I have already described every possible type of fraud carried out by the media and politicians, and the way to see through it if you want to look is very simple. It's basically scratching the surface and doing your own research, easy now you can look on the internet, and always trace the source and double check.
Never trust a single person on face value. They may be telling the truth but if they are not how would you know if you don't check anything you're not quite sure about. For example, you read a headline that tells you man made CO2 will make the temperature rise up to 6C. Most people (I have seen the responses) accept it and read no further. If they do you usually find nothing more than the basics have been mentioned, although the essential detail here is the range of warming was 1.5 to 6C but not until 2100.
That is a typical empty formula, empty in the sense the closer you look, like at a molecule through an electron microscope, the less is there to see. Get right up and there's actually nothing there at all. The actual fact was the UN claim that due to as yet absent positive feedback conditions, a doubling or more of CO2 which can't happen till 2100 could at the very highest extreme add 6C to the existing average world temperature, but the trend is closer to 2C which is probably harmless.
Before the internet checking these simple facts was very hard so they could get away with it every time, but now everyone simply needs to look it up. The same goes for every global warming claim which are all exactly the same in that they all disappear on closer inspection, as it's a tiny change which has been whipped up to a bodiless froth that looks huge and real till you touch it.
So the same principle applies to all claims made by those without actual evidence. They may well add some examples to apparently qualify their statements, but compared to what you need to pass an exam or win a case they are nothing. Like using local weather to demonstrate global warming. It only works as most people treat nearly all claims made by those in authority as equal without any questioning. Once you start scratching the surface it becomes a habit and the system's lost you. If even 20% of people did this the knowledge would spread among enough others to overthrow the system entirely.
Using old examples, people still believe the value of their own house rising is good, even when their own children can't afford to buy, or they now need two incomes to buy a house themselves when their parents only ever needed one till the 90s. Of course when they want to move to a better area and despite their own house going up £300,000 discover the ones they wanted went up by £500,000 and they are now £200,000 short or so as a few years ago the difference was only £100,000 less which they could now have afforded, as however much their house goes up the better ones go up even more, so get further and further away as prices rise in unison. And of course first time buyers are reduced by every 1% the prices go up as that excludes another income band ad infinitum. Only people with spare houses can sell them for a profit and keep the money, the rest are like gold teeth, sell them and you need another to replace them, there is no profit as it's not a liquid asset, but the idiots fuelling all three party's policies drive the same one as the electorate are too uninformed to realise every single homeowner who doesn't have a business in property loses out from rising prices no less than car or food buyers do.
People can only con you until you get the trick and then it's never possible again as everyone knows it's a con. And they can't replace it with another as they all work the same way, so once you know how a few are done all the rest are variations. Smoke and mirrors all do the same thing and can't do more than that. Assume unless it's clear and obvious nothing they tell you can be taken at face value. Soon you develop a sense to tell you what's worth checking or not, and if money is involved look to see who benefits ultimately. Banks borrow at 0.5%, people borrow at roughly the same rates regardless of base rate except for mortgage holders. Other loans are barely related to base rate so forget it, and means banks can bet on 1-100 odds where they are almost guaranteed to win, and are only worth taking when they borrow for less than the 1% profit they make on tiny wins. Then they borrow huge amounts to finance such quick deals and if the rate goes up then all their backlog of billions is paid off with far more as 0.5% of billions is extremely significant, so they keep the rate at bare minimum indefinitely now as otherwise they will be stuck with massive repayments most banks can't afford now, even if it just hits 1% as they overborrowed.
Bad laws also apply. Who is hurt by banning something? If criticising Islam or gay marriage only causes bad feeling then how can it be made illegal? Criticising something you don't like, even without a reason, isn't causing any direct harm (as in damage to person or property), and will only be illegal now if it damages your personal reputation by lying, but not by either personal opinion or telling the truth. Inciting violence causes harm and is also illegal, but saying you don't agree with something or don't like something is something protected by law in America by their constitution but not in Britain which can ban whatever they want. Never let anyone tell you what opinions are right or wrong as they are both based on preference or choice, and none can ever be better or worse, as they may be a great majority but if you don't think gay marriage is real marriage or want lots of immigration there are plenty of other countries who do agree with you.
Think for yourself and don't let anyone tell you it's wrong. Don't go with the crowd for a peaceful life, as if they are wrong and you know it you are as bad as them in doing so. If for example Britain had been asked if they wanted gay marriage before the parties were elected who brought it in (as many others were), then no one could complain whatever the decision, as both choices were equal, otherwise there couldn't be a vote as one would clearly be wrong. So if voting in or out of the EU, for gay marriage or a basic income is a yes/no preference, in a democracy we must accept the majority decision but cannot be forced to agree with it. But in Britain, without even being asked, the government brought in gay marriage, and anyone (which for all they know may also be the majority) who disagrees with it (not objecting to a legal gay partnership, only to using the sacred word marriage to describe it) is not only universally vilified but calls are made to make expressing such a view illegal. That means it would still be legal to have the view, they won't be erasing it, just to speak it in public. Of course, if they could make the view itself illegal as well they would, but until they can prove what your thoughts are it won't be possible. But allow one and the other could happen were it possible.
These skills can be applied in all areas of life as well. Discernment, trust, prioritising, deciding what's important or not, tracing rules down to why they are made and do they fulfil that function, all become second nature and the more who learn it the harder it will become to oppress the people as the audience will know the tricks the illusionists are using. As James Randi says, he is an illusionist as he says what he's doing looks real but isn't, but the government are cheats as they are creating an illusion but pretending it is real. But unlike magicians they do it so badly every single member of the audience can easily work out how they do it as unlike mgicians they aren't professionals and don't have the complex training (besides the weakly effective PR) and fancy equipment magicians do. PR is old hat and just uses old fashioned methods to manipulate those most susceptible (who are the majority) and make them immune to the appeals by their peers as they are taught to not trust anyone unqualified despite the only qualification required is knowledge.
Once you get it you get it, and it becomes so natural and obvious you wonder however you were fooled in the first place. That doesn't matter, as we all need to be conned once to see how it works and how to follow it back to its origins to stop it happening again. I gave many examples of the illusions in my last interview, and now you are learning the tools to spot every single one of them from those examples, and the formulas I am now applying which you can learn and use to undo the locks made by those who wish to exploit you rather than becoming a success honestly. Which is not only easier but leaves you with a better character and makes a better society. If you don't have the talent to do a job and have to fake it then do a job you are good at rather than take on a higher one where you have to lie and cheat to maintain it. It may work for you and the community of politicians or estate agents will normally protect each other from all but the worst accusations, but is that a way to live, like a parasite living off your hosts? Surely it's better for every person to win properly, as if you need to suck the life from someone else to do well you're actually just stealing it, whether or not you're caught? And if you're clever enough to make a career of stealing and not get caught you're clever enough to have a proper career.
I hope you have learnt principles for both the victims, who are nearly everyone, and advice to potential perpetrators, who may not have done as well in life as they wanted to, so for that extra push drop their ethics and take the bribe from the higher level of staff above you in parliament, or the police, or civil service, or education etc, to do as they say and you will be promoted. We know it both happens and is actually how most run. The higher you get the more people you have to figuratively allow to enter you from behind. We are not prostitutes, and giving up your mind is no better than giving up your body in return for rewards. The abandonment of personal morals for promotion is no better than the casting couch and worse as you are hurting others as well as demeaning yourself. It stains your character and is the same as cheating in a race or an exam. You have the medal in your possession, everyone else thinks you earned it, but you feel bad as you know you didn't, you stole it. Every scientist earning a single dollar from lying about global warming is dirty, and hurts people through inciting false taxes and travel restrictions. Zac Goldsmith, who joined the Conservative Party, wants to charge everyone extra to drive in London, something impossible to be accepted without the imaginary fear of causing global warming. The people are being conned into voting to wreck their own lives based on the fear of something even worse that can't happen as it's not even projected to possibly till at least 2100.
These are such crude cons it makes me weep inside to know most people are dumb enough to both accept them all as real (the sea level is rising at almost the same rate for 200 years of inches a century, although after ice ages it rises hundreds of feet) and fight people who try and explain they are wrong. This is the inverse of free speech, as these are not opinions, global warming and other memes like it are presented as facts, and dismissed with facts which prove they are incorrect on nearly every point. They begin with a few facts, ie CO2 has risen and it's warming, and the rest is bullshit, as I explained in my first interviews. I can disprove every single claim, not because I'm a scientist but a trained legal investigator. We always win as you don't need to be trained in anything to pick other professions' work apart with expert advice for the technical questions, which is now freely available by friendly experts online. In the end it's a jury trial, and the jury are always lay people with expert witnesses. The process is hundreds of years old and has very few exceptions to what can be tried.
