Until blogger finds a way to display full size photos without having to click them I'll have to explain, every diagram here shows a hockey stick, and one of them isn't genuine, guess which one.
Wednesday, 30 July 2014
The hockey sticks which are real
Until blogger finds a way to display full size photos without having to click them I'll have to explain, every diagram here shows a hockey stick, and one of them isn't genuine, guess which one.
The ultimate global warming formula
In a reply on Facebook I explained to someone I think has a degree in physics how his faith and fear removed any discretion he would have otherwise had to see through the most unscientific formula known to mankind, the IPCC global warming projection for 2100
you are supporting a proposition that in 100 years (110 in fact when it was first written in the 90s) the temperature will (most probably, it's a forecast, not a prediction) rise between 1.5 and 6C from doubling CO2.
Now if you took that formula anywhere else, like a betting shop or investment bank and asked people to accept the terms you'd be laughed out of town. The error margin, one equivalent to putting a million pound bet on a team scoring between one and six goals, as you were both the buyer and the seller so you could fix your own terms and use other people's money to bet (much like the bankers did) is the greatest blow to science since Lysenkoism and the earth-centric universe theory. Plus the completion date was outside our lifetimes so impossible to claim the winnings.
How anyone with actual education has ever fallen for this formula as blinded by fear and faith in authority is one of the greatest disgraces since a certain politician convinced the German people the Jews were responsible for its economic problems, despite there being no history of German anti-Semitism (more than elsewhere) until then. It took Hitler around five years from a totally unresponsive public to work out a winning formula which combined genuine economic failure with the exploitation of people's innate gullibility and low discrimination to get them to help wipe out millions of innocent people just for not being Aryan, a race which never even existed.
Now if you see how easy it is to take utter nonsense, and fool millions of ordinary people with nothing more than their fear and your exploitation of it why don't you think they can do it over and over and over again, this time taking an equally mindless and baseless formula I just described, telling people it's their fault and making them pay for it forever.
you are supporting a proposition that in 100 years (110 in fact when it was first written in the 90s) the temperature will (most probably, it's a forecast, not a prediction) rise between 1.5 and 6C from doubling CO2.
Now if you took that formula anywhere else, like a betting shop or investment bank and asked people to accept the terms you'd be laughed out of town. The error margin, one equivalent to putting a million pound bet on a team scoring between one and six goals, as you were both the buyer and the seller so you could fix your own terms and use other people's money to bet (much like the bankers did) is the greatest blow to science since Lysenkoism and the earth-centric universe theory. Plus the completion date was outside our lifetimes so impossible to claim the winnings.
How anyone with actual education has ever fallen for this formula as blinded by fear and faith in authority is one of the greatest disgraces since a certain politician convinced the German people the Jews were responsible for its economic problems, despite there being no history of German anti-Semitism (more than elsewhere) until then. It took Hitler around five years from a totally unresponsive public to work out a winning formula which combined genuine economic failure with the exploitation of people's innate gullibility and low discrimination to get them to help wipe out millions of innocent people just for not being Aryan, a race which never even existed.
Now if you see how easy it is to take utter nonsense, and fool millions of ordinary people with nothing more than their fear and your exploitation of it why don't you think they can do it over and over and over again, this time taking an equally mindless and baseless formula I just described, telling people it's their fault and making them pay for it forever.
Monday, 28 July 2014
Immigration and diversity. Did you vote for it?
This is an answer I gave to a question of my views on British unlimited immigration. I think I've covered most points and cannot be interpreted as racist if you are honest with yourself.
Until the 80s or so Britain had the same traditional immigration policies seen in just about every other country around the world, and was accepted as the right thing to do. Tony Blair then opened the floodgates, and used political propaganda to try and brand everyone who challenged it as racists.
Now the fact if you wander around London where I live and look at the tight communities of any and every race who have arrived from the 50s onwards, sticking together, moving into entire streets and shopping areas, holding parties and social activities exclusively within their own communities, and then many now not even bothering to learn English as they can easily work for people from their own countries and mix with them almost exclusively, simply transposing a small part of their own societies to one with a far better economic base.
It is not at all a bad thing this is happening, in the meaning we are designed by nature to stick with who and what is familiar to us, and why anyone would be able to form similar connections with anyone with a totally different previous life under completely different conditions, with different religions, cultures, beliefs etc is going to be a lot harder than with people they've grown up with and understand implicitly. It is Blair's fault for doing this, and Cameron's for doing absolutely nothing to change it. The pressure it's put on schools and medical facilities has added physical strain to the system, and competition for jobs has overcreated supply and lowered wages as a result. London is losing houses being replaced by flats at a growing rate, there is simply no room here or anywhere else in Britain for a million or more people expected to arrive here by 2020, and it is simply another method of cynical divide and rule to put innocent people against each other, both native and immigrant, and native against native while they pick our pockets and stab us in our backs. It is just as cruel on the immigrants as they are free to come here legally and it is not their fault the country encourages them to contribute to a problem of their own deliberate creation. Even refugees are meant to stop at the first safe country, but most cross Europe to try and get here as they know they will get the easiest time here even compared to the rest of Europe. That can only mean we've created the conditions required to make Britain the most inviting and open country probably in the entire world now for immigrants and will spend millions on translators and health care we can't even afford for ourselves at the moment.
