Scratching the surface

There is a single principle in place which is so simple and basic once learned it can be applied wherever it is required, and used in turn to undo the mystery created by propaganda merchants such as governments and advertisers, basically everyone who is out there to cheat you by offering you something which is the exact opposite of what it actually is. I will illustrate this using existing points from here you may well be familiar with already, and of course serve the further purpose of repeating the principles till they sink in and become part of you like an old friend. Some are as simple as that, where what they offer is the exact opposite of what it appears once inspected, others are not as clear but just take a little more effort to uncover, and at least realise are probably not anything like they seem on the surface.

This extends a standard principle operated by children, where everything is taken literally, and if not certain many assign their own meaning to it, which can often last throughout their lives subconsciously until recognised and removed. Children tend to be 'joiners', that is those who accept any offer from those they know and trust, which is why many attend demonstrations from anything to global warming, Palestinian rights, and the Occupy movement etc., even though they clearly have no idea what they are demonstrating about, and besides the ones brought up as activists who simply inherit the mindset automatically, many would never want to be connected with as grown adults. That mindset continues to some extent throughout life unless you wake up from it, accepting what those you trust in authority tell you and do not check up or investigate further as they seem exactly what they are, but can be exactly the opposite.

Here are some examples I have mentioned before, but will use to see them in direct operation:

Low interest rates: Yes, how on earth can cheaper borrowing be a bad thing? But interest rates do not operate in isolation. Borrowers are one part of the total linked economy, and as the books always balance at the end (even if some appears initially to be gone) if you have a fixed amount in circulation at any one time then if borrowers are apparently (as it may not really be the case anyhow) paying less, then it is balanced by an equal loss elsewhere. Saving the borrowers a few percent is costing savers that amount directly. It is as simple as that. Now in a profligate economy if far more people are borrowing then it will still help the majority the most, on the surface. But long term no economy can be sustained by borrowing without at least an equal growth in material capital, so it can never last that long before a major crash when borrowing makes up that much of the total. Normally savers outweigh borrowers, certainly in Britain, by about 70/30, so for the 30% who save on their borrowing, 70% lose. Every year it is costing the economy as the money is removed from circulation as instead of being spent in the greater economy goes to pay the banks directly.

Then, the real beneficiaries of low interest rates are the banks, as who else pays base rate? The government. So the government and banks can borrow at base, and the banks always lend for a spread whatever the base rate so makes little difference to them as long as they are turning over business for commission. If base rates are 0.5% and a mortgage is 4% the banks make their 3.5%, if 3% and 7% they still make 7%. So the banks are barely affected as they tend to keep the spread similar as that is the market rate. But when the banks borrow at 0.5%, and either make a massive deal with a tiny profit, if the profit is over 1% then they do very well investing millions, which is never possible at higher base rates as such 'overnighters', as they bet on a currency or commodity moving up or down overnight with huge amounts borrowed with minimal risks, if they made 1% with base rates any higher such a simple means to profit would be impossible. Hence their huge bonuses in the five years base rates have been 0.5%. Is it beginning to make sense now? And the few who profit, the mortgagors? Well they have split into existing owners, who will profit, but remember they are only a part of 30% so not utilitarian, as it does not benefit the majority, all transactions taking place at the time of low rates rather than before they begin are not affected. Why is that? Because estate agents work by how much a buyer can afford a month. If the amount of the mortgage itself goes down then they simply raise the price, as the market relies on what the customer can just manage to afford. So as soon as mortgage rates fall house prices rise directly, as the two are linked and you can't beat the system.

Therefore if you subtract all new buyers (including those selling or first time buyers), you have a small core of people holding a mortgage which has gone down, while their house price goes up, but if rates do not fall then if they sell and buy again (as they will unless they die) they will pay the higher price and lose all their initial savings. In the end only those who buy at higher rates and don't sell before they go down and up again will save very much, the rest will cash it in as soon as they sell as they will buy on the new market and pay far more than they would have had house prices not risen.