You don't need to be qualified though, just aware, either through your own ability or being shown how, politics is not science and they are all amateurs as they are not required to be qualified in anything, and have access to every expert without paying for their services. So when Putin sends his scientists to investigate global warming, as he is not part of the global system, and does not pay for their services as they work for him already, what they find is not biased and have enough resources and qualifications to run the whole lot through the system from start to finish and whatever they find ought to fit with the truth. And if it doesn't then you assume they were bought off as they can't support their claims. And surprise surprise they agreed with me, it's not a problem and barely genuine. It makes no difference to Putin either way, he has the whole of Russia at his disposal, a few more carbon taxes make no odds either way, he has oil, gas and can support his citizens for centuries on the reserves, and if creating an artificial shortage to eke them out for longer and an artificial price from extra taxes is neither here nor there on the scale of things in Russia. After all, ultimately they would only be taxing themselves so wouldn't gain a penny as it wouldn't increase GDP as was just moving the same money around within the economy.
I hope you are like me, beginning to see the big picture here, especially if you have seen all my earlier interviews. Think for yourself, learn how to investigate, and no one can ever take you for a ride once enough people join you. Till then you can see through the tricks, and not be swayed by peer or state pressure to agree with global warming, stop expressing your unpopular views, or vote for low interest rates (were it on the table to vote for). And learn the difference between facts and opinions. Global warming is 100% factual and not connected to your politics or religion as it is all data based and that is neutral. Opinions are personal preference and all equal, just like each life is equal (but not the same). Therefore if 97% of people vote for gay marriage they still have no right to ban the 3% from saying they don't think it can be called marriage. You don't even have the right to make them explain why, they don't ask you so why should they be forced to justify their opinion as currently happens the whole time?
Put any other issue into the formula and it comes out the same. Interest rates and house prices are facts, economic arithmetic. Multiculturalism, EU membership and immigration are preferences, if you want to be run as a federal state, or even a world government, then if you actually understand what it will be like (which does need a degree level of knowledge to know), then fine if the majority learn enough to be informed and prefer it, we must go with the majority. But if people complain who maybe don't like being the minority where they were born, or having laws made by unelected EU commissioners then don't call them mental or bigoted as had each vote gone the other way then you would be on what is currently their side and wouldn't want to be treated like a pariah for your choice either. I think that covers every possible eventuality, and by keeping it as simple and concise as possible with a few representative accurate examples it will be enough for everyone to apply.
Friday, 1 January 2016
Friday, 18 December 2015
Uncertainty in climate science
I constantly hear references to the consensus and settled science within climate change, yet on all its foundations everyone within the community is fully aware it is almost entirely based on estimates and speculation. I will now list every area I could find which means the results of using such factors for creating what they put forward as solid claims are false, as once you look at the basis of such claims, some if not most of them are based on fillers.
Models couldn't cope with the main coolants, ie aerosols, cloud formation, and where water vapour went to. That means that although the entire AGW theory is based on a small rise in temperature from CO2 causing a far greater one caused by increased water vapour, it's far too complex to model. Especially as the same evaporating oceans can cause cooling from increasing the total cloud cover.
Modelling problems
Cloud modelling problems
Conclusions
Science could not have sold such a scenario even to James Hansen (whose estimates of the 21st century are ten times higher or more than nearly everyone else's), so it was quietly dropped for the alternative which was so different it would be impossible to see how without being thoroughly incompetent at their work it would have changed from one to the other:
This was Michael Mann's work, which is claimed relied on eliminating hundreds of bristlecone pine (or cedar according to this diagram) records in order to raise the present, and alleged by statistician Steve McIntyre to run an algorithm which would make the same hockey stick at the end whatever figures were put in initially. And not only did they remove past higher temperatures as far back as their graphs go but a few years later they quietly merged the two without a single nod from the media.
Medieval warm period. This alone would kill the global warming hypothesis, as if it was both warmer at that time worldwide, and without either the increased CO2 causing it or any problems for mankind (the benefits were listed and are known, including many crops growing far further from the equator than today) then nothing we are experiencing now or ahead would be meaningful. Up till 2001 the UN actually acknowledged the MWP and then wrote a new graph flattening it away, followed by another half way between the two, all to be used for world policy. How can you make a theory or policy based on such unknown history?
Not only are these graphs dubious, as who are we to know which (if any) is the right one, as of course only one can be, but they form the entire basis of world climate policy, affirmed just this week in December 2015 in Paris. Clearly proxy records must be unreliable to produce at least three 21st century revisions, and absolutely different from the original.
Ice cores
Predicting the future using models was not even accepted by the IPCC. In 2001, stating the obvious anyone who understands predicting in open systems already knew, "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." Furthermore scientific experiments must be completable and repeatable. Setting a point from 2050-2300 as the UN IPCC reports do is outside the realm of science or logic.
Ice levels: These have been seen by satellites since 1979 (as have many other parameters such as overall temperature, as opposed to a collection of surface locations), and impossible to compare with earlier partial data. The thickness can only be measured to a fairly shallow depth while the rest is only speculated on. Claiming record ice levels only dates back to 1979 which is far too recent to have the slightest meaning.
Extreme weather as temperature rises: Even the UN don't claim it's possible to either attribute individual weather events to warming, or as some claim extreme events increase with warming. They say they may increase in intensity but not in frequency. One claim is the warmer a system the more volatile, but other scientists claim this can't apply in the atmosphere. Extreme weather events can be directly recorded from the past, droughts, hurricanes, floods etc, as local historians have kept records for many hundreds of years. Most of the worst events happened long before the 21st century. Droughts for example are far worse in the past:
American hurricane landfalls have been at their lowest for a long time, which relate directly to the sea surface temperature:
Extreme weather records
The effects of a 2C rise and above. These are totally speculated as we have no knowledge past or present what such a rise could do, if anything, besides the known benefits of a rise up to 2C we know from history including greater food production, fewer wars, fewer deaths from cold and lower energy usage. As people all die from cold but not from hot weather then we know exactly what happens in every ice age from direct remains of skeletons etc, but not from warmer periods besides the benefits.
The sensitivity to CO2 is set at a default of 1C per doubling at any point, as it halves its power each time, until it can no longer hold any more heat at which point it becomes saturated. That point is totally unknown (there is currently not even a general estimate as there is no means known to do so), and may have already been reached. Every other increase is from unknown positive feedback, which is almost totally dependent on evaporating oceans lodging in the exact band which amplify the greenhouse effect. If they do not, or form more clouds, they will reduce the temperature.
Temperature adjustments are officially to fill in gaps, eliminate outliers and remove local bias, which is virtually all from urban heat islands. Random errors tend to zero, bias for heat reduces the temperature. Yet nearly all pre-adjustment temperatures (plus unknown ones never released for 'commercial reasons', whatever that means) are lower than the ones finally used. These are the American ones
but reflect anywhere else you care to mention freely available online.
Latest compromised data
Of course the greatest example, the world holocene record has already been shown above which Michael Mann redrew at apparent will. And it wasn't the only one, four were offered to the IPCC, not all similar, and his was chosen as the 'official' one, ie they decided that was the 'good' one. Until they changed it a few years later that is.
Recently in late 2015 something happened which never had before. The UN adjusted recent temperature records once they had been accepted (having already been adjusted initially). This suddenly dropped the past so the recent stall in temperatures since the late 90s vanished overnight to be replaced with more hockey stick. Prior till now nearly (?) all revision was only applied to proxies as they found better ways to measure the past, but rewriting direct recent measurements is something apparently novel in climate science altogether, and coincided with a point where over 60 (see the uncertainty there?) different reasons, from air pollution to natural cycles being given to the pause, which then suddenly disappeared.
Here it is
and it's gone
Bear in mind the IPCC not only did far more to remove the MWP in 2001 but in the following report some of it returned. How long will it last before it's replaced with another one, as new methods for measuring proxies keep being refined. But now we must also apply the same variations for last year's temperatures, and everything now becomes temporary. Is that something you would want to be used to create a world carbon price, which I guarantee does not fall as the temperature rise does.