Anyone here who thinks this is racist has been totally manipulated by the government to not know the difference between genuine racism and human nature, let alone the immense practical problems caused by unlimited immigration which are going to be felt for centuries ahead as they aren't going to change.
I've seen this change in the last 50 years in what is now the most ethnically diverse part of Britain along with Newham, and seen it absolutely first hand in every possible part of society. Very few people are actually racist in Britain, a hard core of extremists and little more, the rest are just ordinary people with no agenda, and simply want a free and easy life wherever possible, and why shouldn't they? Until the 90s I'd never heard a single person use diversity as not just a political ideology, but what has become exclusive in that it rejects all others as wrong.
Did you get a chance to vote for the 'Diversity Party' or similar? I don't think it was in any manifestos- did anyone read a single sentence claiming 'We will increase immigration and believe it is the right thing to do to mix races and cultures across Britain as far as possible? No. And now we have politicians criticising Cornwall and Newcastle for being 'too white'. If it wasn't so disgusting it would be laughable, but accusing your own people of being racist as they don't yet have many ethnic minorities living in their areas sounds like something from a quite different party if reversed to the other way around. Is it any different saying a town is too white or too black? I can't see it myself.
Until the 80s or so Britain had the same traditional immigration policies seen in just about every other country around the world, and was accepted as the right thing to do. Tony Blair then opened the floodgates, and used political propaganda to try and brand everyone who challenged it as racists.
Now the fact if you wander around London where I live and look at the tight communities of any and every race who have arrived from the 50s onwards, sticking together, moving into entire streets and shopping areas, holding parties and social activities exclusively within their own communities, and then many now not even bothering to learn English as they can easily work for people from their own countries and mix with them almost exclusively, simply transposing a small part of their own societies to one with a far better economic base.
It is not at all a bad thing this is happening, in the meaning we are designed by nature to stick with who and what is familiar to us, and why anyone would be able to form similar connections with anyone with a totally different previous life under completely different conditions, with different religions, cultures, beliefs etc is going to be a lot harder than with people they've grown up with and understand implicitly. It is Blair's fault for doing this, and Cameron's for doing absolutely nothing to change it. The pressure it's put on schools and medical facilities has added physical strain to the system, and competition for jobs has overcreated supply and lowered wages as a result. London is losing houses being replaced by flats at a growing rate, there is simply no room here or anywhere else in Britain for a million or more people expected to arrive here by 2020, and it is simply another method of cynical divide and rule to put innocent people against each other, both native and immigrant, and native against native while they pick our pockets and stab us in our backs. It is just as cruel on the immigrants as they are free to come here legally and it is not their fault the country encourages them to contribute to a problem of their own deliberate creation. Even refugees are meant to stop at the first safe country, but most cross Europe to try and get here as they know they will get the easiest time here even compared to the rest of Europe. That can only mean we've created the conditions required to make Britain the most inviting and open country probably in the entire world now for immigrants and will spend millions on translators and health care we can't even afford for ourselves at the moment.
Anyone here who thinks this is racist has been totally manipulated by the government to not know the difference between genuine racism and human nature, let alone the immense practical problems caused by unlimited immigration which are going to be felt for centuries ahead as they aren't going to change.
I've seen this change in the last 50 years in what is now the most ethnically diverse part of Britain along with Newham, and seen it absolutely first hand in every possible part of society. Very few people are actually racist in Britain, a hard core of extremists and little more, the rest are just ordinary people with no agenda, and simply want a free and easy life wherever possible, and why shouldn't they? Until the 90s I'd never heard a single person use diversity as not just a political ideology, but what has become exclusive in that it rejects all others as wrong.
Did you get a chance to vote for the 'Diversity Party' or similar? I don't think it was in any manifestos- did anyone read a single sentence claiming 'We will increase immigration and believe it is the right thing to do to mix races and cultures across Britain as far as possible? No. And now we have politicians criticising Cornwall and Newcastle for being 'too white'. If it wasn't so disgusting it would be laughable, but accusing your own people of being racist as they don't yet have many ethnic minorities living in their areas sounds like something from a quite different party if reversed to the other way around. Is it any different saying a town is too white or too black? I can't see it myself.
The role of government
As a lifelong libertarian, I have always wondered why we accept and even call for so much regulation in our normal lives, especially when (as far as we are aware at least) we only get the one chance so would want as much freedom as possible. I won't go into the heavy philosophy which has been covered in that field for millennia, but the specifics today which you can personally relate to and are based in practical terms rather than theory.
The two criminal law rules are either for protection of the person and property, and morals. In criminal law week one we went through this, and I and the lecturer could not see the role for any government in choosing a set of morals for anyone else, as they are totally based on culture and opinion and never stay the same in time or place. So I can personally sweep those aside in one go, and continue to say I would vote for the government who would repeal the most laws rather than make them. Of course, the Hegelian dialectic, problem-reaction-solution has also been used since the dawn of government to create false fears in order for them to legislate to remove the imaginary causes of them. This is not really true government at all, it is simply organised deception and not part of what I am talking about.