This leads to the directly link second illusion which I already wrote about here specifically. To recap, no one who lives in their house (as opposed to rents another or more to others) gains from price rises, as it costs them more initially (inflation, and on your greatest ever purchase), and then again if it goes up as 10% of £100,000 is half as much as of £200,000, so the cash difference in trading up becomes wider and wider as the percentage rises, making improvements harder and harder as a direct result. House price rises are pure inflation with no benefits to anyone, any more than your gas or food prices going up. Just because they are an increasing asset, unlike nearly all others which depreciate over time, they are not an investment, as they are not liquid. If you sell up you will always need to live somewhere, and therefore you can never convert your asset or profit on it to cash as unless you want to downsize, which the majority of people will not until retirement possibly, then your standard of living will permanently fall if you have a cheaper house for more cash. There's no way round it, moving abroad means their assets tend to rise more slowly (Britain has some of the highest rises worldwide), so you will probably never afford to move back as the difference will be too much to fill if you wanted to.

The economic are the easiest to illustrate, but to one extent or another you can directly apply this formula to many more things, and others indirectly. Take socialism. This is a less obvious and direct illusion, but one young people tend to see as 'caring' and 'inclusive' etc., mainly as they have probably never lived under it, and they don't realise where all that money has come from to care for the poor. So while their parents work hard and find money to look after them well, they do not realise were this socialism in operation then if their parents are doing well through years of effort, they would lose maybe half their money or more. It would go to pay for everyone else, not who you wanted it to go to, or necessarily even knowing where it was going, it would simply be returned to the state, which socialism believes is above the individual, as a collective, and knows better how to spend its money (note, no longer 'your' money) than you do. Yes, you may get free health care and cheap travel, but it may be at the expense of petrol costs which are taxed to subsidise public transport, as again the money has to come from somewhere, and under socialism it comes from those who are worth the most as they have the most to take away. So like the low interest rates, unless you are one of the group of people who benefit from socialism, basically the unfortunates and long or short term unemployed or sick, you will make a net loss. And your wealth will be capped. If you end up paying 70% or more of the earnings above it then it will barely make any difference per extra (marginal) hour worked after that point, and as a result even the economy stops growing as after 50% it will, as people will work less, cheat and leave the country, while lower rates people will be happy to work and pay fairly.

So socialism looks wonderful to most children who see things as simple and black and white, and do not see beneath the surface yet, but in fact only works with very poor countries who can only get better, once they become fairly affluent then they can still support those unable to look after themselves under capitalism as the economy has grown enough to afford it.

Now imagine CO2 was either not rising or not considered harmful, no possible reason would exist for wind, solar and wood power as they don't work. Or electric cars. Don't take my word for it, look around for the figures. They don't deliver. People would be burning coal which is cheap, abundant, and now scrubbed clean before it leaves the chimney. Oil would not be restricted from drilling or transporting (Obama is blocking the Keystone pipe which would make oil far easier to transport from Canada), and the market would operate, with scientists and inventors working on thorium, fusion, magnet motors and hydrogen power in their own time, which will all be literally harmless (unlike nuclear) and far cheaper than fossil fuel, but need decades to develop commercially.

So instead they create illusory machines which do nothing. A wind turbine cannot produce any more energy than the wind chooses to produce at that time, cannot be stored for later and cannot be used when not required. And they draw power. Solar are known to be capable of a little more eventually, but no more than a known conversion limit. Either way the light is 25 times weaker on the surface than above the atmosphere, and known to be too diffuse for home use rather than small appliances only. And although you can store the power during the day you won't get much spare for overnight, you'd need to spend more than the cost of the house to do it just in the summer. But in the winter they fail as the light is far weaker and only for a few usable hours, so cannot deliver. Imagine using wind and solar for a hospital for a few days if you want a proper picture of it. I already mentioned electric cars, which besides taking hours to recharge and don't have interchangeable batteries as an alternative, cannot be charged if they run out away from a point. And as they draw power for traction and electrical equipment from the same source then you simply can't tell how long it can last per journey, as if it gets cold, dark or wet the power drain will increase drastically. That is the essential nature of an electric car, and besides vastly complicated and expensive hybrids, a purely electrical vehicle, like a wind farm, can never deliver the whole time. Yes, if you never drive very far you may get away with it if you charge it each night, but what use is a car you can't use beyond local trips?

