Climate confessions

 It is impossible to lie plausibly for an indefinite period, so sooner or later paid experts who create the scary stories to frighten innocent citizens into handing over their rights are unwittingly going to tell the truth. In law you won't need a trial if the defendants plead guilty, so all the arguments my side make to dismantle their claims won't even be needed once they've admitted the true position themselves. Half of these are direct confessions to the media, the others were hacked from their personal correspondence while they assumed no one would ever see them besides their intended targets. Putting this all together it is fairly impossible not to realise they are pretty much making it all up as they go along as they are under higher orders to produce a consistent picture regardless of the actual data, or fill it in when there is none at all.

However, once you read this the rest is just narrative. This was actually Mike Hulme, apologies.

However, he did say this, which is close enough.

The UN IPCC themselves in 2001 stated what ought to be obvious to anyone educated to O level:

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

What a bloody mess. Now looking at the dates . . . something bad has happened, hasn’t it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS [data from an Australian weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993! . . . getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. So many new stations have been introduced, so many false references . . . so many changes that aren’t documented . . . I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight!

Dr John McLean published the first-ever audit of Britain’s HadCRUT4 temperature data set and commented:

It’s very careless and amateur. About the standard of a first-year university student … Governments have had 25 years to check the data on which they’ve been spending billions of dollars. And they haven’t done so once.

Summary of admissions

 In a January 2002 Scientific American article Stephen Schneider wrote:

"I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming"

He also said elsewhere: "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Phil Jones: "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions." meaning "Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented."

The UN economic leaders Ottmar Edenhofer and Christina Figueres both stated very clearly in public global warming was not about the climate but economic redistribution.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,"

Affirming her predecessors almost identical statement: "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."

Mike Hulme went even further in a Guardian interview, openly admitting it was necessary to lie to reach the required results:

"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."

Combine these from alleged believers, here are statements from equally qualified experts who don't believe and they say exactly why. There is no possible picture of a consensus. Statements from experts

Sources: Phil Jones quotes

Ottmar Edenhofer interview Mike Hulme interview

Good against evil

 This is not a definitive post. It describes a situation, one we all need to be aware of, and one which the entire world is effected by equally. It also makes no sense to try and understand the motives of the enemy, why they are doing it, but accept they are and do all you can to stop them.

There are two connected levels to this war, the physical we are aware of, and the spiritual. The spiritual side says the result is already certain, as we can't ascend until we beat the evil, and that result has been determined in advance. And we do not know how and when this will happen. Many people with far more faith than me (I have virtually none, only knowledge, which cannot see the future) expected the blatant fraud in the US election, the bottom line figures giving Trump 2 million more votes than when he won, and Biden getting 6 million more votes than Obama when he last won. Counties won by Biden howerever were about 1/10th as many as either. Then you have the hacking of voter machines, Trump votes going to Biden at a 0.7/1.3 ratio, and piles of postal votes which hadn't been folded for postage and had identical crosses and signatures. But the media unanimously tells us there's no evidence of fraud.

I respect those with faith and optimism, but when we lose again they will suffer the results the same as everywhere else. They knew nothing more than I did, but somehow assumed what we did know was enough to win. But no one knows that. So with this battle, one many thought was to save the fall of western society and humanity, lost, we have run out of known battles. The fraud still happened, however well it has been hidden and ignored, and this is now an illegitimate government, but nothing has changed.

Generally it is extremely easy to know evil and our enemies. Originally they claimed to be helping us, like Bernie Madoff, gave loads of money away until everyone else lost theirs. It's about gaining your trust, giving you nice sandwiches, and then hiding a little turd in one. If someone told you there was a turd in it, and even possibly showed you, you'd either ignore them or say it wasn't a turd and carry on eating. This is the hypnotic power evil has. Take it to real life, and the two word shibboleth, that is the word or phrase which exposes someone as your enemy, is climate change. Anyone in authority using this term, and undoubtedly the remaining collection of diversity, systemic racism, multiculturalism, intersectionality, and everything else from Rules for Radicals, wants you dead or enslaved. They see you as useless eaters, who are of no use or interest to them and just expendable losses of their wider plans. That of course is evil.