Regulations are needed the most where there is either the chance of physical danger and the means required to prevent harm from it, and the chance of exploitation. As I accepted the protection principle for criminal law, against physical assault, theft and criminal damage they are covered, as no one would want a totally lawless society where anyone so minded could enter your property and lay waste to it and your family members. But as that law was in place for hundreds of years in most cases why do we need governments today to keep altering or adding to it when preventing an assault was and will always be the same? We don't. In fact, to make a slight diversion, it turned out after the exposure of various banking scandals, our government actually removed a swathe of serious fraud from the criminal law, as they claim the organised fixing of bank and foreign exchange rates (with more coming out each month) is not a crime under the Theft Act (obtaining a financial advantage by false pretences). They can both repeal and rewrite law, but not always in a positive way. Plus this is a huge clue that when governments make or repeal some laws they are not protecting you or me but their friends and themselves. Not such a responsible government after all.
So let's look at some direct examples. Driving can be deadly when carried out untrained or drunk, so needs specific rules and regulations to both reduce the danger and catch those responsible with use of registration and compensate victims through insurance. When in doubt take personal examples and imagine the alternatives, then you'll nearly always get the right decision. Employment obviously opens the door to exploitation of the weaker workers, so toilets, meal breaks and safe working conditions are essential, as basic human rights (even they have their roles in libertarianism, it's not anarchism). Then the manufacturing has to be safe and not polluting, and the products need to be as described. Agreements (contracts) must be fair and binding, and using my own example everyone wants products to do as they claim, be consistent and safe to use. As human nature tends to want as much as possible for as little work and trouble as possible, this tendency needs to be curbed and no group or individual should have an unfair advantage over any other.
I do not believe financing the weak and poor to be a regulatory issue, as it is simply providing a safety net in a civilised society which can afford it. In fact there is enough in many countries to provide a basic income for everyone regardless, freeing up resources from the state for means tests and medical examinations, and simply providing the basics for all. If you're paying tax isn't the best destination paying it back to the people directly, rather than seeing it vanish into a black hole or bailing out the banks? This applies to free health care as well (whatever the Americans think, they are both a historic oddity and so wealthy compared to most they can afford the average costs, but not the major illnesses which can cause a person to lose everything from no fault of their own). The writings of Buckminster Fuller explain this theory in full if you want to learn more.
Few if any of these theories are not tried and tested, like my examples in an earlier piece about having a boss or parents who regulate your every move, causing suffering and rebellion and no pleasure from your experience, where all you need are reactive nudges to get things right rather than an active schedule forcing you to do everything their way when they want, and a constant series of checks. The government are working for us, doing things we cannot do ourselves and need national or locally organising. They are needed to administer the activities described above, rather than rule us. I described the logical criminal and civil laws created at the start of the legal system itself, and only altered in response to changing circumstances rather than changing opinions of voters and governments, while the acts do not change at all. You must all have experienced times in your life when your freedom was restricted for no other reason than it could be. That is the true meaning of equality, rather than the twisted version used by the left. We are all equal as individuals so must be treated as so, and have an equal opportunity to succeed. But as people our lives are equal but our personalities are unique, so we can never be equal in any other way, be it intelligence, strength, wealth, you name it. There is a long list of personal qualities, good and bad, and we are all assigned a set of our own, some which we can change and improve, or waste, and others we are stuck with. That is why the left wing version of equality is false as it tries to force us all into the same individual, assuming or believing women, men, intelligent, whatever can all be pushed to be like everyone else. There is no basis of truth behind that otherwise there would only be one sex and we would reproduce as clones. That is why people who are born with mental retardation will never get a degree however much they are educated, and as I assume even those on the furthest left wing accept that, why do they not accept the same intelligence differences exist across the spectrum, the spurious idea that if someone can pass one exam they could pass them all with the right training, is a utopian nightmare as it assumes no one is really different, and as such if they don't do well it's the fault of society rather than the qualities of the individual. You can make the best of your qualities or repress them, but you can never create them from nowhere. Science is finding more and more genetic bases of each inborn quality, and separated twins are virtually the same in all qualities even when they have never met each other.
It is unfortunately the fault of those on the loony left (loony as they deny studies demonstrating everyone is different however much they wish they weren't, which is delusional) that we are subjected to so much regulation in the 21st century. If you have a government party who believe a delusion, like the Soviets or North Koreans, least of all the religious fanatics in Iran, you will have state totalitarianism. If your government's views are based on false views of life, you will have your life forced to fit the false view, whatever it is. So there is no technical difference between outlawing homosexuality, which is no different to being born black, and stopping bright people from getting into the best universities as their parents have more money than the others who get your place despite having lower grades. If you do not accept people are equal as individuals but born different your government will reflect that error, and spend much of its time and resources trying to change a natural society into an engineered, twisted and repressed one. There is not a single doubt about this. Science began with objective testing of individuals and ended with scientific testing of their genes, and the more they look the more they find to be genetic. You must accept some people are shorter or weaker than others, those are givens, so why not, just because you can't see it directly, more intelligent or aggressive or creative? Children who start drawing or playing the piano like professionals at the age of seven are hardly doing so from encouragement, and some not even from teaching as you can simply pick up a pencil and draw with absolutely no training. Individual genius is impossible to claim as universal, otherwise why isn't every child at that age doing the same thing as the one in a million like Mozart?