If you think of any more things which look good on the surface but are the exact opposite then please add them in the comments and I will add them here. It isn't too different from people playing the shell game in the street, who put a ball under one of three shells and you watch and bet the one it's under. Of course your chance of winning is only 1/3 if it's a fair game, but they cheat to make it almost zero, but get accomplices to pretend to play and win and suck people in. Once they realise then the money's gone and it's too late. Don't be like those tourists, learn from other's mistakes or experiences before they catch you out.

Climate consensus in the 1970s

While our elders and betters attempt to silence us by throwing the 97/99/101% (depending what direction the wind is blowing at the time) consensus figure at us about man made global warming, I have already listed some other times in the past where scientists nearly all agreed (but not quite) on any assumption they didn't quite know enough on but gave the public impression they did. That is how science works. If they don't know for sure, it doesn't always stop them pretending, or even believing genuinely in some cases they do. Inevitably the reality turns up sooner or later, no one gets sacked or punished, and they all quietly accept the new material and move on.

In fact, the only reason they ever used consensus was because they couldn't prove the theory for certain, as when they can it's clear to everyone as well as the scientists and can be tested directly.

Here are the lists of quotes about the climate from the 70s (which today's believers deny the existence of), agreeing on a quite different phenomenon which, like the one in the 90s soon after, didn't happen.

Bear in mind CO2 was pretty darn high back then as well, and they didn't factor that in as a warming factor.

By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half..." Life magazine, January 1970.
Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters--the worst may be yet to come. That's the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by "climatologists." the people who study very long-term world weather trends…. Washington Post January 11, 1970
Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor "...the planet will cool, the water vapor... will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born," Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," - Barry Commoner Washington University Earth Day 1970
"(By 1995) somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
“By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. – Science 1970
“In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age." – Washington Post - July 9, 1971
"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Paul Ehrlich 1971
New Ice Age Coming---It's Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes…..Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971

Divide and Rule

Using the Hegelian Dialectic, problem-reaction- solution, imagine the government (all of them, including the opposition and foreign partners etc) wanted to divide society to break down their power, they would work out as many ways as possible to do so, and invent any so called 'problem' with society which would do so. Therefore in the 21st century our British government has:

Brought in virtually unlimited immigration and then accused anyone even mentioning they have noticed it (let alone complaining) racist.

Allowed the EU to take away more and more power from our own parliament and when anyone accuses them of doing so, let alone dare to suggest leaving, calls them xenophobic and  chauvinist.

Claimed added CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the temperature dangerously (after we were all dead and gone so could never know, and with no direct evidence it would in the present), and get their useful idiot believer activists to call anyone who didn't believe it baby killers, and teach children at school to attack their own parents over their (imaginary) 'carbon footprints'.

Without a single party raising it in their manifestos or raising it for discussion, the coalition suddenly announced mid-term they were allowing gay couples to raise their existing statuses of civil partnerships to marriage, and accuse anyone who disagreed of homophobia.

Take it from me, the governments do not care about a single policy for itself, do not believe it is better for society, but what they all have in common is they create an artificial conflict among otherwise compatible groups. All they want to do is put groups of people they knew would fall on both sides for and against their policies, as they'd spent years doing their research and opinion polls etc, found out the very most contentious policies, and then brought them in, watched the fun, and made more and more to seal the deal.