But overall the temperature itself is incredibly less certain than the final graphs we see in the media. There are surface temperatures, often affected by urban heat islands, and since the satellites went up measuring the temperature and ice in 1979 have been drastically reduced. They are still used though, and besides using rough methods for daily average temperatures, such as averaging the high and low points per day, they then have to try and extrapolate them worldwide, and some have been found filling in the gaps (over 70% of the total now) not with the average temperature overall but the warmer end. Besides that one example it means everything is then adjusted to correct for known issues, but rather than falling for the urban heat islands and evening to zero for the random errors nearly all local measurements can be seen to have either been ramped up or tilted down in the past to make them rise. Neither method can do this. They then use the difference from a certain point in time (the anomaly) to show the temperature change rather than absolute temperature, to see if it is rising at all, and by setting the point at the lowest for decades means it's guaranteed to make the others look higher after them. They also found one of the satellites had been reading high for years, but didn't correct the records to show the new difference, which may have accounted for much of the measured warming.
Then once satellites arrived the total ground based stations were drastically reduced, leaving many areas almost clear of them, requiring vastly more estimation to fill in the new spaces. Look at what happened by a possible coincidence after that happened.
However, as it's so hard to record the world temperature, let alone its average, we have a number of various methods, land, sea, air and since 1979 satellite. Sometimes they are similar, sometimes they are not. And with the land temperatures you have RSS, UAH, NOAA and HadCrut. Here are the graphs for the average temperature for similar periods:
But wait, the 0.8C rise (almost the only thing scientists can agree on) since 1850 can't all be down to CO2 can it? Besides the accepted fact CO2 always rises after the temperature as it's released by the oceans, the new situation of temperature being driven by CO2 is only partially tested. But look hard enough and the scientists do attribute between 25-50% of the known warming to natural causes.
This would mean if CO2 were 520ppm, twice the starting figure, temperatures would rise around 1.6C (twice the rise after half the doubling in 2015) with 0.8-1.2C being down to the added CO2, exactly the figure attributed to adding that much CO2 with no positive feedback.
The positive feedback, in fact, is what will change a trivial and innocuous rise from CO2 to the 4C plus claimed by Hansen and Greenpeace, at the very end of the IPCC 1.5-6C range in 2100. Nearly all from evaporating oceans forming water vapour which is the serious greenhouse gas, naturally accounting for 95% of the accepted 33C addition from greenhouse gases, with 1C of that down to CO2 in 1850. However, that has to both form water vapour (warming) not clouds (blocking the sun), and lodge in bands not saturated (meaning they can absorb no more heat). And it is virtually impossible to model water vapour and clouds, so the very factor between a normal gentle warming and a disaster can't be worked out till it actually happens. And NASA's Aqua and other satellites have both found CO2 is actually bumping out some water vapour, creating a cooling result, and water vapour is going down.
Now the range of any projection mustn't either exceed the margin of error or be impossible to discover, or it becomes void. This graph begun by the IPCC in the 90s breaks both these rules, as if an investment advisor or insurance company said they'd pay out if the temperature rose between 1.5 and 6C it would be an incredibly good bet as it's very unlikely it would get close to 6C but may fall below 1.5 where you would lose, but going by the trend probably not. But you'd have to wait till 2100 to win the bet. No thanks.
The same sort of issues affect sea level, obviously as it is different all day long due to the winds and the tides, so measuring an average is not as easy as it seems even though unlike the temperature there is one due to the total amount of water. But tide gauges are accurate at each point and when many have not risen much for over a century in many low lying areas it makes you wonder how they can find a rise at all overall. Also you can see the rate of rise has not increased as you'd expect, but is changing with no regular pattern at all and lower now than in 1910. It has also been claimed the direct measurements change in natural cycles. Tide gauge study
History shows regular peaks between ice ages. We are currently at one right now. Every previous one was natural and part of a regular cycle. CO2 rose every time as a result of the warming ocean releasing it. None of the previous ones were caused or affected by added CO2 and our current peak is below every other one. How can anyone seeing that think anything is not normal just because it coincides with us burning more fossil fuel? That is the first assumption you would make and then dismiss.
Scientists know this as well Explanation by Dr Tim Ball
Models couldn't cope with the main coolants, ie aerosols, cloud formation, and where water vapour went to. That means that although the entire AGW theory is based on a small rise in temperature from CO2 causing a far greater one caused by increased water vapour, it's far too complex to model. Especially as the same evaporating oceans can cause cooling from increasing the total cloud cover.
Modelling problems
Cloud modelling problems
Conclusions
• clouds have strong and varying radiative impacts on the climate system
• clouds are the largest source of uncertainty in quantifying climate feedbacks and sensitivity
• it is very difficult to simply and accurately parameterize the small scale processes affecting clouds in a global
climate model
• anthropogenic aerosol might have a large influence on cloudiness, but the overall impact is unknown
• this is also difficult to parameterize in a global climate model
From the UN directly in 2001, confirming what anyone with school level science can work out:
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
UN IPCC Past temperatures before we measured them come from a variety of sources, mainly tree rings and ice cores. They sometimes disagree with each other. Here are the known issues trying to make a firm judgement based on them alone:
Temperatures taken before direct thermometer measurements (the oldest being the Central England records which are a few hundred years old) are estimated by proxies. The world temperature direct record begins around 1850. The details are less important than the results, but include ice cores, tree rings, and also which plants were able to grow in certain locations. But the problem here is they never stay fixed for long, but endlessly revised. This is vital, as the main argument by the scientists is it's warmer now than it has been for many thousands of years. Except until about 2001 it wasn't. There were a number of 'climate optimums', ie when the world temperature was better overall, causing fewer overall deaths as more people die of cold, more food, fewer wars and less energy use. As is the case today in a mild winter or good growing season compared to the colder alternative.
The UN IPCC made the greatest revisions, which in any other area- history, engineering, medicine, anything where records are kept and relied on, would probably be unheard of. This was the standard past temperature record taught worldwide until the 21st century.
As everyone can see from about the age of five, today's temperature and rate of change is random and normal, and most of all about bang in the middle of the range. Obviously had this been adopted by the IPCC not many scientists, politicians or the general public would have had the slightest concern over today's warming trend, as clearly it's always either warming or cooling, and the range is pretty wide. The longer period of time confirms we are at the exact peak of a regular cycle, and lower than the previous ones.
From the UN directly in 2001, confirming what anyone with school level science can work out:
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
UN IPCC Past temperatures before we measured them come from a variety of sources, mainly tree rings and ice cores. They sometimes disagree with each other. Here are the known issues trying to make a firm judgement based on them alone:
Temperatures taken before direct thermometer measurements (the oldest being the Central England records which are a few hundred years old) are estimated by proxies. The world temperature direct record begins around 1850. The details are less important than the results, but include ice cores, tree rings, and also which plants were able to grow in certain locations. But the problem here is they never stay fixed for long, but endlessly revised. This is vital, as the main argument by the scientists is it's warmer now than it has been for many thousands of years. Except until about 2001 it wasn't. There were a number of 'climate optimums', ie when the world temperature was better overall, causing fewer overall deaths as more people die of cold, more food, fewer wars and less energy use. As is the case today in a mild winter or good growing season compared to the colder alternative.
The UN IPCC made the greatest revisions, which in any other area- history, engineering, medicine, anything where records are kept and relied on, would probably be unheard of. This was the standard past temperature record taught worldwide until the 21st century.
As everyone can see from about the age of five, today's temperature and rate of change is random and normal, and most of all about bang in the middle of the range. Obviously had this been adopted by the IPCC not many scientists, politicians or the general public would have had the slightest concern over today's warming trend, as clearly it's always either warming or cooling, and the range is pretty wide. The longer period of time confirms we are at the exact peak of a regular cycle, and lower than the previous ones.
Science could not have sold such a scenario even to James Hansen (whose estimates of the 21st century are ten times higher or more than nearly everyone else's), so it was quietly dropped for the alternative which was so different it would be impossible to see how without being thoroughly incompetent at their work it would have changed from one to the other:
This was Michael Mann's work, which is claimed relied on eliminating hundreds of bristlecone pine (or cedar according to this diagram) records in order to raise the present, and alleged by statistician Steve McIntyre to run an algorithm which would make the same hockey stick at the end whatever figures were put in initially. And not only did they remove past higher temperatures as far back as their graphs go but a few years later they quietly merged the two without a single nod from the media.