I hope using the extreme examples people can see just because the rest aren't so clear and are more subtle they are only variations on the same scale, just because they are more subtle it is easier to deny and ignore them, but if you even claim some people could reach great heights but come from the wrong background despite having few signs of it, or women could all become managing directors, despite needing years for childcare and not being nearly as competitive or interested in such positions as men (they have checked), the maniacal forcing of society to keep those at the top down and try and raise those at the bottom, by 'positive' discrimination, racism against white people (discrimination and racism is the same if directed against anyone, whatever they tell you), and fix exam results by dropping the pass marks so everyone does better all you are doing is creating false hopes and wrecking a free society. Even outlawing words I described in a separate piece, taking medical terms like mongol, spastic and idiot, which all had exact meanings, for 'differently abled', 'mentally challenged' etc, and changing the word for black people every decade and demonising anyone still using an earlier one, is creating trouble for the sake of it. Going back to the moral principle, using any word for anything may be insulting, but insults are part of language, and if some are outlawed people just find new ones. And if you make insulting someone illegal every single person on earth would have a criminal record. If you're not sure about an idea then take it to the extreme and you will be able to see it clearly. And just because the other examples are not extreme and so easy to see does not make them any less true and real, they are just on a different scale. But the principle never changes and never can.
The two criminal law rules are either for protection of the person and property, and morals. In criminal law week one we went through this, and I and the lecturer could not see the role for any government in choosing a set of morals for anyone else, as they are totally based on culture and opinion and never stay the same in time or place. So I can personally sweep those aside in one go, and continue to say I would vote for the government who would repeal the most laws rather than make them. Of course, the Hegelian dialectic, problem-reaction-solution has also been used since the dawn of government to create false fears in order for them to legislate to remove the imaginary causes of them. This is not really true government at all, it is simply organised deception and not part of what I am talking about.
Regulations are needed the most where there is either the chance of physical danger and the means required to prevent harm from it, and the chance of exploitation. As I accepted the protection principle for criminal law, against physical assault, theft and criminal damage they are covered, as no one would want a totally lawless society where anyone so minded could enter your property and lay waste to it and your family members. But as that law was in place for hundreds of years in most cases why do we need governments today to keep altering or adding to it when preventing an assault was and will always be the same? We don't. In fact, to make a slight diversion, it turned out after the exposure of various banking scandals, our government actually removed a swathe of serious fraud from the criminal law, as they claim the organised fixing of bank and foreign exchange rates (with more coming out each month) is not a crime under the Theft Act (obtaining a financial advantage by false pretences). They can both repeal and rewrite law, but not always in a positive way. Plus this is a huge clue that when governments make or repeal some laws they are not protecting you or me but their friends and themselves. Not such a responsible government after all.
So let's look at some direct examples. Driving can be deadly when carried out untrained or drunk, so needs specific rules and regulations to both reduce the danger and catch those responsible with use of registration and compensate victims through insurance. When in doubt take personal examples and imagine the alternatives, then you'll nearly always get the right decision. Employment obviously opens the door to exploitation of the weaker workers, so toilets, meal breaks and safe working conditions are essential, as basic human rights (even they have their roles in libertarianism, it's not anarchism). Then the manufacturing has to be safe and not polluting, and the products need to be as described. Agreements (contracts) must be fair and binding, and using my own example everyone wants products to do as they claim, be consistent and safe to use. As human nature tends to want as much as possible for as little work and trouble as possible, this tendency needs to be curbed and no group or individual should have an unfair advantage over any other.
I do not believe financing the weak and poor to be a regulatory issue, as it is simply providing a safety net in a civilised society which can afford it. In fact there is enough in many countries to provide a basic income for everyone regardless, freeing up resources from the state for means tests and medical examinations, and simply providing the basics for all. If you're paying tax isn't the best destination paying it back to the people directly, rather than seeing it vanish into a black hole or bailing out the banks? This applies to free health care as well (whatever the Americans think, they are both a historic oddity and so wealthy compared to most they can afford the average costs, but not the major illnesses which can cause a person to lose everything from no fault of their own). The writings of Buckminster Fuller explain this theory in full if you want to learn more.
Few if any of these theories are not tried and tested, like my examples in an earlier piece about having a boss or parents who regulate your every move, causing suffering and rebellion and no pleasure from your experience, where all you need are reactive nudges to get things right rather than an active schedule forcing you to do everything their way when they want, and a constant series of checks. The government are working for us, doing things we cannot do ourselves and need national or locally organising. They are needed to administer the activities described above, rather than rule us. I described the logical criminal and civil laws created at the start of the legal system itself, and only altered in response to changing circumstances rather than changing opinions of voters and governments, while the acts do not change at all. You must all have experienced times in your life when your freedom was restricted for no other reason than it could be. That is the true meaning of equality, rather than the twisted version used by the left. We are all equal as individuals so must be treated as so, and have an equal opportunity to succeed. But as people our lives are equal but our personalities are unique, so we can never be equal in any other way, be it intelligence, strength, wealth, you name it. There is a long list of personal qualities, good and bad, and we are all assigned a set of our own, some which we can change and improve, or waste, and others we are stuck with. That is why the left wing version of equality is false as it tries to force us all into the same individual, assuming or believing women, men, intelligent, whatever can all be pushed to be like everyone else. There is no basis of truth behind that otherwise there would only be one sex and we would reproduce as clones. That is why people who are born with mental retardation will never get a degree however much they are educated, and as I assume even those on the furthest left wing accept that, why do they not accept the same intelligence differences exist across the spectrum, the spurious idea that if someone can pass one exam they could pass them all with the right training, is a utopian nightmare as it assumes no one is really different, and as such if they don't do well it's the fault of society rather than the qualities of the individual. You can make the best of your qualities or repress them, but you can never create them from nowhere. Science is finding more and more genetic bases of each inborn quality, and separated twins are virtually the same in all qualities even when they have never met each other.