Now we basically have two tribes in society, those affected who are the useful idiots, who genuinely believe, despite 80% of the evidence being against it, the temperature and sea level must still rise dangerously by 2100 if we don't dismantle the majority of technology and industry, marriage between the same sex is exactly the same as opposite sexes (try consummating it if you want to check), you can flood a small island with as many new people as possible and put absolutely no stress on society's services, doctors, dentists and teachers will appear from nowhere to supply their needs, and they will happily learn English and mix with the rest of society after a few years of adjustment, rather than form new versions of their villages previously, often working for each other, never learning English and becoming isolated from the rest of society as they tend to.

Because (as Marx claimed) you can't hold back natural processes, Ukip arrived and swept away the existing blocks on talking about leaving the EU and reducing immigration, but as gay marriage has only been made law today could not and should not have got involved there with side issues, or had as yet any effect over the greatest stroke of totalitarian propaganda, the worldwide myth of global warming. That will take much longer and simply needs everyone to look online and work out individually how it's about 80% less than they told us it would be in the 90s and reducing every year so far. You don't need a political party to tell you a scientific issue as it is not related to politics, but either correct or not, therefore, unless the crooked scientists admit it's no longer happening, something which would require a reversal of existing conditions to change and a new mechanism to cause them, you must use your own brains to see what is clearly happening around you.

Think about it, it all follows the same formula and worked exactly as I stated, free speech and criticism of opinion policies is being restricted more and more, so while the harder to suppress issues of immigration and EU totalitarianism as they are ruining everyone's lives directly more and more as they increase, the faith they have in science, authority and trust in human nature altogether holds back the dam of global warming beliefs, and the social opprobrium of being labelled a bigot means criticism of gay marriage, which is probably fairly general and widespread, is kept in private so the general impression is only the loonies (ie those with little social grace who openly question it) disagree and everyone else thinks it's wonderful. In fact no one cared before it became law or wanted it, and when it did most people I've heard in private can't understand why it was. That's not homophobia, it's perception. Just like wondering why there's such a long queue and wait for medical appointments recently. Why would any government want to deliberately introduce crazy policies they didn't approve of and would reduce the cohesion and smooth running of society? Because it puts the people against each other and allows them to do whatever they like, whether to make money for their sponsors (ie corporatism, where the large companies drive policy for their own profits), exercise power for its own sake, or any other combinations of sheer megalomania, much like Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe. Kim Jong Un just shaved half his head and decreed every other man must in North Korea. Was that because it somehow makes them irresistible to women or confers magic powers? No, it was

because he can.

That sums up politicians around the world throughout history.

The limits of science

We all know science evolves and learns more every day. They make mistakes, they make assumptions, and they act upon those assumptions, and carry some for decades until someone (like with stomach ulcers) discovers the reality, at which point the assumptions wither and die, as they never existed in any more than the words of the scientists in the first place.

 There are lines in science where they cannot go beyond at any point in time, ie they can never know more than they actually do.

Anyone disagreeing try going to the doctor with a mystery illness, and maybe ten years later and seeing the difference between the initial diagnosis and treatment. It is an evolutionary process in science, far clearer in medicine as doctors have absolutely no option admitting they do not know and can not help, whereas these earth sciences can be as rough or vague as you like and who's going to know either way, till it starts costing us money and we suddenly realise they are no clearer on their climate science than doctors are in treating cancer. They know some causes and almost no treatments. People dying from cancer usually die sooner from the chemotherapy than they would have without it. But they still prescribe it. Why? One, it makes billions, two, if they did nothing they would look useless and lose credibility for the thousands of illnesses they can treat. 

Chemotherapy is the same as pesticide. If anyone genuinely believes eating traces of pesticide is harmless has to stop and think what it was created to do, kill animals. We are animals, larger than insects, but still not immune to the effects, just on a smaller scale. Chemotherapy kills human cells, the new ones still multiplying, and does not discriminate between cancer and healthy cells. It is less than a last resort as in the rare cases it is cured the organ damage is often permanent. Many patients feel far worse on the therapy than from the illness, and the evidence for cures is so rare it would normally be abandoned.

