C or more by 2100, and there was no delay expected for the amplification so if it hasn't happened now there is no known physical process to hold it back.
But of course they're all certain and nothing anyone can observe is relevant, is it?
Friday, 27 December 2013
Wednesday, 25 December 2013
Proof Britain's economy has gone down the toilet
How can anyone prove an economy has gone down the toilet without some kind of massive reduction in spending power, huge inflation and a vast crash in the standard of living? Well of course they can't, but as these are exactly what I am demonstrating then unfortunately it is 100% certain in the last 50 years Britain's economy has totally bombed, and is now maybe a quarter of the average standard of living than we had in the 60s. Here are just three reasons which between them are sufficient to prove whatever people tell you we are sunk and sinking even faster.
1) Housewives. Yes, back when I was at school most women stayed at home and looked after the family. Not because they were discriminated against, but because a house was so cheap a man could normally pay for it with one income, and the woman did not have to work if she did not want to. And like most lottery winners and aristocracy, they simply chose not to.
In the 70s people gradually started finding it harder and harder, for whatever complex economic reasons, to buy a house, and as a result women in partnerships started having to work, despite the fact if they had young children it costs almost as much to have them cared for by other people than the woman actually earned, but that small sliver of profit (unless they were a professional) was still just enough to own their own property. This trend has increased and house prices still reach record highs compared to average income, going from around three to double figures in some places. This is the largest item anyone will ever buy, and if that is more expensive then there will be less left for everything else, ie relative poverty.
2) University fees. Until Tony Blair not only could anyone go to university who was capable, they also got a universal grant, rising for low incomes. Now it costs around £9,000 a year and rising, loaned or not. Why can't we afford free degrees (no, not the girl band) for all?
3) Free car parking. In the 60s apart from a few city centres and car parks you could park anywhere legal for nothing. Now if there are two shops or more in one place you usually can't. This money goes towards council budgets. Before the 80s they could all manage without charging residents and visitors to park. Now they say they can't. That means they do not have enough money.
To be balanced, of course some things are cheaper. Not many though, and certainly not enough to cover the major slice of income for 25 years on average to buy a house (while rents of course increase proportionally so makes no difference what you do). The few beneficiaries include electrical goods (how often do you buy a TV?), simply as technology has improved over time from valves to simple chips which use far fewer resources. But I'm struggling to think of anything else. Meanwhile energy and water costs are phenomenal, car insurance up five times as house insurance, public transport fares the highest in the world, and hardly any public toilets. The few random areas which have gone down are hardly able to even tilt the balance with such a heavy burden of all round price rises. Supertax up to 97% was indeed abolished, but was always a political policy as after around 50% any higher income tax reduces the total take as people leave, work less or find ways to avoid paying.
You would need a team of economists to explain these phenomena, but a few simple known reasons are the rise in population without more space, making land proportionally more expensive as more people are competing for the same amount, spilling over into energy costs as more people need new infrastructure which has to be paid for, and then increases demand, doing the same thing. Since dropping the gold standard average incomes have barely risen compared to inflation here or in America, so the speculators have taken that out of the economy for themselves. But other than those two major factors, the bottom line is so weak it is like reading the vital signs of a fit healthy young person who is now almost dying of malnutrition. It is not about which parties created these disasters as each replacement made things even worse, but what to do to get it back to how it could be, and none of them in power now or before will ever do that based on their current record.
1) Housewives. Yes, back when I was at school most women stayed at home and looked after the family. Not because they were discriminated against, but because a house was so cheap a man could normally pay for it with one income, and the woman did not have to work if she did not want to. And like most lottery winners and aristocracy, they simply chose not to.
In the 70s people gradually started finding it harder and harder, for whatever complex economic reasons, to buy a house, and as a result women in partnerships started having to work, despite the fact if they had young children it costs almost as much to have them cared for by other people than the woman actually earned, but that small sliver of profit (unless they were a professional) was still just enough to own their own property. This trend has increased and house prices still reach record highs compared to average income, going from around three to double figures in some places. This is the largest item anyone will ever buy, and if that is more expensive then there will be less left for everything else, ie relative poverty.
2) University fees. Until Tony Blair not only could anyone go to university who was capable, they also got a universal grant, rising for low incomes. Now it costs around £9,000 a year and rising, loaned or not. Why can't we afford free degrees (no, not the girl band) for all?
3) Free car parking. In the 60s apart from a few city centres and car parks you could park anywhere legal for nothing. Now if there are two shops or more in one place you usually can't. This money goes towards council budgets. Before the 80s they could all manage without charging residents and visitors to park. Now they say they can't. That means they do not have enough money.