Medieval warm period. This alone would kill the global warming hypothesis, as if it was both warmer at that time worldwide, and without either the increased CO2 causing it or any problems for mankind (the benefits were listed and are known, including many crops growing far further from the equator than today) then nothing we are experiencing now or ahead would be meaningful. Up till 2001 the UN actually acknowledged the MWP and then wrote a new graph flattening it away, followed by another half way between the two, all to be used for world policy. How can you make a theory or policy based on such unknown history?
Not only are these graphs dubious, as who are we to know which (if any) is the right one, as of course only one can be, but they form the entire basis of world climate policy, affirmed just this week in December 2015 in Paris. Clearly proxy records must be unreliable to produce at least three 21st century revisions, and absolutely different from the original.
Ice cores
Predicting the future using models was not even accepted by the IPCC. In 2001, stating the obvious anyone who understands predicting in open systems already knew, "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." Furthermore scientific experiments must be completable and repeatable. Setting a point from 2050-2300 as the UN IPCC reports do is outside the realm of science or logic.
Ice levels: These have been seen by satellites since 1979 (as have many other parameters such as overall temperature, as opposed to a collection of surface locations), and impossible to compare with earlier partial data. The thickness can only be measured to a fairly shallow depth while the rest is only speculated on. Claiming record ice levels only dates back to 1979 which is far too recent to have the slightest meaning.
Extreme weather as temperature rises: Even the UN don't claim it's possible to either attribute individual weather events to warming, or as some claim extreme events increase with warming. They say they may increase in intensity but not in frequency. One claim is the warmer a system the more volatile, but other scientists claim this can't apply in the atmosphere. Extreme weather events can be directly recorded from the past, droughts, hurricanes, floods etc, as local historians have kept records for many hundreds of years. Most of the worst events happened long before the 21st century. Droughts for example are far worse in the past:
American hurricane landfalls have been at their lowest for a long time, which relate directly to the sea surface temperature:
The effects of a 2C rise and above. These are totally speculated as we have no knowledge past or present what such a rise could do, if anything, besides the known benefits of a rise up to 2C we know from history including greater food production, fewer wars, fewer deaths from cold and lower energy usage. As people all die from cold but not from hot weather then we know exactly what happens in every ice age from direct remains of skeletons etc, but not from warmer periods besides the benefits.
The sensitivity to CO2 is set at a default of 1C per doubling at any point, as it halves its power each time, until it can no longer hold any more heat at which point it becomes saturated. That point is totally unknown (there is currently not even a general estimate as there is no means known to do so), and may have already been reached. Every other increase is from unknown positive feedback, which is almost totally dependent on evaporating oceans lodging in the exact band which amplify the greenhouse effect. If they do not, or form more clouds, they will reduce the temperature.
Temperature adjustments are officially to fill in gaps, eliminate outliers and remove local bias, which is virtually all from urban heat islands. Random errors tend to zero, bias for heat reduces the temperature. Yet nearly all pre-adjustment temperatures (plus unknown ones never released for 'commercial reasons', whatever that means) are lower than the ones finally used. These are the American ones
but reflect anywhere else you care to mention freely available online.
Latest compromised data
Of course the greatest example, the world holocene record has already been shown above which Michael Mann redrew at apparent will. And it wasn't the only one, four were offered to the IPCC, not all similar, and his was chosen as the 'official' one, ie they decided that was the 'good' one. Until they changed it a few years later that is.
Recently in late 2015 something happened which never had before. The UN adjusted recent temperature records once they had been accepted (having already been adjusted initially). This suddenly dropped the past so the recent stall in temperatures since the late 90s vanished overnight to be replaced with more hockey stick. Prior till now nearly (?) all revision was only applied to proxies as they found better ways to measure the past, but rewriting direct recent measurements is something apparently novel in climate science altogether, and coincided with a point where over 60 (see the uncertainty there?) different reasons, from air pollution to natural cycles being given to the pause, which then suddenly disappeared.
Here it is
But overall the temperature itself is incredibly less certain than the final graphs we see in the media. There are surface temperatures, often affected by urban heat islands, and since the satellites went up measuring the temperature and ice in 1979 have been drastically reduced. They are still used though, and besides using rough methods for daily average temperatures, such as averaging the high and low points per day, they then have to try and extrapolate them worldwide, and some have been found filling in the gaps (over 70% of the total now) not with the average temperature overall but the warmer end. Besides that one example it means everything is then adjusted to correct for known issues, but rather than falling for the urban heat islands and evening to zero for the random errors nearly all local measurements can be seen to have either been ramped up or tilted down in the past to make them rise. Neither method can do this. They then use the difference from a certain point in time (the anomaly) to show the temperature change rather than absolute temperature, to see if it is rising at all, and by setting the point at the lowest for decades means it's guaranteed to make the others look higher after them. They also found one of the satellites had been reading high for years, but didn't correct the records to show the new difference, which may have accounted for much of the measured warming.
Then once satellites arrived the total ground based stations were drastically reduced, leaving many areas almost clear of them, requiring vastly more estimation to fill in the new spaces. Look at what happened by a possible coincidence after that happened.
However, as it's so hard to record the world temperature, let alone its average, we have a number of various methods, land, sea, air and since 1979 satellite. Sometimes they are similar, sometimes they are not. And with the land temperatures you have RSS, UAH, NOAA and HadCrut. Here are the graphs for the average temperature for similar periods:
But wait, the 0.8C rise (almost the only thing scientists can agree on) since 1850 can't all be down to CO2 can it? Besides the accepted fact CO2 always rises after the temperature as it's released by the oceans, the new situation of temperature being driven by CO2 is only partially tested. But look hard enough and the scientists do attribute between 25-50% of the known warming to natural causes.
The positive feedback, in fact, is what will change a trivial and innocuous rise from CO2 to the 4C plus claimed by Hansen and Greenpeace, at the very end of the IPCC 1.5-6C range in 2100. Nearly all from evaporating oceans forming water vapour which is the serious greenhouse gas, naturally accounting for 95% of the accepted 33C addition from greenhouse gases, with 1C of that down to CO2 in 1850. However, that has to both form water vapour (warming) not clouds (blocking the sun), and lodge in bands not saturated (meaning they can absorb no more heat). And it is virtually impossible to model water vapour and clouds, so the very factor between a normal gentle warming and a disaster can't be worked out till it actually happens. And NASA's Aqua and other satellites have both found CO2 is actually bumping out some water vapour, creating a cooling result, and water vapour is going down.
The same sort of issues affect sea level, obviously as it is different all day long due to the winds and the tides, so measuring an average is not as easy as it seems even though unlike the temperature there is one due to the total amount of water. But tide gauges are accurate at each point and when many have not risen much for over a century in many low lying areas it makes you wonder how they can find a rise at all overall. Also you can see the rate of rise has not increased as you'd expect, but is changing with no regular pattern at all and lower now than in 1910. It has also been claimed the direct measurements change in natural cycles. Tide gauge study
Tide
gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative
values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In
particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural
oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/23/duke-scientist-on-sea-level-rise-patterns-in-tide-gauge-records-mostly-driven-by-natural-oscillations/#sthash.4BHHCSZu.dpuf
Tide
gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative
values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In
particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural
oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/23/duke-scientist-on-sea-level-rise-patterns-in-tide-gauge-records-mostly-driven-by-natural-oscillations/#sthash.4BHHCSZu.dpuf
Tide
gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative
values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In
particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural
oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/23/duke-scientist-on-sea-level-rise-patterns-in-tide-gauge-records-mostly-driven-by-natural-oscillations/#sthash.4BHHCSZu.dpuf
Tide
gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative
values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In
particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural
oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/23/duke-scientist-on-sea-level-rise-patterns-in-tide-gauge-records-mostly-driven-by-natural-oscillations/#sthash.4BHHCSZu.dpuf
Tide
gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative
values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In
particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural
oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/23/duke-scientist-on-sea-level-rise-patterns-in-tide-gauge-records-mostly-driven-by-natural-oscillations/#sthash.4BHHCSZu.dpuf
Tide
gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative
values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In
particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural
oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/23/duke-scientist-on-sea-level-rise-patterns-in-tide-gauge-records-mostly-driven-by-natural-oscillations/#sthash.4BHHCSZu.dpuf
Tide
gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative
values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In
particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural
oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/23/duke-scientist-on-sea-level-rise-patterns-in-tide-gauge-records-mostly-driven-by-natural-oscillations/#sthash.4BHHCSZu.dpuf
Tide
gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative
values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In
particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural
oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/23/duke-scientist-on-sea-level-rise-patterns-in-tide-gauge-records-mostly-driven-by-natural-oscillations/#sthash.4BHHCSZu.dpuf
Tide
gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative
values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In
particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural
oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/23/duke-scientist-on-sea-level-rise-patterns-in-tide-gauge-records-mostly-driven-by-natural-oscillations/#sthash.4BHHCSZu.dpuf
Tide
gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative
values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In
particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural
oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/23/duke-scientist-on-sea-level-rise-patterns-in-tide-gauge-records-mostly-driven-by-natural-oscillations/#sthash.4BHHCSZu.dpuf
Tide
gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative
values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In
particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural
oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/23/duke-scientist-on-sea-level-rise-patterns-in-tide-gauge-records-mostly-driven-by-natural-oscillations/#sthash.4BHHCSZu.dpuf
Tide
gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative
values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In
particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural
oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/23/duke-scientist-on-sea-level-rise-patterns-in-tide-gauge-records-mostly-driven-by-natural-oscillations/#sthash.4BHHCSZu.dpuf
Tide
gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative
values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In
particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural
oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.” - See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/23/duke-scientist-on-sea-level-rise-patterns-in-tide-gauge-records-mostly-driven-by-natural-oscillations/#sthash.4BHHCSZu.dpuf
History shows regular peaks between ice ages. We are currently at one right now. Every previous one was natural and part of a regular cycle. CO2 rose every time as a result of the warming ocean releasing it. None of the previous ones were caused or affected by added CO2 and our current peak is below every other one. How can anyone seeing that think anything is not normal just because it coincides with us burning more fossil fuel? That is the first assumption you would make and then dismiss.