My point being that science has a red line beyond which they simply do not know, and depending on the discipline can hide or admit it, but when it's easy to hide then rather than use their integrity and refuse to make attributions as if they are certain where they are totally aware (see Climategate as a fly on the wall) they are not. Yes, it almost takes a miracle to catch them out as their area is so complex the smoke and mirrors are on so many layers it would take the equivalent of a lottery winning number for them to open enough to see behind, but it will happen as there is simply nothing behind their claims when reality takes over. They die away and vanish as if they never existed when exposed, which of course they never did except in their words alone.

The greenhouse effect is based on a combination of lab experiments and equations. It simply cannot be measured in the atmosphere as it is too complex and could never be teased out as a single influence when there are others such as air pressure and aerosols which combine with everything else to both warm and cool the air until it reaches its actual temperature. It is far from certain, but using the above processes it is both easily presented as such, and almost impossible to see through. Gradually opposing scientists are finding alternative mechanisms, and this includes one which claims CO2 is a coolant, reflecting far more heat than it absorbs. Now whether or not this is either correct or even properly testable, it does prove it is not possible to be certain, and always possible to present alternative mechanisms in the climate, as unlike medical treatment no one either dies or gets better as a result of climatology, in fact it is a purely observational discipline and one where they may never know anything for certain but it doesn't make any difference to our lives. The tiny edge of reality where some believe we can change the weather should be banned worldwide by law as besides the possible chaos introducing vast amounts of chemicals into the atmosphere to that purpose, the toxicity of the chemicals involved would poison the ecosystem immediately, and get into the food and water system for years to come like radiation would. So besides the lunatic view we could directly change the climate, it is a theoretical area and not designed for certain analysis and never can be by the nature of the atmosphere itself.

But it became treated as a hard science, ie one capable of certainty and now policy making, as if they were so totally certain not just the added CO2 was causing (now, not after we're dead) dangerous warming, but was capable of warming at all, which the more I look the more I find they are not certain. Anyone like me looking more deeply into it discovers it is neither certain nor possible to demonstrate or repeat its results, and there is a growing body of literature showing this as time goes on. They are treating what I have witnessed to be a rough and vague set of assumptions as certain as they are about the cause and treatment of syphilis, and they are acted upon in the exact way as if they know the illness and know exactly what to do about it. Where are the years of trials, the field tests and the control groups? Of course not only don't they exist, they can't exist, there's no alternative earth to work on with 260ppm CO2 to compare the temperatures, no spare planet to try and reduce the CO2 to see if it changes the temperature, and no way of attributing random weather events over each year, decade and century to anything besides weather as that is what they are and always have been. Until and unless 1) Temperatures do rise as they claim and 2) Such major events do become worse (in quality and/or quantity) and 3) they can attribute it to temperatures, and 4) they can attribute that to the rise in CO2 they should shut the hell up and bloody well wait like drug companies have to by law before they can claim a single thing, even when they've known for years they probably do work. That is real science and the climatologists have done the exact opposite in every way.

Are you a denier?

As someone said before, is it reasonable to deny Santa Claus exists, or the tooth fairy? No, as they never existed so there's nothing to deny? Can you deny committing a crime? Yes, if a crime has been committed but someone else did it and not you. Can you deny a scientific theory? Only if it is testable and repeatable. Is AGW either? No, as it hasn't happened yet, not to the degree they mean at the UN, a rise of over 2C and if by 2100 then it's void as we can't know that either way so they have set a faulty experiment.

There is a strict process before anyone can be termed a denier:

1) Something has to be known to exist

2) The person then claims it does not, even though it does and can be proved to do so.

There are no other conditions.

So, for example there is no possible doubt about who died in the holocaust. We have the bodies, names and records as well as photos and reports from soldiers who liberated them and many survivors. But plenty of people deny it happened, so they must be deniers as no other term can apply to them. That is the meaning. 

 

The church denied the earth was round and travelled round the sun, we learnt it is both, anyone who

still claims otherwise is a denier.