To be balanced, of course some things are cheaper. Not many though, and certainly not enough to cover the major slice of income for 25 years on average to buy a house (while rents of course increase proportionally so makes no difference what you do). The few beneficiaries include electrical goods (how often do you buy a TV?), simply as technology has improved over time from valves to simple chips which use far fewer resources. But I'm struggling to think of anything else. Meanwhile energy and water costs are phenomenal, car insurance up five times as house insurance, public transport fares the highest in the world, and hardly any public toilets. The few random areas which have gone down are hardly able to even tilt the balance with such a heavy burden of all round price rises. Supertax up to 97% was indeed abolished, but was always a political policy as after around 50% any higher income tax reduces the total take as people leave, work less or find ways to avoid paying.
You would need a team of economists to explain these phenomena, but a few simple known reasons are the rise in population without more space, making land proportionally more expensive as more people are competing for the same amount, spilling over into energy costs as more people need new infrastructure which has to be paid for, and then increases demand, doing the same thing. Since dropping the gold standard average incomes have barely risen compared to inflation here or in America, so the speculators have taken that out of the economy for themselves. But other than those two major factors, the bottom line is so weak it is like reading the vital signs of a fit healthy young person who is now almost dying of malnutrition. It is not about which parties created these disasters as each replacement made things even worse, but what to do to get it back to how it could be, and none of them in power now or before will ever do that based on their current record.
Friday, 20 December 2013
How the process developed
It occurred to me it may be useful to describe the process I went through to discover all the information I now share here, also as it may help others follow a similar route and work out many events they have seen can all be connected and put together as a big picture.
I began as a student at school, studying sociology, civics, all the areas politics are involved, as well as being a great supporter of Tory policies except a total antipathy to the then Common Market, which I saw as a simple attempt at building an empire gradually, which is exactly what happened since then and continues inexorably into the future. The number of left wingers who basically claimed comfortable middle class people had no right to their privileges, and would campaign all they could to get them taken away, as if there was only so much and if some had more than others it was taking it away from everyone else. Many also claimed intelligence was not something you were born with, but was available to everyone as if each person was born to a society where they could amass IQ points just the way they amassed wealth in a free society (but not the one they wanted). I had never had my basic foundations of life challenged before, and being 16 was as undiplomatic and unsubtle as it was possible to be, including my opinions on racial differences right out in class in front of everyone. I was not embarrassed about my views so why would I hide them? (see a pattern forming here?).
Gradually of course I grew up and moderated my presentation, although the actual material was not any more than my personal observations. A law degree followed, where I learned the rules of legal process and evidence, law making and criminology. I saw how each study claimed it knew it all in the theoretical side, but in fact most provided one accurate (except for the far left ones attacking free society through ideology) piece of the whole picture, and when I did my marks doubled. Then I studied counselling and psychotherapy, and went out and became part of the real world. I shifted into the supernatural interests which was my pursuit of pleasure, but never happy with infringements on our freedom from what was then the EU and the injustices from vastly rising house prices and the effects of large scale immigration on limited resources.
I was not particularly focused on politics though, just aware of the worst elements but managing regardless, getting on with my own life and business and allowing others to do the same thing. If no one's hurting me why should I be concerned with their actions? I think the turning point came when I learnt about global warming around the 90s, and all it was to me was an interesting disaster theory claiming the temperature and consequently sea level would rise and turn the planet into a totally different place. I wasn't scared, more fascinated, although till then every single similar claim by professionals and amateurs alike never happened. Not once, ever. But the formula seemed basic and could be watched from time to time to see how it was getting on. No more than that. A few years passed and back then they only published the high end guesses, yards of sea level and a good few degrees of centigrade rise. But then nothing seemed to happen. That CO2 kept on rising, but the climate trends seemed to be levelling off. By then I had the internet and started looking up data myself to see why the difference between the claims and the results were so wide.
What I discovered kicked off my legal mind, and started building a case, like my barrister parents, with everything on each side and then comparing them for a verdict, ie judge, jury and both counsels. It didn't actually take me very long to complete the mission, as a judge who kicks out a case through lack of evidence, the jury have no need to assess it as there is not enough evidence to consider to gain a guilty verdict, ie mankind is guilty, after a full and fair trial, beyond reasonable doubt. But since then my natural response was to tell as many people I could what I'd discovered, as the taxes and restrictions across the developed world were destroying the economy for absolutely no reason. Looking for more evidence to convince (it still doesn't, except long term face to face work on an individual basis) I then discovered the interconnected plans and network creating this illusion, basically to create the taxes and restrictions no one would accept otherwise.
I then completed the circle, as the very destroyers I came across in the 70s, the anti-Semitic (sorry, anti Israel), envious, nihilistic babies were now the very people working for the creators of global warming in the name of rebuilding western society. Until global warming was invented their views were on the fringe and as I did so much earlier were universally rejected and condemned by ordinary people. Now their wishes are mainstream and even though the followers genuinely believe in this as they are not scientifically qualified, the leaders are and know perfectly well CO2 is almost totally unable to raise the temperature by more than a degree or so as it reduces its power with volume, eventually reverting to null, ie no longer able to cause any additional warming. I was not fighting the global warming scam, but a scam to allow the very people who wanted to destroy everything I valued in society and replace it with a Maoist-Stalinist collective slavery worldwide.