Saturday, 12 December 2015
Minimal government
Here is my model for minimal government, based on the principle the government are employed to do what individuals can not, and are working for the people, not ruling them. Their only role is to protect everyone from crimes (only those causing direct harm to the person or property), and the poor and susceptible. This includes running the legal system and public services, as there can be no competition selling a single product, and as they are essentials and should not include an element of added profit. Every other product and service can be sold freely so allows an entire run for the free market without distorting the economy with fake competition. Healthcare should remain free as no one deserves to lose money from illness. Selective education will become free again so everyone is entitled to receive the best standard of education.
To cover poverty everyone would be given the same amount each year they could live on, paid for by a flat rate tax everyone would pay as it would not be so high anyone would want to avoid it, and be adjusted annually based on what the economy could manage.
Foreign intervention would be based on the principle it is wrong unless there is a very good reason, and armed forces would be employed purely to defend from any invasion and be on stand by doing other work the remainder of the time but paid the same regardless as they all have other skills.
There would be no laws to protect morals or causing offence, as these are changing and totally subjective, and cause absolutely no harm unless you believe in religion, which has no basis in reality.
Travel would be made as simple as possible, with absolutely no restrictions on roads or railways if required. Freedom of movement is essential in a civilised society and delays waste time and fuel.
No additional taxes would be levied on unproven global warming etc, only genuine chemical and biological pollution would be regulated which is known to be harmful.
Social engineering and attempts at it would not be legal. People in a free society must succeed totally on their own merits and nothing more. Quotas are as discriminatory whether for black or white people, able or disabled. Genuine discrimination will still be illegal, therefore include positive and negative as there is in practice no difference between them.
There would be no adoption of supranational groups such as the EU if they make laws over our heads as that is not democratic. On a personal note immigration would be strictly controlled as the benefits are not directly apparent but all the disadvantages are known. These include overcrowding, language problems, cultural clashes, ghettoisation, overloading services (schools, medical, sewage etc) and also takes employment from the national pool of workers.
The basic principle will be to make no new laws or restrictions without a very good reason. Otherwise it is best to allow people's freedom. No one is less equal or more important than another so making laws to protect one group at the expense of another is totalitarian.
To cover poverty everyone would be given the same amount each year they could live on, paid for by a flat rate tax everyone would pay as it would not be so high anyone would want to avoid it, and be adjusted annually based on what the economy could manage.
Foreign intervention would be based on the principle it is wrong unless there is a very good reason, and armed forces would be employed purely to defend from any invasion and be on stand by doing other work the remainder of the time but paid the same regardless as they all have other skills.
There would be no laws to protect morals or causing offence, as these are changing and totally subjective, and cause absolutely no harm unless you believe in religion, which has no basis in reality.
Travel would be made as simple as possible, with absolutely no restrictions on roads or railways if required. Freedom of movement is essential in a civilised society and delays waste time and fuel.
No additional taxes would be levied on unproven global warming etc, only genuine chemical and biological pollution would be regulated which is known to be harmful.
Social engineering and attempts at it would not be legal. People in a free society must succeed totally on their own merits and nothing more. Quotas are as discriminatory whether for black or white people, able or disabled. Genuine discrimination will still be illegal, therefore include positive and negative as there is in practice no difference between them.
There would be no adoption of supranational groups such as the EU if they make laws over our heads as that is not democratic. On a personal note immigration would be strictly controlled as the benefits are not directly apparent but all the disadvantages are known. These include overcrowding, language problems, cultural clashes, ghettoisation, overloading services (schools, medical, sewage etc) and also takes employment from the national pool of workers.
The basic principle will be to make no new laws or restrictions without a very good reason. Otherwise it is best to allow people's freedom. No one is less equal or more important than another so making laws to protect one group at the expense of another is totalitarian.
Tuesday, 17 November 2015
The principle behind it all, freedom
I was asked recently what’s the ultimate basis behind my
work, and the simple reply was freedom. It is something we can all relate to,
humans and animals, and when it is removed or restricted it is either for a
reason of safety or personal development, and if not then punishment.
So as removal of freedom is one of the most universal
punishments known to man, along with assault and causing death, its existence
is held to be the ultimate situation in life, next to life itself when compared
with the death sentence. Knowing this, then why do governments throughout
history do all they can to reduce and restrict our freedoms, using the Hegelian
dialectic, that the alternative is worse. The alternative that rarely even
exists but they knew they could create as the means to get the majority who
sadly do not think for themselves to hand over their freedom. To quote Benjamin
Franklin, those who give their freedom for security deserve neither.
I do find many people are so lost in this vision that I
found I needed to list examples of the difference between imposed restrictions
‘in the name of work, health and safety’ and their removal. By applying
everyday and ordinary examples then I hope everyone can relate to their own
life situations and realise there simply aren’t many times any such
restrictions are appropriate or beneficial.
Work and driving are my personal favourites. Driving is the
ultimate freedom until humans learn to fly (literally or mechanically). It
allows everyone, including the elderly and disabled, to have the opportunity to
travel wherever and whenever they need or want with absolutely no need for
other people to rely on, timetables, routes and the like. The late 20th
century saw growing restrictions on driving, from closed roads in Camden to the Tory
Kenneth Clark introduction of road humps and the related road narrowings. As
speed is not the primary cause of accidents (otherwise why do country lanes
have a 60mph limit?) but lack of concentration, selfishness and alcohol (check
the figures), then the false premise of 20mph zones whatever the restrictions
added to create them, and the same restrictions on officially 30mph roads where
you’ll wreck your car if you drive over 15mph are clearly for some other
purpose. When I decided using logic maybe the councils wanted to do it to put
people off driving altogether (forgetting all vehicles use these dreadful
roads, including buses and emergency vehicles), soon afterwards the EU plan to
ban urban driving by 2050 came out. No coincidence really.
Barnet council broke the mould, uniquely to my knowledge,
when they decided to remove the humps and restrictions, much like Liverpool council just set the precedent to remove the
bus lanes. A road a mile or so long I used to use to visit my grandma had been
given mini roundabouts at every junction, slowing the traffic on a road with no
buildings along it every few hundred yards for absolutely no reason. When
overnight it seemed they disappeared it simply became a road again rather than
an obstacle course. Accident figures are recorded by law when injuries are
caused, and the most injuries come in the same borough from the deaths from
emergency vehicles being slowed down by road humps, meaning the councils are
actually causing more harm than benefit. Knowing this officially what does it
tell you about the councils?
Work is the other example in my life, with the standard
story of my family’s shop manager, who had a weekly timetable which basically
meant when you weren’t serving a customer you’d be dealing with the stock,
every single moment of the day. The work was exhausting and demoralising, but
we assumed it was necessary for a busy international shop in the centre of London, till the week the
manager went on holiday, we did the work when it was needed, and over the
fortnight he was away everything he made us do got done in about a day instead
of a week. We all then realised the reason the timetable was there is he
believed no one should be paid to do nothing, so he simply created the work to
make everyone earn their wages rather than relax and work better when they were
needed to.