 

Man made global warming was a two part theory, one most people accept, adding more CO2 probably (it is not certain, for many reasons) warms the surface temperature through its insulating properties. Some scientists claim it is not true, as it is not 100% certain then they have plenty of maths to suggest they may have something, so it is a slightly open subject (as air pressure and the fact

 CO2 can also be seen to rise as a consequence of warming, not a cause) that is still a debate. The dangerous warming is another matter. That requires a 2C rise in temperature before the actual advantages of warming may be outweighed by the problems. That's the official definition like it or not. When does the UN place this event? 2100. The experiment cannot be completed, so UNLESS THE LINE FROM THE PRESENT CAN BE EXTRAPOLATED TOWARDS 2C it is void.

Therefore as the CO2 alone can only supply 1C at 520ppm and has supplied around .4C at 400 (the rest of the rise is natural), what could make it suddenly start adding more to exceed 2C? We don't know. Therefore those claiming we do are exaggerating based on no more than one of many possible alternatives, although given over 150 years to observe, none of them have happened, in fact the water vapour required to cause the added rise has reduced, instead forming clouds which cool, as demonstrated in the negligible warming in response to a 50% rise in CO2.

Therefore no one is or can be denying anything in dangerous global warming if they don't agree it's 

happening. That is because it has not happened yet, and by the UN assertion directly will not be known for certain till outside our lifetimes, unless the current line appears to be reaching that point already,  which it is not.

 

I hope this explanation will explain the difference between uncertainty and denial of the certain, as whatever names someone calls you, unless they are accurate they cannot stick.

Conspiracy theories are redundant

Whether or not 9/11 or the moon landing was genuine or not is almost totally irrelevant. Both have happened (or not) long ago already, and the small chance of managing to gain sufficient evidence to prove they were set up, considering the very investigators would be the perpetrators so unlikely to be able to expose their own wrongdoings or allow anyone else to do so, we must just accept we can never be certain and move on.

The major reason for this is not the impossibility to ever track down and bust conspiracies requiring top level government cooperation worldwide with equal resources, but there are no shortage of genuine existing and past conspiracies we either already know have happened, or far more importantly, the perpetrators have announced, as currently they are top of the food chain and have no level above them who could do anything about it. So technically the problem is not the conspiracies themselves, as they will continue forever as long as the chances of getting into trouble are so minimal people will always carry them out, but the fact there is no known enforcement system once they are discovered at that level. The ones which were busted all involved lower levels, where the government if involved were never brought into the prosecutions and acted like outsiders enforcing the rules. But when you look at two currently known conspiracies, Libor fixing and foreign exchange rate fixing, no one has been charged with fraud, as with Libor the official line was yes they did it, but it was outside the criminal law. As the Theft Act has no defence of either being a bank or not counting once you hit a billion I (as a law graduate) can tell you this is not the case. The real reason no heads ever rolled (it was treated as a civil case and settled out of court, but none of the stolen money was paid back to the victims but went to the Treasury, officially at least) was the widespread allegation, and practical fact that the banks were simply doing as they were told by the Bank of England and government of the time. Of course any trial would be impossible to avoid the willing divulgence (in the face of serious threats admittedly) of how they managed to continue cheating on a world scale at the highest level for years without a single challenge. This could only happen in such an open system (ie one governed by official rules which had to be followed and policed to be followed) if the activities weren't just actively being overlooked, but the authorities wanted it to happen. If not then they may have whispered something smelly is going on and you really ought to stop before someone else notices, the gentleman's agreement method, and it would have stopped fairly quickly considering cheating the entire interest rates for the developed world is quite a serious crime.