I then learnt the methods and philosophies behind them, saw how each organisation worked together and how they kept out the public, and completed the entire picture from their leader, David Rockefeller, downwards, and admitting exactly what they were doing online and in print on numerous occasions removed any doubts that was what they were doing by admission rather than implication. I learnt the tricks they used to con people, the ones described in full by Goebbels who created the modern methods of propaganda, and divide and rule. Now whenever a politician speaks I know if they're with us or against us, as you simply can't speak a foreign language (Carbonspeak) without being foreign. No one else uses such terms as 'carbon footprint', 'clean energy', 'sustainability' etc, as they don't mean anything really, so why would anyone normal use a term which was only created to manipulate the weak minded? Then finally after sharing my findings for years online, with a small band of followers, 95% of whom had worked this out already and just had help with some details, Russell Brand's call for a revolution and Anthony Davis's appeal to London on LBC Radio what would we do for one, I decided to put every single thing I'd learnt down in one place and use pyramid marketing to spread it. That is where a pyramid scheme works, as if you tell someone a piece of information you are doubling it, and if each person then tells another it keeps on doubling till enough people know to break the system just by being able to see through it.
Nothing is complicated. Magicians divert your attention and lie to you, but you have paid to see it and know it's an illusion. The same tricks can and are used to steal your money and rights, like the three card trick and mock auctions, and these slimeballs simply do it on an international organised basis, running the world exactly like the Mafia, and applying protection rackets and threats in no more a sophisticated way than in 1920s Chicago. I am telling you as someone who simply observed the tricks and worked out how they were done, and then tried and tested them and read quite a few descriptions from the tricksters themselves to confirm I had indeed seen exactly what they were doing. But being the minority, and with authority being the bluntest weapon they use, the messages are void unless either presented from someone with the same level of authority, or spread in such volume enough people see through the tricks to no longer be fooled by them.
Global warming just represents the worst ever example in human history. No other scandal has ever been on such a scale, and as a single world government and carbon currency is the ultimate aim (all in UN documents and actually printed in The Guardian of all places, considering they support it) it has to be the greatest scandal in history. But take it away and we still have banker's corporate fascism, market manipulation, educational fraud etc which are independent of the entire scam, but these are all very simple old-fashioned skimming and cheating exercises only possible when the governments work for the corporations at the expense of their subjects, much like the current fear in the City of London bankers and brokers the economy is recovering, as they only do really well when it isn't as otherwise they have to work and take risks to earn it just like everyone else. They all buy into global warming as if you're not in you're out of everything, and the system would spit out any company speaking out against it as that is the only voice allowed by virtually every government in the world under UN diktat.
Add to this the old-fashioned leftist restrictions on freedom of speech, attacks on civilised society- the nuclear family, morals, education, pretty much everything which allowed us to become some of the strongest countries in the 20th century, only to lose it a decade or to after. These destroyers want to take away everything from a free society, partly through envy and partly through fear, combined with a failure to mature and still believe the childish Utopian views everything can be fixed the way they think it should be. One thing they all have in common is they can or do not look beneath the surface, so if house prices go up they feel rich. Tell them instead of looking at what they're selling why not look at what they're buying, as like shares their house is not worth anything until they sell it, and unlike shares they need to replace it with another as they can't live in a house of money. Suddenly they discover if the house they may want to buy when they move costs so much they can no longer afford it, and the more their own rises the fewer they can afford as they have gone up more, the secondary level of knowledge becomes apparent to them. Just like claims ice is melting despite the temperature rise not being enough to melt anything.
Scratching and looking beneath the surface of others' claims is the most simple and useful method in disarming the tricksters. They know how to misrepresent, make generalities, and lie under their authority as experts. Professional and intelligent does not mean good, goodness is evenly distributed among every single person, and to throw in an aside as people with Down's Syndrome have a different chromosomal makeup, appears to be almost universal among them whatever their backgrounds. Therefore given a test and a representative sample maybe you could find the good-evil spectrum is mainly genetic, as I have never come across anyone with Down's with a bad bone in them. But otherwise the bell shaped curve of most being in the middle with a few at either extreme applies, and given the power in brains and energy in evilness the combination is deadly. Use that intelligence to lie and cheat, knowing perfectly well the great majority of society aren't as bright as you are and will believe you, especially if you work as a well-oiled team (Mafia), the sky's the limit.
So, my mission and yours as you're reading this is to shine the light of simple testable truths into the mist of confusion all around us. You will be insulted, vilified, and hear names you didn't think people could imagine, but you'll have one edge over everyone else, you are doing the right thing. The key to unlocking everything.