It is unfortunately the fault of those on the loony left (loony as they deny studies demonstrating everyone is different however much they wish they weren't, which is delusional) that we are subjected to so much regulation in the 21st century. If you have a government party who believe a delusion, like the Soviets or North Koreans, least of all the religious fanatics in Iran, you will have state totalitarianism. If your government's views are based on false views of life, you will have your life forced to fit the false view, whatever it is. So there is no technical difference between outlawing homosexuality, which is no different to being born black, and stopping bright people from getting into the best universities as their parents have more money than the others who get your place despite having lower grades. If you do not accept people are equal as individuals but born different your government will reflect that error, and spend much of its time and resources trying to change a natural society into an engineered, twisted and repressed one. There is not a single doubt about this. Science began with objective testing of individuals and ended with scientific testing of their genes, and the more they look the more they find to be genetic. You must accept some people are shorter or weaker than others, those are givens, so why not, just because you can't see it directly, more intelligent or aggressive or creative? Children who start drawing or playing the piano like professionals at the age of seven are hardly doing so from encouragement, and some not even from teaching as you can simply pick up a pencil and draw with absolutely no training. Individual genius is impossible to claim as universal, otherwise why isn't every child at that age doing the same thing as the one in a million like Mozart?
I hope using the extreme examples people can see just because the rest aren't so clear and are more subtle they are only variations on the same scale, just because they are more subtle it is easier to deny and ignore them, but if you even claim some people could reach great heights but come from the wrong background despite having few signs of it, or women could all become managing directors, despite needing years for childcare and not being nearly as competitive or interested in such positions as men (they have checked), the maniacal forcing of society to keep those at the top down and try and raise those at the bottom, by 'positive' discrimination, racism against white people (discrimination and racism is the same if directed against anyone, whatever they tell you), and fix exam results by dropping the pass marks so everyone does better all you are doing is creating false hopes and wrecking a free society. Even outlawing words I described in a separate piece, taking medical terms like mongol, spastic and idiot, which all had exact meanings, for 'differently abled', 'mentally challenged' etc, and changing the word for black people every decade and demonising anyone still using an earlier one, is creating trouble for the sake of it. Going back to the moral principle, using any word for anything may be insulting, but insults are part of language, and if some are outlawed people just find new ones. And if you make insulting someone illegal every single person on earth would have a criminal record. If you're not sure about an idea then take it to the extreme and you will be able to see it clearly. And just because the other examples are not extreme and so easy to see does not make them any less true and real, they are just on a different scale. But the principle never changes and never can.
Sunday, 27 July 2014
Exposing the true man made global warming
NB I will be refining this as I go along, as it has been pointed out there are variations in the presentations as well as the data in some of these graphs, and due to the volume and quality available means some are not always completely compatible with others. But the ones comparing the same period by the IPCC, and the three superimposed alone are sufficient to make my point, and the others are only variations on that theme. I will remove this message when I have refined the available material.
In my travels I have found at least three holocene temperature records. Bearing in mind we only started using land based thermometers in 1850 or so the previous proxy data could be uncertain, but the actual result of three graphs showing what look like different universes not just different versions of the same material shows how truly tenuous climate history and science is. Of course at best only one of these graphs is correct, but how on earth are we meant to know which one, and why? And if the others are wrong why are they there and relied upon by those using them? Bear in mind some of these cover longer or shorter periods, but when you compare the standard 12,000 period with the same one on the others there is still little agreement.
Anomaly
temperature
Furthermore, the one here which Michael Mann used and was selected to drive the entire UN agenda since (despite other less dramatic ones were also offered), before he created it the UN actually used the earlier one showing present temperatures at about half way, with three earlier warm periods described as 'optimums', expressing the fact (due to many written and measured records) life overall was far better with a higher average temperature. It corresponds with the same period for the first one. Now his graph only goes back a couple of thousand years, but easily long enough to see the absence of either the MWP or basically any temperature variations at all. Luckily someone extended Mann's graph (using the anomaly) back to the earlier point, and although it included the part we all know as it had to, the greater context, even though the MWP was still flattened to nothing the other warm periods put today's little spike (even using Mann's erect maximum version) it shows besides the very latest point there was nothing unusual about the current temperature. Enthusiasts will tell you it's also the rate of warming that's as significant, but then, firstly all the diagrams don't have it, and secondly how do they explain the cause earlier warming periods?
Note, these are not even similar. Imagine an engineer or a doctor providing three such different graphs for a bridge weight load or patient's vital signs? Firstly you'd assume they weren't actually qualified, secondly you certainly wouldn't employ them, and thirdly they may well quite rightly be stripped of their qualifications. So why aren't the climatologists as well? They have caused as much pain and suffering as any other providing utter drivel to the governments of the world who then use it to punish the useless eaters, the emitters who clearly are viewed as nothing more than cattle farting and belching en masse and needing severe regulation to protect the world from this herd of stinking humanity. And when you see the basis of their rules and taxes you have to realise they are built on shifting sands of a combination of major uncertainty and probable fabrication. If one of these graphs is right, how would anyone actually know which one, and why have all the governments chosen the one which suits their existing plans?