Instead it just carried on indefinitely, and like so many before them was only spotted by pure chance and then impossible to cover up, as a container of sewage will always leak sooner or later however good the seals. Even the smell can lead people to it eventually, which tends to be the way things like this and Bernie Madoff ultimately came undone. The 23 year cover up of known orders from senior police to doctor evidence over the Hillsborough disaster meant once again the excrement finally leaked into public view all the guilty officers had retired or died already and were unanimously let off scot free. So there is no doubt conspiracies are a fairly standard part of western society as well as the third world who always get the entire blame besides Italy who take pride in it and have the Mafia as the greatest section of their economy, and currently absolutely no action being taken to do a thing about it. But the enthusiasts themselves are wasting all their energy watching slo-mo video clips of the twin towers endlessly, and employing costly experts to analyse minute evidence, when we have the Rockefeller Foundation and its vast tentacles of followers openly announcing their plans in clear view, and no one does a bloody thing.

Therefore, all we need is a marriage of the wealthy conspiracy theorists, who can get films made on prime time TV of yet another 9/11 conspiracy film recycling the same stuff as the first one, and reams of paper on the Diana car crash (bog standard SAS neutralising, but can't bring her back so why bother trying?) with no chance of success as those responsible for the genuine scams would never admit it and there'll never be anywhere near enough evidence as they are professionals and never leave it, which is why even though the injuries and personal actions of David Kelly were not possible to kill someone no one has been able to carry out a full investigation as the people carrying out such investigations are employed by the people who would have done it and said it was suicide. The circumstantial evidence for both deaths is clearly enough for murder trials in both cases, but as the people are dead already and we know such things happen then nailing these specific examples wouldn't make any difference either way overall. Instead all they need to do is divert their entire efforts to publishing known quotes admitting they made up global warming, they don't tell the truth as they couldn't control the world's minds and bodies as a result otherwise, etc etc, all freely published online, and if someone in charge of a system has freely admitted they are scamming you rotten then that alone will end the scam once enough people hear it.

For example: Agenda 21 open confessions

Agenda 21 Mission: Create Crisis
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”—H.L.Mencken (1918).

Find Someone to Blame:
―The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.‖ The First Global Revolution by Alexander King –Club of Rome
J. Gary Lawrence, 1998 UNEP Conference, UK

“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many… who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. So we call our process something else such as “comprehensive planning,” „growth management‟ or „smart growth.‟”
USE WARM FUZZY WORDS:
Environment * Economy * Equity * Consensus * Affordable Housing * Friends of… * Action * Protect * Preserve * Quality of Life * Benefit of all * Sanctuary * Social/Environmental Justice * Best Management Practices * Watershed * Facilitator * Traffic Calming * Outcome Base Education * Endangered Species * Invasive Species * Restoration * Public/Private Partnerships * Common Good * Regional * Collaborative * Inter-disciplinary * Stakeholder * International Baccalaureate * School to work * Historic Preservation * Vision * Sustainable Medicine. Smart Meters.
 Maurice Strong : ―…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.‖

I have already posted many more such comments here and my fraud blog, and all the wealthy activists actually need to do is produce a single film featuring all these quotes and relating them to actual policies and the entire system will be finished overnight. You can't pick someone's pocket if you tell them you're about to do it first.

Where's the climate feedback?

Despite the added CO2 reaching 50%, the temperature hasn't risen any more than supposed to with no feedback, in fact remove the natural rise and it has risen slightly less. Now I can demonstrate why. This in itself is a direct and simple explanation, proving beyond any doubt any added water into the atmosphere becomes cloud cover (cooling) and humidity is decreasing (cooling), so why hasn't it ever reached the news? It's pretty simple and clear, why don't people ever hear about it? But if you're reading this then pass it on, and they will.

 

Excuse the size, why anyone posts photos too small to read the text beats me, but the trend is clear.

 

So you can clearly see, it's no mystery why warming is negligible, the clouds have indeed increased while the humidity is actually reducing, so any effects from CO2 are almost being neutralised by natural processes. But being so clear and direct why hasn't anyone else pointed it out?

 

A new paper just out the same week I wrote this confirms this, as do the comments by the author and others beneath it Feedback calculations paper