I began as a student at school, studying sociology, civics, all the areas politics are involved, as well as being a great supporter of Tory policies except a total antipathy to the then Common Market, which I saw as a simple attempt at building an empire gradually, which is exactly what happened since then and continues inexorably into the future. The number of left wingers who basically claimed comfortable middle class people had no right to their privileges, and would campaign all they could to get them taken away, as if there was only so much and if some had more than others it was taking it away from everyone else. Many also claimed intelligence was not something you were born with, but was available to everyone as if each person was born to a society where they could amass IQ points just the way they amassed wealth in a free society (but not the one they wanted). I had never had my basic foundations of life challenged before, and being 16 was as undiplomatic and unsubtle as it was possible to be, including my opinions on racial differences right out in class in front of everyone. I was not embarrassed about my views so why would I hide them? (see a pattern forming here?).
Gradually of course I grew up and moderated my presentation, although the actual material was not any more than my personal observations. A law degree followed, where I learned the rules of legal process and evidence, law making and criminology. I saw how each study claimed it knew it all in the theoretical side, but in fact most provided one accurate (except for the far left ones attacking free society through ideology) piece of the whole picture, and when I did my marks doubled. Then I studied counselling and psychotherapy, and went out and became part of the real world. I shifted into the supernatural interests which was my pursuit of pleasure, but never happy with infringements on our freedom from what was then the EU and the injustices from vastly rising house prices and the effects of large scale immigration on limited resources.
I was not particularly focused on politics though, just aware of the worst elements but managing regardless, getting on with my own life and business and allowing others to do the same thing. If no one's hurting me why should I be concerned with their actions? I think the turning point came when I learnt about global warming around the 90s, and all it was to me was an interesting disaster theory claiming the temperature and consequently sea level would rise and turn the planet into a totally different place. I wasn't scared, more fascinated, although till then every single similar claim by professionals and amateurs alike never happened. Not once, ever. But the formula seemed basic and could be watched from time to time to see how it was getting on. No more than that. A few years passed and back then they only published the high end guesses, yards of sea level and a good few degrees of centigrade rise. But then nothing seemed to happen. That CO2 kept on rising, but the climate trends seemed to be levelling off. By then I had the internet and started looking up data myself to see why the difference between the claims and the results were so wide.
What I discovered kicked off my legal mind, and started building a case, like my barrister parents, with everything on each side and then comparing them for a verdict, ie judge, jury and both counsels. It didn't actually take me very long to complete the mission, as a judge who kicks out a case through lack of evidence, the jury have no need to assess it as there is not enough evidence to consider to gain a guilty verdict, ie mankind is guilty, after a full and fair trial, beyond reasonable doubt. But since then my natural response was to tell as many people I could what I'd discovered, as the taxes and restrictions across the developed world were destroying the economy for absolutely no reason. Looking for more evidence to convince (it still doesn't, except long term face to face work on an individual basis) I then discovered the interconnected plans and network creating this illusion, basically to create the taxes and restrictions no one would accept otherwise.
I then completed the circle, as the very destroyers I came across in the 70s, the anti-Semitic (sorry, anti Israel), envious, nihilistic babies were now the very people working for the creators of global warming in the name of rebuilding western society. Until global warming was invented their views were on the fringe and as I did so much earlier were universally rejected and condemned by ordinary people. Now their wishes are mainstream and even though the followers genuinely believe in this as they are not scientifically qualified, the leaders are and know perfectly well CO2 is almost totally unable to raise the temperature by more than a degree or so as it reduces its power with volume, eventually reverting to null, ie no longer able to cause any additional warming. I was not fighting the global warming scam, but a scam to allow the very people who wanted to destroy everything I valued in society and replace it with a Maoist-Stalinist collective slavery worldwide.
I then learnt the methods and philosophies behind them, saw how each organisation worked together and how they kept out the public, and completed the entire picture from their leader, David Rockefeller, downwards, and admitting exactly what they were doing online and in print on numerous occasions removed any doubts that was what they were doing by admission rather than implication. I learnt the tricks they used to con people, the ones described in full by Goebbels who created the modern methods of propaganda, and divide and rule. Now whenever a politician speaks I know if they're with us or against us, as you simply can't speak a foreign language (Carbonspeak) without being foreign. No one else uses such terms as 'carbon footprint', 'clean energy', 'sustainability' etc, as they don't mean anything really, so why would anyone normal use a term which was only created to manipulate the weak minded? Then finally after sharing my findings for years online, with a small band of followers, 95% of whom had worked this out already and just had help with some details, Russell Brand's call for a revolution and Anthony Davis's appeal to London on LBC Radio what would we do for one, I decided to put every single thing I'd learnt down in one place and use pyramid marketing to spread it. That is where a pyramid scheme works, as if you tell someone a piece of information you are doubling it, and if each person then tells another it keeps on doubling till enough people know to break the system just by being able to see through it.