Now this one is interesting, although I have also seen another one showing the past not being lower than the present for its peaks (which follows the pattern for the holocene), as we are only looking at the last 12,000 years for this presentation, firstly of course it has no hockey stick, and the long plateau we are supposedly now right in the mid range of is part of one which began about 8000 years ago, and was clearly driven by everything except man made CO2. The sharp rise previously, from a long period of far colder temperatures, was clearly natural, and even if you add the recent uptick to this one it isn't the sort of sharp rise we've had many times in the past, and all clearly part of totally normal and natural variations. The large numbers of temperature graphs which show both the medieval warm period as higher than today, which you could say was the 'consensus' before the 21st century, and recent enough to know unlike the imagined climate refugees the world was overall a far better place, and most show the two earlier periods as even higher, and again no problems reported. Then Mann comes along and irons the whole thing out,
In my travels I have found at least three holocene temperature records. Bearing in mind we only started using land based thermometers in 1850 or so the previous proxy data could be uncertain, but the actual result of three graphs showing what look like different universes not just different versions of the same material shows how truly tenuous climate history and science is. Of course at best only one of these graphs is correct, but how on earth are we meant to know which one, and why? And if the others are wrong why are they there and relied upon by those using them? Bear in mind some of these cover longer or shorter periods, but when you compare the standard 12,000 period with the same one on the others there is still little agreement.
Temperature
Anomaly
Temperature
Marcott anomaly/change
Taking the first two, ignore the earlier part on the top one as it's for an extra 8000 years, and look at the remaining 12000. On the surface they do look similar, but firstly the top one has also used a log scale for the x (horizontal) axis, meaning it is compressed on the left. Allowing for that we still see the recent part to the present has risen above the entire range of the past, while the one below using a normal linear spread shows the temperature falling since the medieval warm peropd almost 8000 years ago. It does however show us only reaching it in around the late 20th century, while others usually do not. But they are strikingly different, as the lower one (despite having no Y axis to compare temperatures) clearly shows were are still well below the Minoan warm period and definitely at an extremely ordinary temperature level regardless. The third echoes the second but has been turned around as many do with the present on the left. You can see the crucial present point, that which world policy depends on totally, is either completely normal or fairly high (2C would be high, 4C very high, according to the IPCC).
Now going forward to the fourth, note that it pretty well echoes the second, both in using the same period, and the same shape, all until the end. Now why would one show a marked extreme spike at the end, while the other stops exactly where it was? Don't ask me, I'm only an observer who has trawled the internet and found a set of conflicting information. The lower graph shows the same period in detail, but then when you look at the ones below that, you have three for the same period superimposed and then another two compared, both showing totally different readings. How can that happen and which are we supposed to rely on, considering they are used to make world climate policy, which would never even exist had they used the ones without the spike, as there would be absolutely no requirement for any.
In
the end a science which is capable of producing data so varied
supposedly covering the identical period is clearly unable to perform
and deliver at a level required for reliability and trust, and as such is no more a science than betting tipsters.
Sunday, 29 June 2014
Feelings can not be bigoted
Inspired by Beckie on twitter, she stated an absolutely definitive point. You cannot be a bigot based on your feelings. This is because you are not responsible for your feelings. For example, you can feel angry, and even like killing someone, but if you are sane and civilised you will never act on it. The same goes for dislike. If you dislike gay marriage or watching gay people getting it on with each other in public, or do not like a town full of immigrants, how exactly does that make you a bigot?
A bigot is basically someone who is prejudiced, ie believes things about certain groups in general with little or no evidence, or is against certain groups based on such beliefs. You cannot then extend what is essentially a deliberate condition of misinformation into an automatic reaction, distaste, dislike, disgust or whatever, without the slightest logic or reason. None of the examples are connected with my own opinions either way, just three which have raised some of the most accusations of bigotry in the last few years. Are you a food bigot for never wanting to touch raw onions or garlic? Are you prejudiced if you haven't even eaten any to be certain? We are all designed with built in safety and defence mechanisms, and they kick off in both dangerous and unfamiliar circumstances, and also draw on our intuition which again is based on accurate feeling with little or no direct evidence, but when later followed by such evidence almost always turns out to be right.
Most people it seems do not want to live in a community of random races and cultures all forming small tight pockets and speaking foreign languages. This is not logical, it is based on our ancient family makeup and the foundation of tribes in primitive cultures in the past and present. Again, there is no justification to act on those dislikes and drive the foreigners away or attack them in any ways, but it is inbuilt in everyone to be drawn to people more like themselves than anything else. If you want to use political beliefs to attempt to reverse built in human nature it will always end in tears, as it simply is and always was the same. If someone is heterosexual then it is more likely they will wince when seeing two men or women kissing and touching each other without any notice in public, not because they are either bigoted or homophobic, but it is not their own nature and no different to seeing someone eat oysters or witchetty grubs if you don't like them. You're not prejudiced against them, it is just a natural reaction to seeing something you could never do yourself.