Animals without any speech express freedom the most
graphically. The contrast of animals in cages, something to me which is one of
the lowest levels of human behaviour, to when they are released, or when the
cat or dog is returned from the kennels and bounds out of the car to run around
the garden after being locked up for a week or two tells you pretty much all
you need to know about the basic principle. If every government was based on
this principle then every restriction would be a last resort, rather than their
entire motivation.
Imagine the difference in your life if freedom was known as
the prime motivation for all aspects of life. Rather than impose discipline as
a default in schools onwards, people would have to work out through any
required means to only apply it when nothing else would work. Respect of other
people is one example- punctuality, carrying out your duties etc, using the
other golden rule to treat others as you’d want to be treated yourself, could
be started with outside discipline in school and home, but be replaced by self
discipline as with early enough training such principles would become second
nature. That would ideally be carried through to work and family life, where
people would do their jobs properly not because they had to but because they
knew they should. Freedom of speech would also be protected unless it actually
encouraged people to hurt others, so David Cameron’s two attempts (succeeding
the second time) to ban causing offence, a victimless and technically harmless
act, and one so widely interpreted it could effectively close down any negative
speech in public and possibly private if reported. We are all offended by other
people’s words from school onwards, and that is our problem for caring what
idiots think, as much as theirs for being idiots. But being an idiot is a
personal problem and should not become illegal.
So logic dictates the bare minimum of examples where it is
necessary to restrict our freedom for a greater cause. Public health,
protecting customers from poisoning by food products, restricting the spread of
illnesses etc are pretty obvious and why anyone would want the freedom to sell
bad food or sabotage it is anyone’s guess. But they all come under the golden
rule and common sense. Working hours can be flexible where lives don’t depend
on it, files don’t evaporate when not put away on time, and people can easily
be employed to share jobs and arrange the hours between them to allow for
children and other personal time when they would otherwise have to be working.
Banning cars or making driving difficult affects everyone, like poisoning the
air with geoengineering. Even the politicians are held up on the same roads as
the plebs they legislate for, so why do they do it? Misanthropy is the root of
most such rules, followed by exercise of power simply because they can. Two
dangerous and primitive motivations, loved by politicians of all eras.
I believe once people learn the simple message they will
quickly and easily wake up. Just imagining the difference between a journey
before they narrowed the local roads and sent people on complex diversions is a
good start. The extend that to your life. Wouldn’t you rather get to all your appointments
easily rather than change buses (London split all their long routes presumably
to collect two sets of fares for people going across the new boundary), be able
to take time off work without official warnings, and not be taxed on both what
you earn above a certain amount or what you spend beyond the bare minimum? Who
earned the money? Most of the time you did. You probably studied for a few
years, even if just for GCE exams, in order to work, and then the hours you
work on top increase your earnings, or amount you sell that people buy because
you provide things they need or want, and the government not only take the bare
minimum they need to maintain the roads (which will soon be empty), health
service, and support those unable to support themselves, they take more because
they think it’s wrong for people to have ‘too much’.
Misanthropy returns, punishing those who succeed is another
formula we need to consign to history, and wipe out simply through education
that it is the exact opposite motivation people need in their short lives to
strive to success. If you give up trying as your tenth painting will get you a
tenth as much profit when you sell it as your first, then you may give up
painting more than a few per year as why bother when you don’t get much back
for the others which took you just as long to create? Or do another music tour
bringing pleasure to thousands as you’ve reached the top tax threshold level.
Like it or not the more money you have the more freedom it offers, so
effectively by making it harder to have more than a certain amount under
socialism then they are restricting the freedom of those who have done more to
earn than their peers. This never means their peers can do and have more, just
that they have almost as little as they do.
As a counsellor part of my work is getting people to take
back their personal freedom. Who actually has the power to tell others what to
do? Their parents, their employers, their governments and their teachers. But
from that list one is different, the government. Those with the most power do
not have it because they are royalty and aristocracy, at least not any more,
but because we employ them (paid for directly from our taxes) to handle issues
we can’t ourselves. Not to rule us. Using the minimal interference rule then
parenting and employment should only make the fewest rules and allow people to
use their own abilities to schedule the work, and if they can’t then the
employer should have the freedom to sack them as they can’t do the job. It
works both ways. Education is as much about self discipline, so only really
needs to make sure students don’t disrupt classes, if they don’t turn up they
are only hurting themselves. Hopefully by now I have created a picture of every
aspect relating to the single root principle, and explained why in every case
there is no need to use more than the bare minimum of restrictions, and this
includes taxes and rules applying to work, laws and any other area of human
activity. You hate having your freedom restricted, so why should other people
have it when it doesn’t affect you? And when I hear the voices shouting from
the viewers ‘What about global warming’, something which has caused the most
restrictions on everyday lives worldwide since the fall of the Soviet Union,
I’d say to watch my first interview on the UN and big society, and discover
that was the biggest illusion created to cause the greatest loss of freedom
ever encountered by humanity, as it is being applied equally in every UN member
state worldwide whether you are aware of it or not, China has just come on
board this week. If anyone seriously believes the aims of the Kyoto Protocol of
1992, to basically reduce demand for energy, by making it more expensive and
less available, can be an improvement on the effects of a slightly warmer
planet outside our lifetimes needs another session at school. This is no
different to reducing demand for food, water and air itself. If they could they
would, but food is becoming more expensive, meat is being made less attractive
as cattle farming is alleged to contribute too much CO2 so is also being
discouraged, and many farms in Africa have
been cleared to grow biofuel, mainly corn and palm oil, to burn food in engines
not designed to use them. Vans and lorries over a certain age are banned in London despite passing the MoT emission tests, and cars in
Paris, as all
major changes are now carried out in gradual stages so people don’t realise
what’s happening till it’s too late. Making essentials such as energy, food and
travel harder is making everyone’s life harder, and for what? Pretending they
can control the earth’s temperature. As I said about the Incas, thousands of
years may pass but humanity has not changed a jot.
Question every attempt to make your life harder. Do they
really need to do it? Why are they making something you’ve always done
impossible or much more difficult? Why have the new rules at work been brought
in and do they really make the firm more productive? Do not accept a single
attempt to interfere with your normal activities of life. Who has the right to
stop you moving around freely or take more of your money than they need for
their requirements? You have given every single one of these people your power
except your parents, you can change schools or employers if they do not treat
you the way you want to be, and certainly get rid of every politician as they
are our servants, not our rulers.
Simple principles, easily understood, and resonate with
every living being on the planet.
Breaking illusions
Here is the text used by my third interview with Mark Windows plus more detail.
3rd interview: Breaking illusions:
As a child growing up we start to discover many new ideas,
mainly from politics. Fairness, redistribution of wealth, equality, all
apparently good concepts designed to help people. The second stage, assuming we
ever reach it, is to start applying these ideas and looking more closely into
them, after which we may well discover they are not as clear as they seem, and
quite often actually worse than the alternative. Redistribution of wealth means
there is X amount of wealth, all owned in different amounts, and simply removed
from those with the most, and not even given to the rest directly, but just
goes to the government, just like the estate of a person without a will or
family. No one wants that, so who would want better off people (who worked for
it rather than stole it somehow) to simply hand over much of their capital for
an unknown and unknowable fate, just to make the worse off people feel they may
get something out of it.
For me the turning point was the black and white clearly
wrong issue, when they planned bus lanes for my area in the 70s. As a teenager
I hadn’t yet comprehended the lack of space in town, so imagined the buses
getting their own new roads. When they arrived soon after I discovered all they
did was take a lane from existing roads meaning there was less space for 95% of
the traffic and a spare lane which was hardly ever used, causing jams from that
day onwards wherever they are. Including buses, as most wait behind where they
start while all the traffic comes to a halt moving over to the outside lane.
I have already dealt with low interest rates in my last
interview, and will just remind people they help maybe a quarter of the
population at best, as even the ones with mortgages pay more either when they
buy their house as it will cost more, or when they sell it as the others will
cost more, so they won’t save anything in the long run as everything they did
will be lost through the directly connected price inflation. I will add as many
as I can think of which use the single process of not accepting the wrapping on
the surface but peeling it off to see the worms or worse underneath.