Nothing is complicated. Magicians divert your attention and lie to you, but you have paid to see it and know it's an illusion. The same tricks can and are used to steal your money and rights, like the three card trick and mock auctions, and these slimeballs simply do it on an international organised basis, running the world exactly like the Mafia, and applying protection rackets and threats in no more a sophisticated way than in 1920s Chicago. I am telling you as someone who simply observed the tricks and worked out how they were done, and then tried and tested them and read quite a few descriptions from the tricksters themselves to confirm I had indeed seen exactly what they were doing. But being the minority, and with authority being the bluntest weapon they use, the messages are void unless either presented from someone with the same level of authority, or spread in such volume enough people see through the tricks to no longer be fooled by them.
Global warming just represents the worst ever example in human history. No other scandal has ever been on such a scale, and as a single world government and carbon currency is the ultimate aim (all in UN documents and actually printed in The Guardian of all places, considering they support it) it has to be the greatest scandal in history. But take it away and we still have banker's corporate fascism, market manipulation, educational fraud etc which are independent of the entire scam, but these are all very simple old-fashioned skimming and cheating exercises only possible when the governments work for the corporations at the expense of their subjects, much like the current fear in the City of London bankers and brokers the economy is recovering, as they only do really well when it isn't as otherwise they have to work and take risks to earn it just like everyone else. They all buy into global warming as if you're not in you're out of everything, and the system would spit out any company speaking out against it as that is the only voice allowed by virtually every government in the world under UN diktat.
Add to this the old-fashioned leftist restrictions on freedom of speech, attacks on civilised society- the nuclear family, morals, education, pretty much everything which allowed us to become some of the strongest countries in the 20th century, only to lose it a decade or to after. These destroyers want to take away everything from a free society, partly through envy and partly through fear, combined with a failure to mature and still believe the childish Utopian views everything can be fixed the way they think it should be. One thing they all have in common is they can or do not look beneath the surface, so if house prices go up they feel rich. Tell them instead of looking at what they're selling why not look at what they're buying, as like shares their house is not worth anything until they sell it, and unlike shares they need to replace it with another as they can't live in a house of money. Suddenly they discover if the house they may want to buy when they move costs so much they can no longer afford it, and the more their own rises the fewer they can afford as they have gone up more, the secondary level of knowledge becomes apparent to them. Just like claims ice is melting despite the temperature rise not being enough to melt anything.
Scratching and looking beneath the surface of others' claims is the most simple and useful method in disarming the tricksters. They know how to misrepresent, make generalities, and lie under their authority as experts. Professional and intelligent does not mean good, goodness is evenly distributed among every single person, and to throw in an aside as people with Down's Syndrome have a different chromosomal makeup, appears to be almost universal among them whatever their backgrounds. Therefore given a test and a representative sample maybe you could find the good-evil spectrum is mainly genetic, as I have never come across anyone with Down's with a bad bone in them. But otherwise the bell shaped curve of most being in the middle with a few at either extreme applies, and given the power in brains and energy in evilness the combination is deadly. Use that intelligence to lie and cheat, knowing perfectly well the great majority of society aren't as bright as you are and will believe you, especially if you work as a well-oiled team (Mafia), the sky's the limit.
So, my mission and yours as you're reading this is to shine the light of simple testable truths into the mist of confusion all around us. You will be insulted, vilified, and hear names you didn't think people could imagine, but you'll have one edge over everyone else, you are doing the right thing. The key to unlocking everything.
Thursday, 19 December 2013
Divide and rule
Machiavelli, Goebbels, Bernays, all the great leaders of men who could manipulate minds and hearts, Sun Myung Moon, L. Ron Hubbard, they all used the same methods which isolate individuals from the good influences of friends and family, leave them alone and offer to replace them.
Up till teenage the influence of the parents dominates the lives of children. Until a certain age most believe their parents know everything, and become shocked when they discover the first question they could not answer. Gradually children become more self sufficient, but the family normally always exerts the most influence, especially in politics and religion which tend to be as much from the environment they grew up with than making their individual minds up.
So, as the Jesuits (who I now hear are on board this current campaign as well) say, start them young and own them. Basically. The national school curriculum has global warming on it, and teachers who have added the doubts have at least on one occasion been reported and threatened with the sack for not sticking to the message. I imagine holocaust denial would get much less of a reaction from the authorities as trying to derail the greatest ever campaign to own an entire generation's minds.
The first element of the simple version for schools is the carbon footprint. Despite only producing a few percent of the total, they simply measure the meagre amount man releases and tell the poor innocent children who trust every single word the teachers tell them (like Jews are pigs and dogs in Arab schools, what chance do they ever stand?) everyone must reduce their carbon footprints. But they can't as they aren't in charge of the household activities, so they must tell their parents to. No different from a vicious wife lying about her ex husband to stop the children wanting to see him, the authorities are getting the children to rat on their own parents for something which is directly related to their own welfare. Any parents who then turn down the heating and go on fewer holidays, as no doubt many will, are threatening their children's health at home and spoiling the quality of their lives by following the classic Soviet move of restricting travel. This is no different to any cult or tyrannical regime. Even if global warming was real (we'll never know so forget about it, we'll all be long gone before the definitive answer emerges) is it ever justified to set children against their parents as the dangerous enemy to save any consequences? I would say using basic morals not.