By deliberately accusing normal people who have never hurt and never would hurt anyone of being bigots and worse for simply voicing their feelings and reactions which are different to the norm is a totalitarian and intolerant form of control, as you are literally going a level above thought control, which again is not within our powers to stop, but feeling control and taste control. Kim Il Jun (or whatever combination is in power at the moment) made his citizens copy his haircut, just as Chairman Mao made everyone wear overalls. These are Maoist overalls for our thoughts and feelings, and like overalls may hide what is beneath but can never and should never change it. That is no one else's business or right to impose on anyone. If your feelings and thoughts can be challenged, and potentially criminalised as a result what state has the world come to?
A bigot is basically someone who is prejudiced, ie believes things about certain groups in general with little or no evidence, or is against certain groups based on such beliefs. You cannot then extend what is essentially a deliberate condition of misinformation into an automatic reaction, distaste, dislike, disgust or whatever, without the slightest logic or reason. None of the examples are connected with my own opinions either way, just three which have raised some of the most accusations of bigotry in the last few years. Are you a food bigot for never wanting to touch raw onions or garlic? Are you prejudiced if you haven't even eaten any to be certain? We are all designed with built in safety and defence mechanisms, and they kick off in both dangerous and unfamiliar circumstances, and also draw on our intuition which again is based on accurate feeling with little or no direct evidence, but when later followed by such evidence almost always turns out to be right.
Most people it seems do not want to live in a community of random races and cultures all forming small tight pockets and speaking foreign languages. This is not logical, it is based on our ancient family makeup and the foundation of tribes in primitive cultures in the past and present. Again, there is no justification to act on those dislikes and drive the foreigners away or attack them in any ways, but it is inbuilt in everyone to be drawn to people more like themselves than anything else. If you want to use political beliefs to attempt to reverse built in human nature it will always end in tears, as it simply is and always was the same. If someone is heterosexual then it is more likely they will wince when seeing two men or women kissing and touching each other without any notice in public, not because they are either bigoted or homophobic, but it is not their own nature and no different to seeing someone eat oysters or witchetty grubs if you don't like them. You're not prejudiced against them, it is just a natural reaction to seeing something you could never do yourself.
By deliberately accusing normal people who have never hurt and never would hurt anyone of being bigots and worse for simply voicing their feelings and reactions which are different to the norm is a totalitarian and intolerant form of control, as you are literally going a level above thought control, which again is not within our powers to stop, but feeling control and taste control. Kim Il Jun (or whatever combination is in power at the moment) made his citizens copy his haircut, just as Chairman Mao made everyone wear overalls. These are Maoist overalls for our thoughts and feelings, and like overalls may hide what is beneath but can never and should never change it. That is no one else's business or right to impose on anyone. If your feelings and thoughts can be challenged, and potentially criminalised as a result what state has the world come to?
Friday, 27 June 2014
Accounting tricks
Believe it or not, one of the main things you learn studying accounting (as I spent a year doing it) is how to present the figures in different ways. This is based on the principle they know better than everyone else so can use their knowledge not just to make a fucking fortune (they really do, and most of the work's incredibly easy, unlike other professions) but to hide things and make things look better than they are, or worse depending what is required. Basically what they do is to arrange the identical accounts in different ways, either hiding losses and dragging future profits ahead to impress shareholders and potential customers, or hide profits and create apparent losses for tax purposes. They have been doing this since the first scribes and tax collectors one way or another, each generation passes the new versions of the same tools to the next, legally (as it is quite possible to avoid breaking the law doing it) presenting the identical accounts to different people and managing to show different results, which nearly all accept and believe implicitly, and would often need at least another accountant or team of accountants to figure them out as the methods could fox a team of Times crossword finalists. In fact the only difficult part of accounting, besides tax accounting, is how to carry out these presentations, learning the law to know which tricks are actually beyond the pale and then keeping up with the latest methods to offshore profits and pay your own company for loans to itself.
So basically it's a dirty business, one which could be perfectly pure and clean but owing to legal breadth has its largest field in saving the clients more money than they pay and reducing or increasing the bottom lines to do so. In accounts they can only work the profit/loss trick for a year or two as they are only suppressing the figures which are all public as that is the law, so can't keep it up for ever. The tax dodges are the exception simply as the government make them permanent by approving them, so once invented can simply run till the law changes. Therefore when the Bank of England shows growth, or low inflation, it is because the government wants them to, but if you get the raw figures (also available in the main) and know what to do, then you can see they are quite able to take some really poor performances and use the same tricks we learnt at college to make borrowing look like assets, while in fact they are huge liabilities, as every penny of profit shown from a loan is a loss as you must pay back more than you borrowed, but if not this year the law says you can include that loan as income. Go figure. So growth can be from increased capital (which technically it only is from) or borrowed capital, much like borrowing expensive furniture when selling a house to make it look better, or hiring a Ferrari for a first date, but despite creating a good impression for a short time they were never yours and you have had to lose money hiring them so actually worse off as they don't even belong to you after you give them back.
So once you know these are used to present pretty much all statistics, so much so when top civil servants are appointed the statistical department asks them what figures do they want (this is a fact not an anecdote), it really means whatever the government tell you is happening you have to check for yourself. It also means something far, far worse, the government are inherently dishonest. They spend millions a year employing top level accountants and statisticians to take whatever real figures exist and make them look as close to how they need them to to make the public believe whatever they need them to believe. Global warming is similar to business, you can't borrow future profits forward forever unless you are actually going to make a real profit eventually to back it up. So although they can divert people's attention with predictions outside their lifetimes as the people are mainly as thick as pigshit, they can't drag heat from the future, hide cold from the past and adjust existing temperatures up forever as the main temperature measurements are public knowledge and the longer they remain flat (or even fall, which is quite possible) the harder it will be to convince enough people they are really rising, and if you believe Barack Obama (billions do worldwide, shame on them) it is going up faster than ever then they don't even need to spend five years studying complex tricks to make bad figures go away, they will simply lie openly as enough people trust their authorities few actually bother to check. So in the end these tricks can only work as long as enough people fall for them.