Credit cards are fairly definitive. The old saying, how many
bankers own credit cards (answer, almost none) should speak for itself. If a
retailer would not touch their own products with a bargepole (I’m guessing the
same applies for the current trend of solar panels) then why would anyone else?
There is no function for credit cards (the insurance they come with can be
found on many other cards without borrowing money to get it), as if you have
the money then you don’t need to borrow to buy things, and if you don’t then
sooner or later you’ll almost certainly fall back and end up paying more
interest or defaulting, and losing it all in costs. Before the first one people
simply waited till they had the money before going shopping. There was and is
hire purchase, which at least limits your impatience to a single item rather
than an open door, and if it’s not a loan to make more money by selling a good
deal on offer for a short period then you don’t need that either. That holiday
or car can wait, and if you can’t afford it now then the added expenses of a
car or holiday will roll up on top and you’ve already committed a hundred a month
or something for three years out of the clearly little money you’ve got coming
in. Why pay more for something today than save and buy it tomorrow anyway, is
anything that vital for a one off, let alone a lifestyle?
Pyramid schemes, legal or not, are perfect examples of
something even rich and famous actors lose thousands on, although there is only
one version. The only difference is the size of the pyramid and amount put in,
but a pyramid scheme of a typical 15 triangle (4,3,2,1) where four pay one and
everyone else moves up means whenever the money runs out then 14 people lose
for every winner. That’s the mathematical formula, so it’s the same as betting
on two numbers in roulette, you’ve got a 1/18 or so chance of winning 18 times
your stake, and put money in a pyramid scheme, and as all will run out of new
people as each level multiplies the required number of new arrivals like rice
grains on a chessboard, reaching trillions by the time you may get a payout,
it’s a gamble not worth playing. Yet every new one still gets supposedly
professional adults chucking their money away as they never wrote down the
formula and worked out the chances of winning.
They also have some formulas which are so blatant it’s
incredible most people still swallow them partly as they are too busy to look
closely enough to see what’s being done. Affirmative action, otherwise known as
positive discrimination, is one current policy forcing its way into the BBC and
EU, making people employ 20% ethnic minorities as it represents British
society, and a minimum number of female large company directors. This means
they are not employing the best people for the job but forcing one out to make
way for a token ethnic or female candidate, who ought to be as offended being
taken on purely as they ticked a box, rather than because they would have got
the job anyway. Police candidates are turned away as they’re only employing
ethnic candidates till they reach their quota. How insulting is it to be ‘part
of a quota’- “I got my job because I was part of a quote, but my qualifications
weren’t really good enough”. That’s a real crowd pleaser isn’t it. And
discrimination is pretty universal, you can’t discriminate who you discriminate
against, or shouldn’t if you’ve accepted it as a principle, so as some wonk has
decided Britain is 20% ethnic minorities and the BBC at least will have to
reflect it, regardless of even the number of applicants, as with women
directors the studies prove they simply don’t want to do it that much. But that
means football and other sports ought to represent it as well. What’s that,
they already do? Really? So if you were to take the entire football league and
apply the BBC rule then you’d have to presumably hold back from taking on
ethnic applicants till it represented society, surely if the formula is correct
it must be applied equally to all? Or have I missed something?
I think the principle here is the most important thing to
learn, and the examples can easily be extended to things like rationing and
market manipulation, where instead of relying on a legally enforced free
market, governments hold back commodities to keep prices up (since when were
good prices a good idea, houses or otherwise?), or not let third world people
eat or profit from their natural resources as their rulers keep it all for
themselves or sell it abroad for profit, or don’t provide a system to import
and distribute it? Therefore when the west ration and fiddle commodity prices
as they look to the third world to imagine there can’t be enough of the basics
we all need, the figures prove there was always more than enough but no one
will either allow the average citizens to earn enough to buy it or even bother
to sell it locally there as there’s more profit in the developed world. That is
an insidious political policy which looks like they are conserving valuable
resources by limiting their availability worldwide, but all they are really
doing is imposing the same policies which cause third world famines and power
cuts on their own people by restricting access to food, power and whatever else
they say is running out at the moment, and people think they’re doing them a
favour.
Equality is a related illusion. As I’ve said before, each
life is equal, but every person is different and unique. So treat everyone equally
but don’t expect them to run the same race without winners and losers, and as
each career and life is different then few people are even in the same race, so
each can win their own simply by fulfilling their potential and being
persistent. Positive discrimination is one example of enforced equality, while
comprehensive schools and high taxation are others, all solid socialist
principles and all failing to improve the natural situation minus government
interference. Try it for yourself. How many socialist politicians are
millionaires, send their children to private schools and use accountants to
save paying tax Tony Blair and family? Just like the credit cards, how many
socialist rulers live the way they try to make you? Look some up if you don’t
believe me, or read Toby Young’s story of his left wing millionaire father Lord
Young spending many evenings with his millionaire socialist academic friends
discussing ways to reduce the money of the wealthy while drinking expensive
wine and driving home in their Rolls Royces. That’s how it works, the people
promoting all these illusory policies would never apply them to themselves, who
in sound mind would?
You can see this principle operate quite easily in sales
pitches. Again, a good business sells things people need at a fair price, and
if they do then they will thrive, as many like it do. But the many who don’t
are using the same shortage mentality, as they believe there aren’t enough
genuine customers for them so must create extra ones by cheating. Of course
this is blatant fraud, but they do it and unless you learn the tricks they will
work. Do we all need to go to what was apparently a long term legal mock
auction in Oxford Street
to learn how they work, or just learn from a single customer? The other scam
businesses vary little, they all make claims they can’t fulfil, offer more than
they can provide for less money, and inevitably you end up disappointed and
down financially. Shell games are the same, all variations on the theme, if the
dealer has two chances of winning and you have one mathematically then you must
lose, even when they aren’t cheating as well by hiding the ball under a
different shell when they lift it up.
The greatest illusion of the 21st century,
despite the true performance figures being available, are wind and solar power.
The industry manufacture them so know what they produce (eg most years the
British farms produce 80% of their full capacity for a week a year, at 6-12
times the cost). Solar can’t convert enough watts for more than 10-15% of
domestic use even in the Sahara and if anyone
thinks they can store the paltry amounts they may build up on summer days when
no one’s home for more than the odd night then sit down and do some sums. Not
forgetting the short dark winter days when you need it the most. As for the
random amounts produced by wind which can never change, combined with the
maximum conversion power per turbine, is obvious they are a waste of space,
money and resources. They can never improve or change as they can’t convert
much more than double the current few watts, and become slightly cheaper but
not compared to fossil fuel, ever. If in doubt then convert your local hospital
to wind and solar and come back and tell me.
Quantitative easing, ‘putting money’ into the economy (so
they tell you), is clearly an illusion, as how can the treatment for an ailing
economy be providing more money which you clearly don’t have. Where exactly
does this money come from, and if they’re rich enough to provide it then why is
the economy in trouble? It doesn’t make sense now, does it? They call it
‘quantitative easing’ as it sounds far better than ‘currency inflation’, which
is a lot closer, and simply forces up commodity prices making life more
expensive for everyone except the sellers of the commodities. Who are far from
the majority of course. If you even think about it for a moment, how can a
government put so much real money into the economy when it needs it, because it
hasn’t got it? It’s the same money of course, all they are doing is redividing
the numbers to look better until it all blows up in the inevitable inflation as
no more capital has ever appeared, exactly like shifting the money around in a
pyramid scheme. All variations on the theme. If the government actually had the
billions the papers tell you they put in the economy every year why don’t they
just divide it equally and give it to each person directly? Unless and until
they do then you know it’s not real money as it’s only the people who need it,
not the banks and investment companies it actually goes to, and it doesn’t
increase the economy as it makes everyone else poorer from low interest rates
and high prices, so simply shifts the same money away from the people.
Hopefully you will get the idea from a few examples, and apply
the bus lane formula to any other cheat you find in life, and spread the word.
People ripping you off won’t advertise it, my last interview showed the
government are actually as bad as any of the crooks, so they are at least as
likely to do it and need watching for every policy. They have to make it look
good, and massive corporations and governments alike have all the resources
they need to provide a massive façade for the hell they’ve provided behind it.
The entire illusion of equality, wealth redistribution, renewables, low
interest rates giving people more money (they don’t, it’s proved), are all
either robbing Peter to pay Paul, putting people in positions they didn’t work
for or deserve, telling you it’s raining when they’re peeing on your head, are
all variations on a single theme. Taking a ripoff and making it look like it’s
helping and you have to have it. Once your pocket’s been picked it’s an
expensive lesson and too late to get it back, so learn the principle first and
don’t let them near it.