Up till teenage the influence of the parents dominates the lives of children. Until a certain age most believe their parents know everything, and become shocked when they discover the first question they could not answer. Gradually children become more self sufficient, but the family normally always exerts the most influence, especially in politics and religion which tend to be as much from the environment they grew up with than making their individual minds up.
So, as the Jesuits (who I now hear are on board this current campaign as well) say, start them young and own them. Basically. The national school curriculum has global warming on it, and teachers who have added the doubts have at least on one occasion been reported and threatened with the sack for not sticking to the message. I imagine holocaust denial would get much less of a reaction from the authorities as trying to derail the greatest ever campaign to own an entire generation's minds.
The first element of the simple version for schools is the carbon footprint. Despite only producing a few percent of the total, they simply measure the meagre amount man releases and tell the poor innocent children who trust every single word the teachers tell them (like Jews are pigs and dogs in Arab schools, what chance do they ever stand?) everyone must reduce their carbon footprints. But they can't as they aren't in charge of the household activities, so they must tell their parents to. No different from a vicious wife lying about her ex husband to stop the children wanting to see him, the authorities are getting the children to rat on their own parents for something which is directly related to their own welfare. Any parents who then turn down the heating and go on fewer holidays, as no doubt many will, are threatening their children's health at home and spoiling the quality of their lives by following the classic Soviet move of restricting travel. This is no different to any cult or tyrannical regime. Even if global warming was real (we'll never know so forget about it, we'll all be long gone before the definitive answer emerges) is it ever justified to set children against their parents as the dangerous enemy to save any consequences? I would say using basic morals not.
Monday, 16 December 2013
Looking for trouble
Technically a pathogenic branch of confirmation bias, when science and public mental health overlap, and led by rent-seeking third rate hacks suddenly propelled to the media and government realms, if there is any mission involved to collect money and power then every event within that mission must be consistent with the message.
Therefore, despite even the great god UN itself stating every few years 'You cannot attribute individual events to global warming', the slew of papers released every day and collected by Greenpeace and governments alike almost all do just that. From weather conditions, ie warmer than usual, wetter than usual, dryer than usual and windier than usual, to local conditions, ice melts and drying lakes etc, these are secondary results of not just global warming, but firstly need to be large scale and long term (ie raising the world annual average minimum) and secondly need serious warming to happen, ie above 2C, not 0.7C, which is not detectable.
They take the heresy of induction, generalising from the particular, combine it with hypocrisy, don't use weather (unless we need to), and roll it into a taco made of insincerity by moaning when it's colder and snowing more both wide scale and longer term, it's actually caused by warming, and when it isn't getting warmer (honestly) the heat is 'missing' somewhere.
Think about all these examples. They share one thing in common. If you watch any interview with a guilty criminal (ie caught red handed on video) in reality or even in fiction, the way they manoeuvre against the questions from outright denial 'It wasn't me' to confusion 'I can't remember' to diversion 'I saw who did it', and if the interviewer is able, a final confession once confronted with all the evidence collected catching them red handed. All they did was waste everyone's time and the likelihood of such a routine when your car is not on the insurance database and they filmed you jumping a red light is almost enough not to even bother interviewing these scrotes at all and simply setting a court date and reading it out to the magistrates without them even needing to attend.
The only difference is we know what they've done so can pee ourselves laughing when the creep who dropped a bag of drugs or stolen goods behind a fence and then says he didn't, despite being covered with their fingerprints and filmed from above, rather than have to listen to a stream of people expected not to do it, churning out endless manure (except manure is actually useful in its place) and because most people 'don't do scientific method' simply is accepted blindly because they are qualified to lie as much as they please as people trust them.
Operating the Ken Livingstone method, lying because you can get away with it, is called bad xinxing in Falun Gong, the Chinese method of spiritual development, as the students are given powers only when they don't use them to cheat and beat others without them, or even show them off for personal ego. Eastern philosophy at least recognises the value of using your power wisely and fairly, as does the Christian Church also teach leadership as a duty not a power trip. Knowing your position of authority allows you to basically say black is white (cooling is warming is identical in nature and dishonesty) as if you say it is people with higher levels of trust assume it's true, while the bright and worthy (always the top level of the fat bottomed pyramid, so too few to be heard) know all this since the age of three but the masses are deaf to us as they only accept a retraction from the person who shafted them, which is the same as expecting the entire staff of the Italian Mafia to hand themselves in and give up their ways. But unlike the Mafia, every single person can work out someone else is lying as if your four year old child told you 'Mummy, it's getting warmer as it's snowing' you'd laugh and smack their arse (or something, I don't have children), but when James Hansen tells you exactly the same thing, you put the heating down.