So to summarise, we have inflation figures, unemployment, growth, profits, and temperature rises which governments have the ability to take the identical set of figures and present showing a wide range of different bottom lines, using legal and sometimes less than legal methods to offset genuine losses and bad news to delay them till the next election, or whichever other point they can maintain the illusion. But the real figures are always there which the experts can use to undo the illusions, subtracting borrowings from growth and immigrants from employed people and you see the starving bodies beneath them, the skinny, scrawny economy padded by fake muscle suits and scurvy rashes covered up by thick makeup. Don't look at the surface, and don't even expect the surface to represent anything any longer, as beneath it you will see what is really there. In some cases it could even be the same, but when interest rates are 0.5% and house prices are rising 20% a year don't imagine it means the economy could ever be healthy as those real figures are the sign of a rampant disease. If rates were around 5%, the median in a healthy economy, and house prices were fairly stable, then you're onto something. Look at price to earning ratios. How much is petrol, gas bills, car prices compared to average earnings? They can never be tweaked so they are the constants, the roots you need to really know how an economy's doing. How many of the people coming off the unemployment figures are sick, leaving the country, retiring or working part time rather than actually getting full time jobs? Again, the data is all there if you want to know, and can do your own sums to see the truth. One area where the data cannot all be found is the climate data, as much of it is protected by commercial law. That tells you more than enough on that front.
So basically it's a dirty business, one which could be perfectly pure and clean but owing to legal breadth has its largest field in saving the clients more money than they pay and reducing or increasing the bottom lines to do so. In accounts they can only work the profit/loss trick for a year or two as they are only suppressing the figures which are all public as that is the law, so can't keep it up for ever. The tax dodges are the exception simply as the government make them permanent by approving them, so once invented can simply run till the law changes. Therefore when the Bank of England shows growth, or low inflation, it is because the government wants them to, but if you get the raw figures (also available in the main) and know what to do, then you can see they are quite able to take some really poor performances and use the same tricks we learnt at college to make borrowing look like assets, while in fact they are huge liabilities, as every penny of profit shown from a loan is a loss as you must pay back more than you borrowed, but if not this year the law says you can include that loan as income. Go figure. So growth can be from increased capital (which technically it only is from) or borrowed capital, much like borrowing expensive furniture when selling a house to make it look better, or hiring a Ferrari for a first date, but despite creating a good impression for a short time they were never yours and you have had to lose money hiring them so actually worse off as they don't even belong to you after you give them back.
So once you know these are used to present pretty much all statistics, so much so when top civil servants are appointed the statistical department asks them what figures do they want (this is a fact not an anecdote), it really means whatever the government tell you is happening you have to check for yourself. It also means something far, far worse, the government are inherently dishonest. They spend millions a year employing top level accountants and statisticians to take whatever real figures exist and make them look as close to how they need them to to make the public believe whatever they need them to believe. Global warming is similar to business, you can't borrow future profits forward forever unless you are actually going to make a real profit eventually to back it up. So although they can divert people's attention with predictions outside their lifetimes as the people are mainly as thick as pigshit, they can't drag heat from the future, hide cold from the past and adjust existing temperatures up forever as the main temperature measurements are public knowledge and the longer they remain flat (or even fall, which is quite possible) the harder it will be to convince enough people they are really rising, and if you believe Barack Obama (billions do worldwide, shame on them) it is going up faster than ever then they don't even need to spend five years studying complex tricks to make bad figures go away, they will simply lie openly as enough people trust their authorities few actually bother to check. So in the end these tricks can only work as long as enough people fall for them.
So to summarise, we have inflation figures, unemployment, growth, profits, and temperature rises which governments have the ability to take the identical set of figures and present showing a wide range of different bottom lines, using legal and sometimes less than legal methods to offset genuine losses and bad news to delay them till the next election, or whichever other point they can maintain the illusion. But the real figures are always there which the experts can use to undo the illusions, subtracting borrowings from growth and immigrants from employed people and you see the starving bodies beneath them, the skinny, scrawny economy padded by fake muscle suits and scurvy rashes covered up by thick makeup. Don't look at the surface, and don't even expect the surface to represent anything any longer, as beneath it you will see what is really there. In some cases it could even be the same, but when interest rates are 0.5% and house prices are rising 20% a year don't imagine it means the economy could ever be healthy as those real figures are the sign of a rampant disease. If rates were around 5%, the median in a healthy economy, and house prices were fairly stable, then you're onto something. Look at price to earning ratios. How much is petrol, gas bills, car prices compared to average earnings? They can never be tweaked so they are the constants, the roots you need to really know how an economy's doing. How many of the people coming off the unemployment figures are sick, leaving the country, retiring or working part time rather than actually getting full time jobs? Again, the data is all there if you want to know, and can do your own sums to see the truth. One area where the data cannot all be found is the climate data, as much of it is protected by commercial law. That tells you more than enough on that front.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)