Wednesday, 11 November 2015
PC translations into English
The 21st century has produced a slew of worthless neologisms, this is what they actually mean:
I was assigned male/female at birth - I am a boy/girl
Carbon footprint- How much can we tax you
Transition- Have your vital organs excised to collude with a mental disorder rather than treat it
Carbon trading/credits- How much can we tax you without you noticing?
Wind turbine- ugly looking machine to extract money and taxes
Islamophobia- You must tolerate diabolical behaviour from Muslims at all costs
Homophobia- You must support every act ever carried out by a homosexual at all costs
Misogyny- You must be positive about women at all costs
Sexism- You must accept women are not just as good as men but better
Equal rights- equal misery
Equality of wealth- poverty
Genderfluid- batshit crazy
Safe space- exclusion zone
Diversity- everyone not like you
Multiculturalism- everyone's welcome except your people
Challenged- disabled
Liberal- fascist
Anti-fascist- fascist
Tolerant- fascist
Sustainable- shortage
Clean energy- no energy
Solar panels- virtue signalling on your roof
Pro-Palestinian- Nazi sympathiser
Boycott- Nazi sympathiser
Zionist cabal- Jewish people
Palestinians- Arabs in Israel and around its borders
Casual racism- making a joke
Causing offence- speaking the truth in public
White privilege- Black failure
Check your privilege- Give us your money
Progressive- Luddite
Equal opportunities policy- Ethnic minorities, gays, women and the disabled come first
Nuclear free zone- Local virtue signalling
Low Emission Zone- You must pay us even more
Bus lane- half a road
Cycle lane- quarter of a road
Mini-Holland scheme- gulag
Diversity training- brainwashing
People of color (sic)- coloured people (no, I can't see the difference either)
Racial diversity- every race but white
Renewables- nothing
Green jobs- unpaid voluntary work
Green economy- third world economy
Diversity officer- thought policeman
Microaggression- I just made that one up (I wish...)
I was assigned male/female at birth - I am a boy/girl
Carbon footprint- How much can we tax you
Transition- Have your vital organs excised to collude with a mental disorder rather than treat it
Carbon trading/credits- How much can we tax you without you noticing?
Wind turbine- ugly looking machine to extract money and taxes
Islamophobia- You must tolerate diabolical behaviour from Muslims at all costs
Homophobia- You must support every act ever carried out by a homosexual at all costs
Misogyny- You must be positive about women at all costs
Sexism- You must accept women are not just as good as men but better
Equal rights- equal misery
Equality of wealth- poverty
Genderfluid- batshit crazy
Safe space- exclusion zone
Diversity- everyone not like you
Multiculturalism- everyone's welcome except your people
Challenged- disabled
Liberal- fascist
Anti-fascist- fascist
Tolerant- fascist
Sustainable- shortage
Clean energy- no energy
Solar panels- virtue signalling on your roof
Pro-Palestinian- Nazi sympathiser
Boycott- Nazi sympathiser
Zionist cabal- Jewish people
Palestinians- Arabs in Israel and around its borders
Casual racism- making a joke
Causing offence- speaking the truth in public
White privilege- Black failure
Check your privilege- Give us your money
Progressive- Luddite
Equal opportunities policy- Ethnic minorities, gays, women and the disabled come first
Nuclear free zone- Local virtue signalling
Low Emission Zone- You must pay us even more
Bus lane- half a road
Cycle lane- quarter of a road
Mini-Holland scheme- gulag
Diversity training- brainwashing
People of color (sic)- coloured people (no, I can't see the difference either)
Racial diversity- every race but white
Renewables- nothing
Green jobs- unpaid voluntary work
Green economy- third world economy
Diversity officer- thought policeman
Microaggression- I just made that one up (I wish...)
Tuesday, 4 August 2015
Blaming others
Recently I have been reading more and more about people from every group not being white and male as being somehow discriminated against, and blaming their lack of success on others, usually white straight males. Forget the successful women, ethnic people in western and other countries, disabled people (eg Stephen Hawking), homosexuals (most of the entertainment and fashion industry) etc etc. Instead they fight for 'positive' discrimination (as it discriminates for them and against presumably white males) and use terms such as 'white privilege' to excuse their own lack of success and bring in slavery as a reason, even though it is ten times less current than Nazism and has no living survivors, or many were not owned by white people or were all black anyway, but don't let history interfere with your prejudice.
In the end the definition of success is doing well through having a talent, persisting with it, and not giving up when you fail. Inevitably each complainer falls down at one of these steps, expecting it from no training or qualifications, many being barely literate, being put off by not getting jobs and blaming their race, sexuality or gender, or simply not bothering to get what they really want when they fail a few times. So yes, many have as much talent as those who do succeed, but are dragged back by such a heavy weight on their shoulders they give up as they believe no one will give them a chance for who they are, rather than what they can do. Such actions are not even legal in Europe now even if they did happen from time to time, and if you don't persist then you won't find the vast majority who do not judge someone on their personal characteristics but their ability.
Also people are different and unique. Forcing jobs to 'represent society', the latest hobby horse of the left, simply takes any powerful job and wants it to be half women and whatever percentage of races live in that area. Forget the fact the courses and jobs don't and can't specify such things (as it is illegal to discriminate) so every course and job applicant is 100% equal, even if they are deaf, blind or paralysed (unless it's as Tarzan or a driver). Imagining their personal attributes, if not those of the majority or mainstream will mean employers will simply overlook them for their more palatable peers is so paranoid one would imagine the entire world was operating apartheid, rather than outlawing it. Failure is not a reason to fail but to keep trying. Looking back on it and blaming your race, religion or gender will become, to you only, a reality, and when you interview with a bad attitude as you now assume they are looking at you as an inferior being, they will do. Not because you are but because you come across as one, a self fulfilling prophecy. Just because there was discrimination in the 20th century and is still a small part of mass culture (as in the proletariat), it is not dominant anywhere in the world except maybe the exclusively black and brown countries, where many do discriminate against the darker skinned of their own race, and millions of pots of skin bleach are sold a year as a result. There is the only real known and enforced discrimination, not with ethnic minorities but within ethnic majorities, but as they are not happening in the west they are largely not mentioned or considered despite easily being the worst current examples. Even the largely persisting Indian caste system is partly based on skin colour, with the top being the blue eyed Brahmins. No coincidence there, and not a white privilege in sight.
In the end the definition of success is doing well through having a talent, persisting with it, and not giving up when you fail. Inevitably each complainer falls down at one of these steps, expecting it from no training or qualifications, many being barely literate, being put off by not getting jobs and blaming their race, sexuality or gender, or simply not bothering to get what they really want when they fail a few times. So yes, many have as much talent as those who do succeed, but are dragged back by such a heavy weight on their shoulders they give up as they believe no one will give them a chance for who they are, rather than what they can do. Such actions are not even legal in Europe now even if they did happen from time to time, and if you don't persist then you won't find the vast majority who do not judge someone on their personal characteristics but their ability.
Also people are different and unique. Forcing jobs to 'represent society', the latest hobby horse of the left, simply takes any powerful job and wants it to be half women and whatever percentage of races live in that area. Forget the fact the courses and jobs don't and can't specify such things (as it is illegal to discriminate) so every course and job applicant is 100% equal, even if they are deaf, blind or paralysed (unless it's as Tarzan or a driver). Imagining their personal attributes, if not those of the majority or mainstream will mean employers will simply overlook them for their more palatable peers is so paranoid one would imagine the entire world was operating apartheid, rather than outlawing it. Failure is not a reason to fail but to keep trying. Looking back on it and blaming your race, religion or gender will become, to you only, a reality, and when you interview with a bad attitude as you now assume they are looking at you as an inferior being, they will do. Not because you are but because you come across as one, a self fulfilling prophecy. Just because there was discrimination in the 20th century and is still a small part of mass culture (as in the proletariat), it is not dominant anywhere in the world except maybe the exclusively black and brown countries, where many do discriminate against the darker skinned of their own race, and millions of pots of skin bleach are sold a year as a result. There is the only real known and enforced discrimination, not with ethnic minorities but within ethnic majorities, but as they are not happening in the west they are largely not mentioned or considered despite easily being the worst current examples. Even the largely persisting Indian caste system is partly based on skin colour, with the top being the blue eyed Brahmins. No coincidence there, and not a white privilege in sight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)