Don't be like a four year old, as if an adult takes advantage of them you know what you'd call them. If a scientist does exactly the same to you as you think like a four year old, then they are exactly the same thing.
Therefore, despite even the great god UN itself stating every few years 'You cannot attribute individual events to global warming', the slew of papers released every day and collected by Greenpeace and governments alike almost all do just that. From weather conditions, ie warmer than usual, wetter than usual, dryer than usual and windier than usual, to local conditions, ice melts and drying lakes etc, these are secondary results of not just global warming, but firstly need to be large scale and long term (ie raising the world annual average minimum) and secondly need serious warming to happen, ie above 2C, not 0.7C, which is not detectable.
They take the heresy of induction, generalising from the particular, combine it with hypocrisy, don't use weather (unless we need to), and roll it into a taco made of insincerity by moaning when it's colder and snowing more both wide scale and longer term, it's actually caused by warming, and when it isn't getting warmer (honestly) the heat is 'missing' somewhere.
Think about all these examples. They share one thing in common. If you watch any interview with a guilty criminal (ie caught red handed on video) in reality or even in fiction, the way they manoeuvre against the questions from outright denial 'It wasn't me' to confusion 'I can't remember' to diversion 'I saw who did it', and if the interviewer is able, a final confession once confronted with all the evidence collected catching them red handed. All they did was waste everyone's time and the likelihood of such a routine when your car is not on the insurance database and they filmed you jumping a red light is almost enough not to even bother interviewing these scrotes at all and simply setting a court date and reading it out to the magistrates without them even needing to attend.
The only difference is we know what they've done so can pee ourselves laughing when the creep who dropped a bag of drugs or stolen goods behind a fence and then says he didn't, despite being covered with their fingerprints and filmed from above, rather than have to listen to a stream of people expected not to do it, churning out endless manure (except manure is actually useful in its place) and because most people 'don't do scientific method' simply is accepted blindly because they are qualified to lie as much as they please as people trust them.
Operating the Ken Livingstone method, lying because you can get away with it, is called bad xinxing in Falun Gong, the Chinese method of spiritual development, as the students are given powers only when they don't use them to cheat and beat others without them, or even show them off for personal ego. Eastern philosophy at least recognises the value of using your power wisely and fairly, as does the Christian Church also teach leadership as a duty not a power trip. Knowing your position of authority allows you to basically say black is white (cooling is warming is identical in nature and dishonesty) as if you say it is people with higher levels of trust assume it's true, while the bright and worthy (always the top level of the fat bottomed pyramid, so too few to be heard) know all this since the age of three but the masses are deaf to us as they only accept a retraction from the person who shafted them, which is the same as expecting the entire staff of the Italian Mafia to hand themselves in and give up their ways. But unlike the Mafia, every single person can work out someone else is lying as if your four year old child told you 'Mummy, it's getting warmer as it's snowing' you'd laugh and smack their arse (or something, I don't have children), but when James Hansen tells you exactly the same thing, you put the heating down.
Don't be like a four year old, as if an adult takes advantage of them you know what you'd call them. If a scientist does exactly the same to you as you think like a four year old, then they are exactly the same thing.
Predict nothing and trust nothing predicted
Since Genesis man has been looking ahead, and often not just claimed to know what would happen in the future, but many with exact dates. One (or probably two) things all have had in common, I certainly can't think of an exception, none have ever happened outside a linear or planned system. The nature of life is guaranteed to be chaotic, so unless someone goes to work and comes home regularly or a planet circles the sun, outside such systems nothing else is meant to be seen coming or should be. The second element in common is not a single person giving such predictions are to be trusted. Either they are qualified, so know they are lying as this is around week one of science, philosophy and logic, or nutjobs. Either way they are as worthy of being relied on as the biblical wolf in sheep's clothing or the great liar Satan themselves, who hides his lies in a truth sandwich and bullets in good deeds.
The nature of the prediction is irrelevant. Do you really think the wackos who predicted the arrival of Planet X in 2003, Harold Camping who predicted the end of the world twice within one year, the Met Office who get every season wrong which is actually far more statistically significant than getting half right like tossing a coin (warm v hot, wet v dry, six months ahead, pretty pointless even bothering really as no one could or needed to rely on it), and UN climate predictions over a century ahead.
They are all equal bullshit, and the messengers equal bullshitters. If you read a little science the trumpet-shaped cone going into the future becomes so wide a few days ahead it clearly states trying to see any outcome beyond is like dropping a match in the sea and dropping a helicopter the next day to find it based on a computer model using all the currents. Yes, they claim they can do it, but only because most people believe them, even though what they are attempting to do is impossible and always will be, as whatever technology will probably manage, levitation, translocation,free energy, all theoretically possible, it can and will never be able to bend time enough to see what is ahead as it has not happened yet.