Then look at the 'solutions' they offer. Energy rationing. Eating insects. Closing roads. Banning private transportation and one family houses. What are they solutions to? Death. They will make our lives a living death. Even prisoners have enough to eat and constant heating, yet if they get their way we will be denied it. For claims the weather may start getting worse in 2050 and the sea may rise 20 inches in 2100. Like we could ever know, and would it matter or be noticed anyway? The gloves however are now off, with the World Economic Forum's announcement of the Great Reset, ultimately the UN Agenda 21/2030, written at Davos, Bilderberg, and all the other anonymous secret meetings involving the same ex-leaders Blair, Gorbachev, Kissinger, and business magnates such as Bill Gates and George Soros. Forget their motives, look at their plans. Divest yourself from the nonsensical idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere can cause enough warming for some sort of unstable climate, as guess what, the climate is and always will be unstable. And there is no connection between warmer temperatures and extreme events if you look at the records.

Knowledge is power, as is democracy. And if enough people see the simple final battle between the forces of good and our enemy, there are plenty to vote for who will fight this on our behalf, but apart from Trump every single other western country has consistently rejected these offers as they either do not understand the situation or are literally voting in full knowledge for the other side. Most do not understand and they are the souls we need to bring onto our side, as if not they will vote for and with our enemies, and like the millions in Germany, die as a result of their own votes.

Seeing the obvious

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate change doesn't add up

 

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

 

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

 

You only need to be able to add up.

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The UN erased hundreds of years of medieval warming overnight.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

There is no trend in floods or droughts either.

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

 

It doesn’t add up

 

 

Consequences of leftist policies

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

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

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

2) Liberal or unlimited immigration, causing

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

3) High taxation. This means

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Scientists who disagree with man-made climate change

We are (wrongly) told there is a 97% consensus that scientists agree on man-made climate change. Wikipedia had a list until recently which was removed, so I have had to begin to rebuild it here with no access to their original site. I will conclude with some of their studies. Bear in mind they are equally as qualified as every other scientist in the mainstream, many with PhDs..

Ferenc Miskolczi, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Joe Bastardi, Joseph D'Aleo, Roy Spencer, Ian Plimer, Piers Corbyn, Judith Curry, Nils-Axel Morner, Indur Goklany, Martin Agerup, Nir Shaviv, William Gray, Syun-Ichi Akafosu, Tim Ball, Richard Lindzen, Jennifer Marohasy, Robert Carter, Scott Armstrong, Joanne Nova, Patrick Michaels, Matt Ridley, Stewart Franks, Christopher Essex, Kesten Green, Miklos Zagoni, Gordon Fulks, Anastonios Tonis, Rameshwar Bali, Qing-Bin Lu, David Evans, Fritz Vahrenholt, Nic Lewis, Norman Page, Ole Humlum, Oliver Frauenfeld, Michael Beenstock, Charles Wax, Dennis Hollars, Joseph Postma, Myron Evans, Yury Izrael, David Douglass, Michael Economides, David Legates, David Archibald, Paul Berenson, Tom Segalstad, Philip Lloyd, Oleg Sorokhtin, David Stockwell, Theodore Pavlopoulos, Geoffrey Duffy, Vincent Gray, Richard Keen, Robert Austin, William Vaughan, Dave Middleton, Stephen McIntyre, Eigils Friis-Christensen, Freeman Dyson, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Claude Allegre, Zbigniew Jaworoski, Antonino Zichichi, Christopher Landsea, Hendrik Tennekes, Sami Solanki, Paul Reiter, Kiminori Itoh, David Bromwich, Edward Wegman, Joanne Simpson, William Happer, Peter Ridd, Ferenc Miskolczi, Patrick Moore, Ivar Giaevar (Nobel Prize winner).

81 so far.