Therefore if you see a prediction, treat it as a pile of dog mess on the pavement and walk around it, its nature is just the same as is its producer, a dirty dog.
The nature of the prediction is irrelevant. Do you really think the wackos who predicted the arrival of Planet X in 2003, Harold Camping who predicted the end of the world twice within one year, the Met Office who get every season wrong which is actually far more statistically significant than getting half right like tossing a coin (warm v hot, wet v dry, six months ahead, pretty pointless even bothering really as no one could or needed to rely on it), and UN climate predictions over a century ahead.
They are all equal bullshit, and the messengers equal bullshitters. If you read a little science the trumpet-shaped cone going into the future becomes so wide a few days ahead it clearly states trying to see any outcome beyond is like dropping a match in the sea and dropping a helicopter the next day to find it based on a computer model using all the currents. Yes, they claim they can do it, but only because most people believe them, even though what they are attempting to do is impossible and always will be, as whatever technology will probably manage, levitation, translocation,free energy, all theoretically possible, it can and will never be able to bend time enough to see what is ahead as it has not happened yet.
Therefore if you see a prediction, treat it as a pile of dog mess on the pavement and walk around it, its nature is just the same as is its producer, a dirty dog.
Banks and brokers work against the country
This is actually less of a statement of blame, but a statement of structure. The way western countries are structured banks and brokers do best when the economy itself is at its very worst. Government policies however are able to adjust these balances but when they do they swing in favour of one but against the other due to the nature they have created behind its structure. So when I read yesterday in the Mail:
"City fears an early interest rate rise as jobless total expected to fall and edge closer to 7% figure"
Mail on Sunday
What it went on to explain was, while interest rates are at 0.5% (and as I've already explained, makes life worse for 65-75% of the population) and unemployment is high and the economy is down, The City of London (ie banks and brokers) do their best. This means we have two entirely independent economies, ours and theirs, and they are in polar opposition to each other. The risks involved investing with almost free money are at a minimum, their cash input is guaranteed and constant, and as a result can manipulate the markets by buying on a rising market at such levels as to raise the market directly by their actions. They are literally getting money for nothing and raising commodity prices of all items directly through doing so. The fact the Bank of England said it will end is almost a miracle in itself, as they don't ever have to. America may not as so far there has been a reversal of the Ben Bernanke plan to reduce QE since he left and the ultra-Keynesian Janet Yellen took his place in the Federal Reserve. She won't be stopping soon or probably ever as she believes in it explicitly.
But those are just local details. The bottom line is the current way Western economies are set up, with banks able to speculate with depositor's money and little or now leverage limits (the amount they can lend compared to their total assets) the worse the economy, like flies on a corpse, the better they do.
Unless something fundamental is changed, whenever the economy starts picking up and their easy pickings, like vultures, are under threat, all the banks need to do is to get together and do something to wreck the economy again, ad infinitum. And the new EU rules mean next time they get into trouble they won't get bailed out by the taxpayers who will lose indirectly but certainly, but the depositors themselves, after the successful trial in Cyprus where no blood was shed.
Only the Angel of Death can benefit from the weakness of his host.
"City fears an early interest rate rise as jobless total expected to fall and edge closer to 7% figure"
Mail on Sunday
What it went on to explain was, while interest rates are at 0.5% (and as I've already explained, makes life worse for 65-75% of the population) and unemployment is high and the economy is down, The City of London (ie banks and brokers) do their best. This means we have two entirely independent economies, ours and theirs, and they are in polar opposition to each other. The risks involved investing with almost free money are at a minimum, their cash input is guaranteed and constant, and as a result can manipulate the markets by buying on a rising market at such levels as to raise the market directly by their actions. They are literally getting money for nothing and raising commodity prices of all items directly through doing so. The fact the Bank of England said it will end is almost a miracle in itself, as they don't ever have to. America may not as so far there has been a reversal of the Ben Bernanke plan to reduce QE since he left and the ultra-Keynesian Janet Yellen took his place in the Federal Reserve. She won't be stopping soon or probably ever as she believes in it explicitly.
But those are just local details. The bottom line is the current way Western economies are set up, with banks able to speculate with depositor's money and little or now leverage limits (the amount they can lend compared to their total assets) the worse the economy, like flies on a corpse, the better they do.
Unless something fundamental is changed, whenever the economy starts picking up and their easy pickings, like vultures, are under threat, all the banks need to do is to get together and do something to wreck the economy again, ad infinitum. And the new EU rules mean next time they get into trouble they won't get bailed out by the taxpayers who will lose indirectly but certainly, but the depositors themselves, after the successful trial in Cyprus where no blood was shed.
Only the Angel of Death can benefit from the weakness of his host.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)